Next Article in Journal
Express Synthesis of YAG:Ce Ceramics in the High-Energy Electrons Flow Field
Previous Article in Journal
Particle Image Velocimetry of 3D-Printed Anatomical Blood Vascular Models Affected by Atherosclerosis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Experimental Study of the Relation between Mode I Fracture Toughness, KIc, and Critical Energy Release Rate, GIc

1
Oulu Mining School, University of Oulu, 90570 Oulu, Finland
2
School of Energy Science and Engineering, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454099, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2023, 16(3), 1056; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031056
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 25 January 2023

Abstract

:
The construction of the relation between the critical energy release rate, G I c , and the mode I fracture toughness, K I c , is of great significance for understanding the fracture mechanism and facilitating its application in engineering. In this study, fracture experiments using NSCB and CCCD specimens were conducted. The effects of specimen sizes, loading rate and lithology on the relation between G I c and K I c were studied. G I c   was calculated by integrating the load–displacement curve according to Irwin’s approach. Based on the measured K I c and G I c of the rock specimens, a relation between G I c   and K I c was found to be different from the classical formula under linear elasticity. It was found that both specimen size and loading rate do not influence this relation.

1. Introduction

Fracture toughness and critical energy release rate are very important parameters in fracture mechanics. The construction of the relation between G I c and K I c is of great significance for understanding the fracture mechanism and establishing the relation between some fracture parameters such as the J-Integral [1], R-value [2] and crack propagation velocity [3,4]. It also facilitates the application of both values in numerical simulations and engineering. In fracture mechanics, the stress intensity factor characterizes the stress and displacement distribution of a pre-crack tip, while the energy release rate, G, refers to the rate of potential energy within the crack area [5]. Their relation is [6]:
G = K I 2 / E   for   plane   stress
or
G = ( 1 v 2 ) K I 2 / E   for   plane   strain
Either equation is based on the stress and displacement solutions around a pre-crack tip [6,7], where K is the stress intensity factor of a crack tip. Here, G quantifies the net change in potential energy that accompanies an increment of crack extension; and K characterizes the stresses, strains and displacements near the crack tip. The energy release rate describes global behavior, while K is a local parameter [2]. As described in [2], if a material fails locally at some combination of stress and strain, then crack extension must occur at a critical K value. This critical value is called fracture toughness (such as K I c in mode I fracture). Griffith (1921), according to the first law of thermodynamics, developed an energy balance theory, stating that a sufficient condition for crack extension was that the energy absorbed by the material was greater than the energy required to form the new fracture surface [5,8]. Since energy release rate is uniquely related to stress intensity, G also provides a single-parameter description of crack-tip conditions, and Gc (such as G I c in mode I fracture) is an alternative measure of toughness, which is also called critical energy release rate. In linear elastic conditions, G I c and K I c are correlated with each other by Equations (3) and (4) [2]:
G I c = K I c 2 / E   for   plane   stress
or
G I c = ( 1 v 2 ) K I c 2 / E   for   plane   strain
However, many materials such as rock, concrete and ceramics are not linear elastic [9,10,11] and a large number of experimental data have shown that G I c and K I c do not conform to the relation in Equation (2) [9,10,12,13,14]. For example, it was found that as the length of a crack increases, G I c and K I c 2 / E show a different relation from Equation (2), e.g., when a/w is 0–0.1 (a is the length of the crack and w is the width of the specimen), G I c and K I c 2 / E show a power function relation, and when a/w is 0.1–0.85, they are linearly related [15]. The energy release rate first increases and then tends to stabilize with the crack propagation [16].
Some numerical codes use the relation between G I c and K I c to judge the extension behavior of a crack. For example, based on the implementation of the displacement extrapolation method (DEM) and the strain energy density theory in a finite element code, the kinking angle is evaluated as a function of stress intensity factors at each crack increment length, and the mechanical behavior of inclined cracks is analyzed by evaluating the stress intensity factors [17]. In addition, the global energy-based method is proposed to determine the crack propagation length and the crack propagation direction, and this method is formulated within an X-FEM-based analysis model, leading to a variational formulation in terms of displacements, crack lengths and crack angles [18].
Both K I c and G I c have a wide range of applications. Zhang [19] proposed a new method, based on the energy release rate, to assess fracture toughness, Kc. Compared to previous methods, the new method was more consistent with actual damage mechanism and it did not depend on a specific critical damage value. Bearman et al. have shown that a strong correlation exists between the fracture toughness, Kc, and the energy consumption of a laboratory crusher used to crush rock, indicating that the relation between Kc and Gc may have practical application in the evaluation of crushing equipment [20].
Based on the above description, the aim of this study is to establish a relation between fracture toughness, K I c , and critical energy release rate, G I c , by using the measurement results from a total of 128 limestone and sandstone specimens. In contrast to classical theory and formulae of the relation, the coefficients of the new formula are adjusted by considering the true crack area as well as the ductile fracture properties of the rock material. In addition, the study presents the effects of specimen sizes, loading rate and lithology on the relation between G I c and K I c . This leaves the formula open to a wider range of applications.

2. Materials and Methods

Sandstone and limestone were selected to conduct the fracture tests on and they were taken from two quarries in Sichuan and Henan provinces, China. The rock specimens include two configurations: notched semi-circular bending (NSCB) and center-cracked circular disk (CCCD), as shown Figure 1a. Their physical and mechanical parameters are shown in Table 1. The pre-cracks were cut by a diamond wire with a diameter of 0.2 mm, resulting in a width of around 0.3 mm of the pre-cracks. The size, number, loading rate and configuration of the specimens are shown in Table 2. The RTX-3000 rock mechanic testing machine produced by GCTS was used in the experiment, as shown in Figure 1b. In order to maintain accuracy, a 25 kN force sensor was equipped. The three-point bending loading method was used to load the NSCB specimen and the CCCD was directly compressed. The displacement control method was frame displacement control, with an accuracy of 0.25 mm and a resolution of 0.025 mm.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Fracture Toughness ( K I c ) and Critical Energy-Release Rate ( G I c )

In rock materials and under static loading conditions, the stress intensity factor at the peak load of the specimen is recognized as the fracture toughness, K I c , and the energy release rate as the critical energy release rate, G I c . According to the ISRM suggested method [23], the fracture toughness, K I c , of NSCB specimens was calculated by Equation (5), and the result is given in Table 3. The fracture toughness of CCCD specimens was calculated by Equation (6) [24].
K I c = P m a x π a 2 R t Y N S C B
Y N S C B = 1.297 + 9.516 [ S / ( 2 R ) ] { 0.47 + 16.457 [ S / ( 2 R ) ] } α + { 1.07 + 34.401 [ S / ( 2 R ) ] } α 2
α = a / R       S / ( 2 R ) = 0.6 ,   α = 0.2
K I c = P m a x t 2 R Y C C C D
Y C C C D = 2 π α 1 α ( 1 0.4964 α + 1.5582 α 2 3.1818 α 3 + 10.0962 α 4 20.7782 α 5 + 20.1342 α 6 7.5067 α 7 )
Y C C C D   can be calculated by numerical simulations and the Y C C C D in this study is from [22,24].
The critical energy release rate ( G I c ) was the energy dissipated in forming per unit crack surface area. The G I c can be determined by three methods: the stress-intensity-factor method, the J-integral method and Petersson’s method (modified) [25]. In this study, the G I c   was calculated by integrating the load–displacement curve (Figure 2) according to Irwin’s approach [26,27], as shown by Equation (7).
G I c = W U A 0 = 1 2 R ( 1 α ) B i = 1 n ( P i + 1 + P i ) ( u i + 1 u i )
where W is the total work done by the load and U is the strain energy stored in the specimen. A 0 is the nominal crack area, n is the total number of data points and i denotes the i-th data point. Pi and ui are the corresponding load and displacement of the i-th data point, respectively.
As can be seen in Table 4, there is a significant size effect for both fracture toughness and critical energy release rate. Both decrease with decreasing size. The critical energy release rate of CCCD is significantly greater than that of NSCB. The fracture toughness of the sandstone specimens is significantly less discrete than that of the limestone with a range of 0.5–1.52 (standard deviation is 0.30), but the range of fracture toughness for sandstone is 0.36–0.69 (standard deviation is 0.07).

3.2. Relation between G I c and K I c

Based on the experimental data of G I c and K I c 2 / E in Table 5, we can obtain a regression equation between G I c and K I c , as shown by Equation (8) and in Figure 3.
G I c = 3.09   K I c 2 E
Obviously, Equation (8) is different from Equation (2) which is valid for linear elastic fracture, i.e., the coefficient in Equation (8) is 3.09, while that in Equation (2) is equal to 1. The difference between Equations (2) and (5) may be caused by two main reasons: (1) The rock in this study shows viscous and even ductile fracture behavior. As shown in Figure 4, the load–displacement curve exhibits a slow slope in the initial stages, peak and end of the loading, indicating that some of the energy absorbed by the specimen is used for plastic deformation and microcrack development in addition to crack extension [28,29]. However, the energies used the plastic deformation and the microcrack development are not excluded when calculating the critical energy release rate. (2) The nominal crack area, rather than true crack area, was used to determine G I c in this study. Since the true surface area of a crack is much larger than the nominal area, Zhang and Ouchterlony have pointed out that the G I c should be based on the true crack area [30].

3.3. Effects of Specimen Sizes, Loading Rate and Lithology on the Relation between G I c and K I c

Five specimen sizes and five loading rates were involved in the experiments of this study and the experimental results of the relation between G I c   and K I c are presented in Figure 5a–e, showing that both specimen size and loading rate do not influence this relation. In other words, this relation is valid for all specimen sizes and loading rates involved in this study.
To investigate how lithology influences the relation between G I c and K I c , the sandstone data in Table 4 are summarized in Figure 6. Clearly, sandstone is suitable for the relation between G I c and K I c , meaning that this relation is valid for both sandstone and limestone used in this study.

4. Discussion

In this study, a relation between fracture toughness and critical energy release rate is obtained by analyzing data from 128 specimens. The effect of specimen size and loading rate on this regression equation is also explored. It provides the basis for further development of fracture theory suitable for quasi-brittle materials such as rocks. The relation between fracture toughness and critical energy release rate is conducive to refining fracture theories applicable to quasi-brittle materials such as rock. For example, it is well known that J = G = K I c 2 / E in linear elastic models. When the unloading that occurs during crack growth does not follow the same path as loading in a realistic situation, this equation does not hold true. However, this study may make it possible to calculate G for a nonlinear elastic condition in terms of the changes in the load–displacement curve with respect to crack length. Thus, this method may be applied directly to the computation of J in nonlinear elastic conditions. The R-value is also known as the resistance to crack extension and is constant for a material. The R-value, as measured by the ASTM standard, is limited by the size of the specimen and the R-value will vary with crack growth [16,31]. However, according to Griffith’s theory, the resistance to crack extension is the surface energy of the material. When the crack is steadily extending, G is equal to R. Based on the relation between energy release rate and fracture toughness derived in this paper, it is easy to calculate the resistance to crack extension, R.
In Table 3 and Table 4, there is a significant size effect on fracture toughness due to fracture process zone [32,33]. Additionally, the energy release rate is calculated using the nominal crack area rather than the true crack area. The cracked surfaces of rocks are very rough, so the true crack surface area is larger than the nominal crack area [30]. Therefore, if the fracture process zone is considered and the true crack area is measured, the result would perhaps be more accurate.

5. Conclusions

  • Fracture toughness and critical energy release rates are experimentally determined for 128 specimens. Based on the determined data of G I c and K I c , a relation between these two fracture parameters is obtained, which is G I c = 3.09   K I c 2 / E , with an R2 value of 0.97. This coefficient, 3.09, is greater than 1, the coefficient in the linear elastic fracture relation;
  • This regression equation coefficient, 3.09, is greater than 1, the coefficient of the linear elastic fracture relation. The two of the reasons for this discrepancy are: (1) the G I c is determined using the nominal crack area rather than the true crack area in this study and (2) the rock fracture is of non-linear-elastic rather than brittle fracture in this study;
  • The effect of rock specimen size on the relation between G I c and K I c under static conditions is very small and it can be ignored. Similarly, the effect of loading rate on the relation between G I c and K I c under quasi-static conditions is also neglectable. The lithology does not seem to affect the relation between G I c and K I c under static conditions, but the result is based on only two types of rock.

Author Contributions

Data curation, Y.Q. and S.Z.; funding acquisition, Y.Q.; investigation, Y.Q. and Z.-X.Z.; article review, Z.-X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the K. H. Renlund Stiftelse Foundation in Finland. The first author is grateful to the China Scholarship Council (funding number: CSC NO. 201908410233) for the financial support.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks are given to the two anonymous reviewers who have helped to improve the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

List of Symbols
KIcMode I fracture toughness
GIcCritical energy release rate
R2 Coefficient of determination
GEnergy release rate
KIStress intensity factor for mode I
NSCB Notched semi-circular bending
CCCD Center-cracked circular disk
ΦDiameter of specimen
RRadius of specimen
tThickness of specimen
PmaxPeak loading
νPoisson’s ratio

References

  1. Rice, J.R. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks. J. Appl. Mech. Trans. ASME 1964, 35, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Anderson, T.L. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Volume 76. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dai, F.; Xia, K.; Zheng, H.; Wang, Y.X. Determination of dynamic rock Mode-I fracture parameters using cracked chevron notched semi-circular bend specimen. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2011, 78, 2633–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, Q.B.; Zhao, J. Quasi-static and dynamic fracture behaviour of rock materials: Phenomena and mechanisms. Int. J. Fract. 2014, 189, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Griffith, A.A. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1921, 221, 163–198. [Google Scholar]
  6. Irwin, G.R. Analysis of Stresses and Strains Near the End of a Crack Traversing a Plate. J. Appl. Mech. 1957, 24, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Westergaard, H.M. Bearing Pressures and Cracks. J. Appl. Mech. 1939, 6, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shah, S.P.; McGarry, F.J. Griffith Fracture Criterion and Concrete. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1971, 97, 1663–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Munz, D. Fracture Mechanics of Ceramics. In Designing with Structural Ceramics; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bažant, Z.P.; Planas, J. Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, L. Time-dependent nonlinear damage behavior of ceramic–matrix composites. In Nonlinear Behavior of Ceramic-Matrix Composites; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dutler, N.; Nejati, M.; Valley, B.; Amann, F.; Molinari, G. On the link between fracture toughness, tensile strength, and fracture process zone in anisotropic rocks. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2018, 201, 56–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ouchterlony, F. Review of fracture toughness testing of rock. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1982, 7, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wu, Y.; Yin, T.; Li, Q.; Zhuang, D.; Chen, Y.; Yang, Z. Analytical investigation on the unstable fracture toughness of fine-grained quartz-diorite rock considering the size effect. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022, 272, 108722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Evans, A.; Faber, K. Crack-Growth Resistance of Microcracking Brittle Materials. Am. Ceram. Soc. 1984, 67, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hoagland, R.G.; Hahn, G.T.; Rosenfield, A.R. Influence of microstructure on fracture propagation in rock. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 1973, 5, 77–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boulenouar, A.; Benseddiq, N.; Mazari, M. Strain energy density prediction of crack propagation for 2D linear elastic materials. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2013, 67–68, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Meschke, G.; Dumstorff, P. Energy-based modeling of cohesive and cohesionless cracks via X-FEM. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2007, 196, 2338–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, T.; Wang, W.; Li, A. The spherical indentation approach for fracture toughness evaluation: A study based on the energy release rate. In Proceedings of the ASME 2018 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 15–20 July 2018; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bearman, R.; Briggs, C.; Kojovic, T. The applications of rock mechanics parameters to the prediction of comminution behaviour. Miner. Eng. 1997, 10, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, S.; Wang, L.; Gao, M. Experimental and Numerical Study of the Influence of Prefabricated Crack Width on the Fracture Toughness of NSCB Specimens. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2020, 53, 5133–5154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, S.; Wang, H.; Li, X.; Zhang, X.; An, D.; Yu, B. Experimental study on development characteristics and size effect of rock fracture process zone. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2020, 241, 107377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kuruppu, M.D.; Obara, Y.; Ayatollahi, M.R.; Chong, K.P.; Funatsu, T. ISRM-suggested method for determining the mode i static fracture toughness using semi-circular bend specimen. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2013, 47, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ayatollahi, M.R.; Akbardoost, J. Size and Geometry Effects on Rock Fracture Toughness: Mode I Fracture. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2013, 47, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Go, C.G.; Swartz, S.E. Energy methods for fracture-toughness determination in concrete. Exp. Mech. 1986, 26, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Irwin, G. Linear fracture mechanics, fracture transition, and fracture control. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1968, 1, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, W.; Huang, P.; Chen, Z.; Zheng, X. Testing method of critical energy release rate for interfacial mode II crack. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2021, 248, 107708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ghabezi, P.; Farahani, M. A cohesive model with a multi-stage softening behavior to predict fracture in nano composite joints. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2019, 219, 106611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ghabezi, P.; Farahani, M. Trapezoidal traction–separation laws in mode II fracture in nano-composite and nano-adhesive joints. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2018, 37, 780–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, Z.X.; Ouchterlony, F. Energy Requirement for Rock Breakage in Laboratory Experiments and Engineering Operations: A Review. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2021, 55, 629–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, H.-W.; Wu, Z.-M.; Wang, Y.-J.; Yu, R.C. An analytical method for predicting mode-I crack propagation process and resistance curve of rock and concrete materials. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2019, 100, 328–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, X.; Duan, K. Size effect and quasi-brittle fracture: The role of FPZ. Int. J. Fract. 2008, 154, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Saucedo-Mora, L.; Yu, R.C.; Ruiz, G. Fully-developed FPZ length in quasi-brittle materials. Int. J. Fract. 2012, 178, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Configuration of rock specimens and testing machine. (a) Top: notched semi-circular bending (NSCB) specimens; (b) bottom: center-cracked circular disk (CCCD) specimens.
Figure 1. Configuration of rock specimens and testing machine. (a) Top: notched semi-circular bending (NSCB) specimens; (b) bottom: center-cracked circular disk (CCCD) specimens.
Materials 16 01056 g001
Figure 2. Load–displacement curve (the letters represent the group and the following number is the diameter of the specimen).
Figure 2. Load–displacement curve (the letters represent the group and the following number is the diameter of the specimen).
Materials 16 01056 g002aMaterials 16 01056 g002b
Figure 3. Relation between G I c and K I c 2 / E .
Figure 3. Relation between G I c and K I c 2 / E .
Materials 16 01056 g003
Figure 4. Load–displacement curve of limestone.
Figure 4. Load–displacement curve of limestone.
Materials 16 01056 g004
Figure 5. (a) Regression equation and data for Φ = 150 mm. (b) Regression equation and data for Φ = 100 mm. (c) Regression equation and data for Φ = 75 mm. (d) Regression equation and data for Φ = 50 mm. (e) Regression equation and data for Φ = 30 mm.
Figure 5. (a) Regression equation and data for Φ = 150 mm. (b) Regression equation and data for Φ = 100 mm. (c) Regression equation and data for Φ = 75 mm. (d) Regression equation and data for Φ = 50 mm. (e) Regression equation and data for Φ = 30 mm.
Materials 16 01056 g005aMaterials 16 01056 g005b
Figure 6. Regression equation and data of sandstone.
Figure 6. Regression equation and data of sandstone.
Materials 16 01056 g006
Table 1. Physical and mechanical parameters of the tested rocks [21,22].
Table 1. Physical and mechanical parameters of the tested rocks [21,22].
ParameterLimestoneSandstone
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)178.8058.53
Young’s modulus (GPa)70.408.45
Poisson’s ratio0.2500.245
Table 2. Sizes, number, loading rate and configuration of all specimens.
Table 2. Sizes, number, loading rate and configuration of all specimens.
RockΦ/mmt/mmTotalConfigurationSpecimen No.Loading Rate
Limestone1506020NSCBA1~A200.002~10 kN/s
Limestone1004020NSCBB1~B200.002~10 kN/s
Limestone753020NSCBC1~C200.002~10 kN/s
Limestone502020NSCBD1~D200.002~10 kN/s
Limestone301220NSCBE1~E200.002~10 kN/s
Sandstone200604NSCBS200-1~S200-41.2 mm/s
Sandstone150454NSCBS150-1~S150-41.2 mm/s
Sandstone100304NSCBS100-1~S100-41.2 mm/s
Sandstone50154NSCBS50-1~S50-41.2 mm/s
Sandstone200603CCCDC200-1~C200-31.2 mm/s
Sandstone150453CCCDC150-1~C150-31.2 mm/s
Sandstone100303CCCDC100-1~C100-31.2 mm/s
Sandstone50153CCCDC50-1~C50-31.2 mm/s
Note: the ratio of crack length ( a ) to diameter is 0.4 for NSCB and 0.3 for CCCD.
Table 3. Peak load, Pmax, and fracture toughness, K I c , of all specimens.
Table 3. Peak load, Pmax, and fracture toughness, K I c , of all specimens.
No.Pmax
(kN)
KIc
(MPa·m1/2)
No.Pmax
(kN)
KIc
(MPa·m1/2)
No.Pmax
(kN)
KIc
(MPa·m1/2)
No.Pmax
(kN)
KIc
(MPa·m1/2)
A115.0161.186B1310.8881.585D52.9681.225E171.0740.922
A216.3181.271B149.1961.354D63.0341.265E181.5881.274
A316.3401.310B1511.6021.668D72.7821.127E191.3441.045
A417.0141.340B1610.9241.605D82.8101.161E201.4621.245
A517.9121.400B1712.5461.816D93.3821.378S50-10.460.43
A618.2581.434B1811.5021.681D103.3381.342S50-20.480.45
A716.2201.296B1910.8241.610D113.0601.252S50-30.530.42
A816.8261.324B2011.0321.626D123.2221.318S50-40.490.40
A918.5201.449C15.3541.183D133.2681.333S100-11.470.45
A1019.2881.515C25.1721.135D142.9001.204S100-21.750.53
A1119.8661.565C35.1421.134D153.1441.27S100-31.720.53
A1221.0461.648C45.5501.221D163.8681.584S100-41.710.53
A1322.1881.767C55.7081.250D173.5881.488S150-13.080.50
A1420.9301.662C66.4781.433D183.5861.460S150-23.180.54
A1518.5061.456C75.4641.198D193.2401.366S150-33.600.53
A1621.1641.688C85.5481.217D203.2401.352S150-43.000.49
A1721.4221.684C96.2621.371E10.5720.501S200-14.990.48
A1822.3921.757C106.3021.388E20.6840.564S200-25.390.51
A1921.5041.703C116.4181.414E30.8260.720S200-37.060.69
A2025.0321.970C126.1501.344E40.6700.578S200-46.520.62
B19.1041.309C137.3121.609E50.6960.577C50-11.940.41
B28.1701.180C146.9761.548E60.8940.744C50-21.960.29
B38.7981.272C156.2441.378E70.9900.832C50-31.990.31
B47.5341.121C167.5421.662E80.8280.726C100-17.400.39
B59.0021.297C177.7641.691E91.0080.861C100-26.930.36
B68.2021.185C187.5281.663E100.9420.771C100-3--
B79.3321.255C197.4761.647E110.7880.696C150-114.210.41
B89.5121.399C207.7361.718E121.0920.878C150-215.080.43
B99.9921.441D12.6001.070E131.0880.910C150-315.790.45
B108.9901.289D23.3621.362E141.1120.900C200-124.620.46
B119.2181.397D32.5721.050E151.0920.911C200-228.070.52
B129.3961.410D42.4421.007E161.1961.039C200-328.460.53
Table 4. Statistical analysis of G I c and K I c .
Table 4. Statistical analysis of G I c and K I c .
A GroupB GroupC GroupD GroupE GroupS GroupCCCD
  G I c mean (J/m2)100.8696.8490.6173.6843.6282.51296.42
  G I c   max (J/m2)147.14143.74121.12118.5173.95137.30433.85
  G I c   min (J/m2)71.1073.3155.5447.2225.0051.27193.43
G I c   median (J/m2)97.6087.1884.4774.6742.7776.85280.13
K I c mean (MPa·m1/2)1.521.421.411.280.830.50.44
K I c   max (MPa·m1/2)1.971.821.721.491.250.690.53
K I c   min (MPa·m1/2)1.191.191.131.010.500.400.36
K I c   median (MPa·m1/2)1.491.401.381.320.850.50.43
Note: A–D group (limestone) is NSCB with the diameters Φ = 150, 100, 75, 50 and 30 mm. S group (sandstone) is NSCB with the diameters Φ = 200, 150, 100 and 50 mm. CCCD specimen is sandstone with the diameters Φ = 200, 150, 100 and 50 mm.
Table 5. G I c and K I c 2 / E of all specimens.
Table 5. G I c and K I c 2 / E of all specimens.
No. K I c 2 / E (J/m2) G I c (J/m2) No. K I c 2 / E (J/m2) G I c (J/m2) No. K I c 2 / E (J/m2) G I c (J/m2) No. K I c 2 / E (J/m2) G I c (J/m2)
A119.9878.76B1335.69117.91D521.3264.74E1712.0840.55
A222.9574.00B1426.0589.18D622.7374.36E1823.0673.95
A324.3872.86B1539.53161.64D718.0447.22E19--
A425.5171.10B1636.60102.05D80.000.00E2022.0252.02
A527.8498.91B1746.85143.74D926.98118.51S50-121.8851.27
A629.2196.14B1840.14124.95D1025.5985.63S50-223.9646.18
A723.8672.18B1936.8289.50D1122.2782.97S50-320.8852.04
A824.9073.29B2037.5668.36D1224.6875.29S50-418.9354.78
A929.8397.11C119.88104.79D1325.2465.10S100-123.9661.36
A1032.61109.97C218.3084.70D1420.5967.42S100-2--
A1134.8098.09C318.2755.54D1522.9158.87S100-333.2491.41
A1238.5893.92C421.1879.89D1635.6549.40S100-433.2488.71
A1344.36129.82C522.2099.92D1731.4689.73S150-129.5952.43
A1439.24124.42C629.17117.39D1830.2879.81S150-234.5163.50
A1530.1280.46C720.3984.07D1926.5178.75S150-333.2483.57
A1640.48101.10C821.0455.88D2025.9774.67S150-428.4176.85
A1740.29128.21C926.7084.25E13.5725.88S200-127.27132.60
A1843.86147.14C1027.3779.27E2--S200-230.78137.30
A1941.20130.28C1128.4082.43E37.3625.00S200-356.34126.85
A2055.13139.53C1225.6670.40E44.7526.11S200-4--
B124.3486.89C1336.7879.61E54.7325.72C50-119.89193.43
B219.7886.93C1434.04111.65E67.8655.17C50-2--
B322.99105.17C1526.9888.33E79.8345.05C50-3--
B4--C1639.2476.89E8--C100-118.00200.93
B523.9085.04C1740.62112.67E910.5353.51C100-215.34242.54
B619.9582.48C1839.29111.28E108.4443.43C100-3--
B722.3885.88C1938.54121.12E116.8824.89C150-119.89280.13
B827.8185.64C2041.93112.51E1210.9542.11C150-221.88269.24
B929.50117.89D116.2753.27E1311.7661.92C150-323.96305.30
B1023.6092.65D226.3585.38E1411.5163.10C200-125.04396.72
B1127.7373.31D3--E1511.7939.50C200-232.00433.85
B1228.2477.08D414.4150.84E16--C200-333.24345.61
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Qiao, Y.; Zhang, Z.-X.; Zhang, S. An Experimental Study of the Relation between Mode I Fracture Toughness, KIc, and Critical Energy Release Rate, GIc. Materials 2023, 16, 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031056

AMA Style

Qiao Y, Zhang Z-X, Zhang S. An Experimental Study of the Relation between Mode I Fracture Toughness, KIc, and Critical Energy Release Rate, GIc. Materials. 2023; 16(3):1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031056

Chicago/Turabian Style

Qiao, Yang, Zong-Xian Zhang, and Sheng Zhang. 2023. "An Experimental Study of the Relation between Mode I Fracture Toughness, KIc, and Critical Energy Release Rate, GIc" Materials 16, no. 3: 1056. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16031056

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop