Numerical Fracture Mechanics
Numerical Fracture Mechanics
Numerical Fracture Mechanics
Mladen Berkovi
First of all, we should emphasize that in fracture mechanics, general finite element method programmes are
being used, and that there are no differences between the
finite element method and the other solid-body mechanics
problems when defining and solving equations as well as in
selecting material models. When applying this method in
INTEGRITET I VEK KONSTRUKCIJA
Vol. 4, br. 2 (2004), str. 6366
(5)
J = W dx 2 ij n j 1i ds
x
K I = y 2 r , K II = xy 2 r , K III = yz 2 r (1)
When effectively determining these values, we usually
calculate several of them along the direction = const, and
then evaluate the most convenient among them by extrapolating for r = 0 (First Paper, Fig. 6). Such a procedure, although simple, requires a certain amount of time and effort
in graphical elaboration of results.
The use of Eq. [5] requires the crack to lie in the x3x1
plane. For a linear elastic material with a symmetrical stress
tensor, the strain energy per unit volume is:
1
(6)
W = ij ui, j
2
where ui,j denotes the displacement gradients:
u
ui, j = ij
(7)
x
Taking into account that the contour surface is parallel to
the x3 axis, the contours normal vector coordinates are:
u1 2
u2 2
, K II =
, K III = u3
(2)
+1 r
+1 r
2r
Generally, this approach is a bit more accurate then the
previous due to higher displacement accuracy compared to
the stresses when using FEM.
Determining stress intensity factors based on energy release
rate under crack growth
When this approach is being used, stress intensity factors
may be explicitly determined only for pure strain forms (see
First Paper, Fig. 1); e.g. if KII = KIII = 0 it follows in accordance with /4/ that:
KI =
dx 2
dx1
, n2 =
(8)
ds
ds
Hence the index j in Eqs. [5], [6] and [7] takes the values
j = 1,2, while i = 1,2,3. The previous statement does not conflict with the assumption of stress and strain homogeneity
along the x3 axis. It also allows us to treat the shear strain
(see First Paper, Fig. 1) by using the J-integral.
In most general cases of a linear elastic material which
applies to plane strain, the constitutive equations are given
in the following form:
2 ij kl
ij =
v + (1 2v ) ik jl u( k, l )
(9)
1 2v
In case of plane strain, this expression is reduced to:
2 ij il
ij =
v + (1 v ) ik jl u( k, l )
(10)
1 v
1
where u( k, l ) = uk, l + ul, k . In both expressions j = 1,2
2
and k, l, i = 1,2,3 with the condition that uk,3 = 0. By placing
[6], [8] and [9] or [10] into [5] and using some algebra, we
obtain the expression for J integral under plane and antiplane strain or stress as:
n1 =
8
(3)
G
+1
according to A9 and A10. Concerning the strain energy
release rate G itself, we will determine it by using two
consecutive finite element method analyses, for two close
crack lengths which differ by a. Based on /5/ we can write
approximately:
dU
U
G=
=
hda
ha
where U/h represents strain energy per unit thickness h, for
plane stress state, and U = U2 U1 is the difference of
strain energies for two crack of close lengths under the
same external loading. In case of plane strain, h = 1. Further, in case of solving static problems in linear elasticity
theory by using the finite element method, the strain energy
equals one half of external force work, with a reverse sign:
1
U = RT u
2
where the n-dimensional vector R designates external forces
affecting the structure, and vector u represents their adequate displacements. The disadvantage is the need to conduct two analyses or some complicated interventions in the
program /6/.
KI =
J =
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 +2 u u + u u + u u + u u
dx1
(
)
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
KI =
(4)
64
assuming plane strain. However, this is impossible in certain practically relevant cases, such as a compact specimen.
Since the specimen (Fig. 1) is neither negligibly thin (plain
stress) and neither are its inner points far from the outer
surfaces (plane strain), the analysis must take into account
the three-dimensional stress field character. According to
authors who had solved this problem /8/, the stress intensity
factor calculated in symmetry plane differs by 12% from
the theoretical plane strain value.
u3,1 =
)(
F1 = 1 u2, 2 + u11
u2, 2 u11
,
, +
(
)(
)
+ ( u3, 2 + u3,1 )( u3, 2 u3,1 )
F2 = 2 u11
, u1, 2 + u3,1u3, 2 + u2,1 ( 2 u11
, + 1u 2, 2 )
+ u1, 2 + u2,1 u1, 2 u2,1 +
(15)
J =
J , K = N 1, N
J , K =1, 2
2
( F1KJ xKJ
+ F2 KJ x1KJ )
(16)
The example of fracture mechanics parameter determination for a plate with a central symmetrical crack
= 12 + 22 1 2
(17)
65
the fact that there is no accumulation of consecutive iteration inaccuracies and that the stiffness matrixes are generally better conditioned compared to the tangent method.
REFERENCES
1. Pian, T.H.H., Crack elements, Proceedings World Cong. FEM
Struct. Mech., Robinson ans Ass., Woodlands, Wimborne,
Dorset, England, 1975.
2. Blackburn, W.S., Calculation of stress intensity factors at
crack tips using special finite elements, The Mathematics of
Finite Elements and Applications, Academic Press, 1973.
3. Borsoum, R.S., Discussion of paper by R.D. Henshell and K.G.
Shaw, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng. 10, 235-237, 1976.
4. Berkovi, M., Determination of stress intenisity factors using
finite elements method, in the monograph Introduction to Fracture Mechanics and Fracture-Safe Design, Institute GOA,
TMF, Belgrade, 1980, pp. 107-124.
5. Jari, J., Rices contour J integral, in the monograph Introduction to Fracture Mechanics and Fracture-Safe Design, Institute
GOA, TMF, Belgrade, 1980, pp. 69-86.
6. Hellen, T.K., On the method of virtual crack extensions, Int. J.
Num. Meth. Engng, Vol. 9, 187-207, 1975.
7. Standard Method of Test for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness
of Metallic Materials, ASTM E399-74.
8. Hudec, M., Comparison of irregular mesh method and finite
elements method for plane elasticity problem, Software and
Hardware in Structural Analysis and Computer-Aided-Design,
VTI and MF, 1980.
9. Barsoum, R.S., On the use of isoparametric finite elements in
linear fracture mechanics, Int. J. Num. Meth. Engng, 10, 2537, 1976.
10. Hellen, T.K., Methods for computing contour integrals, PostYield Fracture Mechanics, Applied Science Publishers, London, 1979.
11. Berkovi, M., On the nonlinear transient analysis of the coupled-thermomechanical phenomena, Computers and Structures,
10, 195-202.
Once, after a completed iterative procedure, the isostress lines are drawn (see the First Paper, Fig. 3); the line
that corresponds to the yield stress for the considered
material is the elastic-plastic boundary.
THE PROSPECTIVES OF NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF
FRACTURE MECHANICS PROBLEMS
Some of the most difficult fracture mechanics problems,
such as determining fracture mechanics parameter critical
values have not been considered in this chapter. This problem is in close connection with crack tip blunting during
deformation (First Paper, Fig. 4). Because of this blunting,
the crack tip stresses have finite values, and the next crack
growth occurs only after stress values exceed the ultimate
tensile strength for the material. This problem is, apparently, not only materially non-linear, but also geometrically
non-linear. However, also in this case we can apply the
iterative procedure from the previous section with modifications of geometric data after each iteration, but always
starting with referent configurations, and by using nonlinear strain-displacement relations. Also, there are no
principle obstacles for the numerical analysis to include
66