Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nwwvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-13T01:04:32.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On lattice trapping of cracks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

W. A. Curtin
W. A. Curtin
Affiliation:
BP Research, 4440 Warrensville Center Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44128
Get access

Abstract

A simple analytic theory to quantify the extent of “trapping” of cracks by a crystal lattice and its dependence on the range of the interatomic force law is presented. The theory requires a priori knowledge of only one or two lattice-dependent, but force law independent, parameters and can then reproduce nearly all previous (numerically demanding) theoretical results. Moreover, the extent of lattice trapping does not decrease monotonically with increasing range of the force law. For realistic interatomic potentials, however, lattice trapping is quite small. The analysis is then extended to the case of chemical corrosion by direct chemical attack of the crack tip bond. It is shown that similar slow crack growth thresholds can be predicted by the thermodynamic Griffith approach and a fracture criterion based on a local bond instability.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Materials Research , Volume 5 , Issue 7 , July 1990 , pp. 1549 - 1560
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1Griffith, A. A., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A 221, 163 (1920).Google Scholar
2Lawn, B. R. and Wilshaw, T. R., Fracture of Brittle Solids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975).Google Scholar
3Thomson, R., Hsieh, C., and Rana, V., J. Appl. Phys. 42, 3154 (1971); C. Hsieh and R. Thomson, J. Appl. Phys. 44, 2051 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Esterling, D. M., J. Appl. Phys. 47, 486 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Thomson, R., Tewary, V. K., and Masuda-Jindo, K., J. Mater. Res. 2, 619 (1987); K. Masuda-Jindo, V. K. Tewary, and R. Thomson, J. Mater. Res. 2 (5), 631 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Thomson, R., J. Mater. Sci. 15, 1014 (1980); E. R. Fuller, Jr. and R. Thomson, J. Mater. Sci. 15, 1027 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Thomson, R., J. Phys. Chem. Sol. 48, 965 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Lawn, B. R., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 66, 83 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Michalske, T. and Freiman, S., Nature 295, 511 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 The equivalent of our Eq. (20) is in the notation of Ref. 5, allowing our g to be obtained from the Green's functions h bo, h ko, h kT, and h bT. Unfortunately, no values of h bT were presented in Ref. 5.Google Scholar
11Dienes, G. J. and Paskin, A., Atomistics of Fracture, edited by Latanision, R. M. and Pickens, J. R. (Plenum Press, New York, 1981), p. 671.Google Scholar
12Curtin, W. A. (unpublished research).Google Scholar