Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 176, Issue 4, pp 578–589 | Cite as

Thermal stress state of a bimaterial with a closed interfacial crack having rough surfaces

  • R. M. Martynyak

We have formulated the problem of thermoelasticity for a bimaterial whose components differ only in their shear moduli, with a closed interfacial crack having rough surfaces. The bimaterial is subjected to the action of compressive loads and heat flow normal to the interfacial surface. We have taken into account the dependence of thermal conductance of the defect on the contact pressure of its faces and heat conductivity of the medium that fills it. The problem is reduced to a Prandtl-type nonlinear singular integro-differential equation for temperature jump between the crack surfaces. An analytical solution of this problem has been constructed for the case of action of the heat flow only. We have analyzed the dependence of contact pressure of the defect faces, temperature jump between them, and the intensity factor of tangential interfacial stresses on the value of given heat flow, roughness of the surfaces, and ratio between the shear moduli of joined materials.


Heat Flow Contact Pressure Crack Surface Fatigue Crack Growth Interfacial Crack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. O. Andreikiv, “Generalized Griffith problem of shear with regard for the roughness of the crack surfaces,” Fiz.-Khim. Mekh. Mater., 36, No. 2, 49–54 (2000); English translation: Mater. Sci., 36, No. 2, 210–217 (2000).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. S. Kit and M. G. Krivtsun, Plane Problems of Thermoelasticity for Bodies with Cracks [in Russian], Naukova Dumka, Kiev (1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. S. Kit, S. P. Nagalka, and R. M. Martynyak, “Nonlinear contact problem of thermoelasticity for a crack at the interface between materials with different thermal properties,” in: Theoretical and Applied Mechanics [in Russian], Issue 33 (2001), pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. S. Kit and R. M. Martynyak, “Thermoelasticity of a piecewise homogeneous body with a closed interfacial crack in the presence of contact thermal resistance between its faces,” Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr., No. 10, 84–88 (1996).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H. S. Kit, R. M. Martynyak, and S. P. Nahalka, “Thermoelastic effects in a body with a crack closed by concentrated forces,” Mat. Metody Fiz.-Mekh. Polya, 42, No. 2, 101–107 (1999).MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. M. Martynyak, Mechanical-Thermal-and-Diffusion Interaction of Bodies with Contact-Surface Inhomogeneities and Defects [in Ukrainian], Doctoral Degree Thesis (Phys., Math.), Lviv (2000).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. M. Martynyak, “Thermal opening of an initially closed interface crack under conditions of imperfect thermal contact between its faces,” Fiz.-Khim. Mekh. Mater., 35, No. 5, 14–22 (1999); English translation: Mater. Sci., 35, No. 5, 612–622 (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. M. Martynyak, Kh. I. Honchar, and S. P. Nahalka, “Simulation of thermomechanical closure of an initially open interface crack with heat resistance,” Fiz.-Khim. Mekh. Mater., 39, No. 5, 59–66 (2003); English translation: Mater. Sci., 39, No. 5, 672–681 (2003).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. M. Martynyak and Kh. I. Gonchar, “Thermoelastic deformation of a bimaterial with an interfacial defect filled with a heatconducting medium,” in: Theoretical and Applied Mechanics [in Russian], Issue 41 (2005), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yu. N. Shlykov, E. A. Ganin, and S. N. Tsarevskii, Contact Thermal Resistance [in Russian], Énergiya, Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. R. Barber and M. Comninou, “The penny-shaped interface crack with heat flow. Part 2: Imperfect contact,” Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech., 50, No. 4a, 770–776 (1983).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. M. Garsia and H. Sehitoglu, “Contact of crack surfaces during fatigue: Part 1. Formulation of the model,” Metallurgical Mater. Trans., A, 28A, No. 11, 2263–2275 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. I. Giannopoulos and N. K. Anifantis, “A BEM analysis for thermomechanical closure of interfacial cracks incorporating friction and thermal resistance,” Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 196, No. 4–6, 1018–1029 (2007).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. S. Gross and D. A. Mendelsohn, “On the effect of crack face contact and friction due to fracture surface roughness in edge crack subjected to external shear,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 31, No. 3, 405–420 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. K. Keppas and N. K. Anifantis, “Boundary element prediction on TBC fracture resistance,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 33, No. 3, 174–182 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. V. Kharun and V. V. Loboda, “A thermoelastic problem for interface crack with contact zones,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 41, No. 1, 159–175 (2004).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Kobayashi and D. A. Shockey, “Fracture surface topography analysis (FRASTA) – Development, accomplishments and future applications,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 77, No. 12, 2370–2384 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. A. Mendelsohn, T. S. Gross, R. U. Goulet, and M. Zhouc, “Experimental-computational estimation of rough fracture surface contact stresses,” Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 249, No. 1–2, 1–6 (1998).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. A. Newman and R. S. Piascik, “Interactions of plasticity and oxide crack closure mechanisms near the fatigue crack growth threshold,” Int. J. Fatigue, 26, No. 9, 923–927 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    F. O. Riemelmoser and R. Pippan, “Crack closure: a concept of fatigue crack growth under examination,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 20, No. 11, 1529–1540 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Sehitoglu and A. M. Garsia, “Contact of crack surfaces during fatigue: Part 2. Simulations,” Metallurgical Mater. Trans., A, 28A, No. 11, 2277–2289 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. O. A. Semprimoschnig, J. Stampfl, R. Pippan, and O. Kolednik, “A new powerful tool for surveying cleavage fracture surface,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., 20, No. 11, 1541–1550 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. M. Martynyak
    • 1
  1. 1.Pidstryhach Institute for Applied Problems of Mechanics and MathematicsUkrainian National Academy of SciencesLvivUkraine

Personalised recommendations