Effective stress intensity factor evaluation using thermoelastic stress analysis and digital image correlation

  1. Camacho-Reyes, A. 1
  2. Vasco-Olmo, J.M. 1
  3. López-Alba, E. 1
  4. Felipe-Sesé, L.A. 1
  5. Molina-Viedma, A.J. 1
  6. Almazán-Lázaro, J.A. 1
  7. Díaz, F.A. 1
  1. 1 Departamento de Ingeniería Mecánica y Minera, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
Revista española de mecánica de la fractura

ISSN: 2792-4246

Year of publication: 2022

Issue: 3

Pages: 9-14

Type: Article

More publications in: Revista española de mecánica de la fractura


During the last decades, the debate over the mechanisms governing fatigue crack shielding has been mainly focused on demonstrating the existence of fatigue crack closure and the difficulties on quantifying the induced stress during crack propagation. Hence, most adopted experimental methods have been based on the direct or indirect measurement of contact loads between crack surfaces as the crack stars closing. Nevertheless, these methods depend of many factors sometime difficult to control, which has contributed to question their reliability by many authors. For this reason, two modern well stabilised, full-field, non-contact experimental techniques, namely 2D Digital Image Correlation (2D-DIC) and Thermoelastic Stress Analysis (TSA), have been analysed to evaluate the influence crack shielding during fatigue experiments conducted on two aluminiums (Al2024-T3 and Al7050) tested at different R-ratios. In the particular case of TSA, the technique appears to have a great potential in the evaluation of fatigue crack shielding since crack tip events are inferred directly from the temperature changes occurring at the crack tip rather than from remote data. Experimental data from both techniques haven employed in combination with two different mathematical models based on Muskhelishvili’s complex potentials to infer the ΔK effective. Results from both techniques agree quite well, showing a variation in the stress intensity factor range as the R-ratio changes from 0.1 to 0.5 illustrating the potential ability of both techniques to account for the effect of shielding due to crack closure.