J. Mech. Pl~.w. Solid.~, Vol. 42, No. 9, pp.

1397-1434, 1994
Copyright X; 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All mhts reserved
0022-5096194 $7.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

00225096(94)E0030--8

NUMERICAL

SIMULATIONS
OF FAST CRACK
IN BRITTLE
SOLIDS

GROWTH

X.-P. XU and A. NEEDLEMAN

Division

of Engineering,

Brown University,

Providence,

RI 02912, U.S.A

(Receked 20 December 1993; in recised,form 29 March 1994)

ABSTRACT
Dynamic crack growth is analysed numerically for a plane strain block with an initial central crack subject
to tensile loading. The continuum
is characterized
by a material constitutive
law that relates stress and
strain, and by a relation between the tractions and displacement jumps across a specified set of cohesive
surfaces. The material constitutive relation is that of an isotropic hyperelastic solid. The cohesive surface
constitutive relation allows for the creation of new free surface and dimensional considerations
introduce
a characteristic
length into the formulation.
Full transient analyses are carried out. Crack branching
emerges as a natural outcome of the initial-boundary
value problem solution. without any ad hoc assumption regarding branching criteria. Coarse mesh calculations are used to explore various qualitative features
such as the effect of impact velocity on crack branching, and the effect of an inhomogeneity
in strength, as
in crack growth along or up to an interface. The effect of cohesive surface orientation on crack path is also
explored, and for a range of orientations
zigzag crack growth precedes crack branching.
Finer mesh
calculations are carried out where crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane. The crack accelerates
and then grows at a constant speed that. for high impact velocities, can exceed the Rayleigh wave speed.
This is due to the finite strength of the cohesive surfaces. A fine mesh calculation is also carried out where
the path of crack growth is not constrained.
The crack speed reaches about 45% of the Rayleigh wave
speed. then the crack speed begins to oscillate and crack branching at an angle of about 29 from the initial
crack plane occurs. The numerical
results are at least qualitatively
in accord with a wide variety of
experimental
observations
on fast crack growth in brittle solids.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Much is known about crack initiation

and linear elastic singular fields for straight
cracks growing dynamically
(Freund, 1990). There are, however, a number of observations that are not adequately accounted for by current theory. For example, observations of fast crack growth in brittle solids typically reveal complex patterns of crack
branching
[see, e.g. Field (1971) and McClintock
and Argon (1966), p. 5011, but a
predictive theory for such crack branching has not yet been developed. Also, although
fracture mechanics theory predicts that the limiting crack speed is the Rayleigh wave
speed [see, e.g. Freund (1990)], observed crack speeds are rarely greater than half this
value.
The issues of crack path and limiting crack speed may very well be related. Based
on their experiments, Ravi-Chandar
and Knauss (1984b,c) argued that the occurrence
of micro-cracks
in front of the main crack controls the crack speed and plays an
important role in the branching process. More recently, Gao (1993) has put forward
1397

13%

X.-P. XIJ and A. Nlz.EDI.liMAN

a wavy-crack
model in which the tendency of fast moving cracks to deviate from their
plane limits the apparent crack velocity to about half the Rayleigh wave speed. while
Slepyan (1993) has proposed a principle of maximum energy dissipation
to explain
limiting crack speeds. However, analyses relevant to these issues have relied on highly
idealized models. What has been lacking are full field solutions for fast moving cracks.
where the cracks are free to propagate away from the current crack plane.
In this investigation.
we carry out simulations of dynamic crack growth in isotropic
elastic solids. The theoretical
framework
is the cohesive surface decohesion
formulation
of Needleman
(1987). In previous work, attention
has been confined to
problems with a single cohesive surface. Here, to allow for a variety of possible
crack growth paths. potential surfaces of decohesion are interspersed throughout
the
material. The material failure characteristics
are embodied in the geometrical
and
constitutive
characterization
of the cohesive surfaces. The discretization
is based on
a finite element formulation.
with volume finite elements (or, in two dimensions.
area
finite elements) bordered by cohesive surface elements. Although the creation of neM
free surface must be along finite element boundaries.
the location and path are
otherwise unrestricted.
Furthermore.
new free surface is not required to emanate
continuously
from a pre-existing crack.
Crack initiation
and crack growth are calculated directly in terms of the elastic
properties of the material and of the parameters characterizing
the cohesive surface
separation
law. which include a strength and the work of separation
per unit area.
Hence, a characteristic
length enters the formulation.
This framework has been used
to address issues regarding void nucleation
(Needleman.
1987 : Tvergaard.
1990 ;
Povirk (It rd., 1991 ; Xu and Needleman,
1993), quasi-static crack growth (Needleman.
1990a,b; Tvergaard and Hutchinson
1992. 1993). stability of the separation process
(Suo ct al., 1992; Levy, 1994). and reinforcement
cracking in metal matrix composites
(Finot ct rd., 1994). The results obtained
here reproduce.
at least qualitatively.
a
variety of observed phenomena
on fast crack growth in brittle solids, including, for
example, crack branching.
the dependence
of crack speed on impact velocity and
abrupt crack arrest. There is no unified description
of these phenomena
within a
traditional
fracture mechanics framework.
The specific problem analysed is a block with an initial central crack. Plane strain
conditions
are assumed to prevail. The loading is tensile. with a constant imposed
velocity after a small rise time. The material is characterized
as an isotropic hypcrelastic solid and full finite strain transient
analyses are carried out. Although
the
strains generally remain small. the finite strain formulation
properly accounts for the
local large strains and rotations accompanying
separation of cohesive surfaces. In the
plane of deformation,
the cohesive surfaces are lines parallel to the coordinate
axes
and at 45 to them. Some calculations
exploring the effect of varying the cohesive
surface orientation
are also carried out. The cohesive surface constitutive
relation is
that given by Xu and Needleman
(1993). and allows for tangential as well as normal
separation.
Although attention is focused on brittle crack growth. computational
modelling of
the creation of new free surface along arbitrary paths is important
in a wide variety
of applications;
for example. in other branches of fracture mechanics and in the
analysis of manufacturing
processes such as machining. For ductile fracture of metals

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1399

due to void nucleation,

growth and coalescence,
the element vanish technique of
Tvergaard (1982) has been successfully employed in a number of analyses, e.g. Needleman and Tvergaard (1987), Tvergaard and Needleman
(1993). However, a suitable
computational
framework for general separation processes has been lacking and there
has been interest in developing numerical approaches for general fracture paths, e.g.
Belytschko et al. (1994). Provided that an appropriate
decohesion relation is known
or can be developed, the formulation
here provides an attractive alternative.

3
_.

PROBLEM

FORMULATION

The continuum
is characterized
by two constitutive relations ; a volumetric constitutive law that relates stress and strain, and a cohesive surface constitutive
relation
between the tractions and displacement
jumps across a specified set of cohesive
surfaces, that are interspersed throughout
the continuum.
A convected coordinate Lagrangian formulation
is employed with the initial undeformed configuration
taken as reference, so that all field quantities are considered to
be functions of convected coordinates,
J, which serve as particle labels, and time t.
Relative to a fixed Cartesian frame, the position of a material point in the initial
configuration
is denoted by x. In the current configuration
the material point initially
at x is at X. The displacement
vector u and the deformation
gradient F are defined by

u=x-x,
The undeformed

F_%,
8X

base vectors in the reference

configuration

are

where y is the inverse of the metric tensor

Y,, = g,*g,.

The principle of virtual

Needleman,
1994),

work is written

in the form (Needleman,

1987; Xu and

where s is the nonsymmetric

nominal stress tensor, A is the displacement jump across
the cohesive surface, A : B denotes AB,,, V, Se,, and S,,, are the volume, external
surface area and internal cohesive surface area, respectively,
of the body in the
reference configuration.
The density of the material in the reference configuration
is
p and the traction vector T on a surface in the reference configuration
with normal v
is given by

X.-P. XI

I400

and A. NEEDLEMAN

T = V.S.
The volumetric

constitutive

(5)

law is that for an isotropic

with MJ,the strain energy density,

hyperelastic

solid so that

taken as
IZ = jE : I> : E.

Here. L is the tensor of elastic moduli. and the second Piola

the Lagrangian
strain. E. are given by
S=s.F
E zz i(F.

(7)
Kirchholf

stress. S. and

(8)

F-1).

(9)

where I is the identity tensor, ( ) denotes the inverse. and ( ) denotes the transpose.
In component
form the moduli are taken to be

(10)
with E being Youngs modulus and 1Poissons ratio.
Although
a full finite deformation
formulation
is employed,
tinite strain and
rotation effects are negligible in the circumstances
considered.
except very locally
where new free surface is being created. The general features of the overall response
are accurately described by linear isotropic elasticity. For example. the speeds oi
dilatational,
shear and Rayleigh surface waves are [see, e.g. Freund (1990)]

The material parameters

are taken to he representati\,c
of PMMA with E = 3.24
GPa, 1= 0.35 and 11= 0.001 19 MPa (m s ) . From (I I ). the dilatational
and shear
wave speeds are c<,= 2090 m s and c, = 1004 m s . respectively. The Rayleigh
wave speed is c,~ = 938 m s- _
The constitutive
law for the cohesive surface is taken to he ;L phenomenological
mechanical relation between the traction and displacement
jump
across the surface.
The behavior that needs to be captured is that. as the cohesive surface separates. the
magnitude of the traction at first increases. reaches a maximum and then approaches
zero with increasing separation.
Various. very ditferent. mechanisms give rise to this
sort of response ; for example. separation
of atomic planes (Rose (I L/I., 19XI) and
ductile void growth and coalescence (Tvergaard and Hutchinson.
1992). What distinguishes the various mechanisms
is the stress required for separation.
the length
scale over which the separation process takes place and the dissipation accompanying
separation.
In the analyses here, the constitutive
relation for each cohesive surface is
taken to he elastic so that any dissipation associated with separation is neglected. The

Simulations

traction

of fast crack growth

1401

across the surface is given by

The specific form used for the potential C#Iis one given by Xu and Needleman
that allows for tangential, as well as normal, decohesion. Restricting attention
dimensions,

(1993)
to two

where n and tare the normal and tangent, respectively, to the surface at a given point
in the reference configuration,
and A,, = n *A and A, = t-A.
In (13).
(14)
where 4,Z is the work of normal separation,
4, is the work of tangential separation,
and AZ is the value of A,, after complete shear separation with T,,
= 0.The normal
work of separation, c$!,,and the shear work of separation, I$,, can be written as

Here, e = exp (I), and gmax and TV,, are the cohesive surface normal strength and
tangential strength, respectively, and 6,, and 6, are corresponding
characteristic lengths.
The cohesive surface tractions are obtained from (12) and ( 13) as
T,,=

-?exp(-?)kexp(-$)+z[l-exp(-$)][r-$11.

T,=

-f(2~~)${q+(~)$~exp(-$)exp(-$).

(16)

(17)

Figure l(a) shows the normal traction across the surface, T,,, as a function of A,,
with A, z 0. The maximum
value of - T,,is crmilr and occurs when A,, = 6,,. The
variation of T,with A,, given by (I 7) when A, = 0, is shown in Fig. 1(b). The maximum
value of 1T,1= z,,,~~
is attained when 1AI / = @6,/2.
In most of the computations
all cohesive surfaces are taken to have identical
cohesive properties. Unless specified otherwise, these are crrndl= E/10= 324.0 MPa,
= 755.4 MPa and a,, = 6, = 4.0 x lo-
m, so that (15) gives q = 1 with
2::
4, = 352.3 J rnd2. The remaining parameter in (13), (16) and (17), r, is taken to
be zero. In order to give some indication of the implications
of the cohesive surface
characterization
for fracture toughness, we note that for Mode I crack-like behavior

X.-P.

1402

XI

and A. NEEl)I.EMAh

1.5~

in plane strain .I,, = &,, (Rice, 196X). Using the relation K,, = b EJ,_ ( I - 11). the
material and cohesive surface parameters correspond to K,, == 1.14 MPa ,\: 111.
The c~~~t~put~~t~onsare carried out for a center cracked r~ct~llt~uI~~r block as shown
in Fig. 2. Plane strain conditions
are assumed to prevail and ;I Cartesian coordinate
system is used as reference, with the ,I. ,I. plane being the plane oldeformation.
The
length ofthe specimen is 3L and the width is I?II,. The tensile axis is aligned with the
I,-direction and a crack of initial length 2~1,lies along the line ,\. = 0. At / = 0. the body
is stress free and at rest. u(J~..I., 0) = 0 and h(~, .j-. 0) = 0. Attention is restricted to
de~orI~~~tioIls that remain symmetric about 3. = 0. with the region analyscd numcrially being J 2 0.
The boundary conditions on .I. = + L are

Simulations
t

of fast crack growth

Fig. 2. Geometry

of the center cracked

V+(t)dt,

uz=

T=O

1403

on

block

y*=L

(18)

y2 = -L,

(19)

s
and
uz =

V_(t)dt,

T =0

on

c
where

VI tit,,
v

V+(f) =

ir

v,t/t,,
v
i 2,

for t 4 t, ;

i
V-(t)
Here, either
Symmetry

for I d t, ;
for t > t,,

for t > t,.

(21)

V, -L - V, or Vz = 0 and the rise time, t,, is taken to be 0.1 ps.

about y = 0 requires
rJ=O,

and the side +v = w remains

traction

7nz,,O

(22)

1= 0.

(23)

free

T = 0,

The initial crack is specified by having J? = 0 as a cohesive surface for which G,,,, =
Gui.
r max=OforOd~~
In order to facilitate interpretation
of the results, dimensional
values are used for
the material, cohesive and geometric parameters.
Key dimensionless
groups include
VI/cd, amirn/E, a,/6,, and L/q,. In linear elasticity, the stress carried by the loading wave
is proportional
to V,, so that V,/c,, is a measure of this stress magnitude
relative to
E. The ratio of Vi/cd and amaxlE is a measure of the ratio of the stress carried by the
loading wave to the cohesive surface strength. Since the formulation
contains a
characteristic
length, the behavior depends on the ratio of the specimen size to this
characteristic
length. Crack-like behavior is obtained when all specimen dimensions

1404

X:P.XU and A.Nk:EDLEMAN

are large compared to the cohesive surface characteristic

lengths [a factor of IO- IO
is needed, depending on the material constitutive
behavior;
Needleman
(I>OOa,b)].
Various specimen sizes are considered, but the dimensions
are of the order of I mm
or larger ; the smallest specimen dimension is either (/, or L and +2,, (or I>:ii,,) is in
the range 10~lOJ. A measure of the specimen size divided by a characteristic
wa\e
speed, say L/cd, gives a characteristic
time for a wave to travel over the specimen. The
time over which crack growth occurs. relative to this characteristic
time, gives an
indication of the significance of wave reflections.
Since both the volumetric
and surface constitutive
relations are elastic. no dihsipative mechanism is incorporated
into the model. Balance of energy then requires
/,.\,T*adS

= 1, KdC+[,

Wdr+/\

,,,,~/~d.S.

(24)

where

The work done by the imposed loading is partitioned into kinetic energy. strain energy
stored in the material volume and elastic energy stored in the cohesive surfaces. Over
the course of the deformation
history the relative proportions
of the three terms on
the right-hand side of (34) will vary substantially.

3.

NUMERICAL

IMPLEMENTATION

The finite element discretization

is based on linear displacement
triangular elements
that are arranged in a crossed-triangle
quadrilateral
pattern. Some calculations
are
carried out where there is a single cohesive surface. which is along the line J. = 0 111
front of the initial crack. In most calculations.
however, the cohesive surfaces are all
the lines in the _Y_\. plane defined by the clement boundaries.
In the latter cast,
displacement
continuity
is not required across any element boundaries.
so that. in
two dimensions.
the number of unknowns
is six times the number of triangular
elements.
In a standard
displacement
finite clement formulation.
the number ot
unknowns would be approximately
twice the number of elements. Thus. the present
formulation
leads to a greatly increased number of unknowns. However. in the explicit
solution of a dynamic problem. the computer time basically scales with the nunbet
of elements. rather than with the number of unknowns.
Numerical
experiment\
showed that the increase in computational
time over a conventional
displacement
finite element formulation
was about a factor of two, with the additional
time being
mainly due to computing the cohesive surface contributions
to the nodal forces.
Figure 3 sketches how the nodes are connected,
once the discretization
has been
carried out. The two types of element intersection are circled in Fig. 3(a). In one case.
four quadrilaterals
meet, while the other intersection
is where the four triangles in
each quadrilateral
meet. Figure 3(b) sketches the connections
that result between
nodes at an intersection
of quadrilaterals
and Fig. 3(c) illustrates the connections
at

Simulations

1405

of fast crack growth

(a)

lb)

(cl

Fig. 3. Schematic showing element arrangements

and node connections m the finite element discretization.
(a) Triangular
elements arranged in a crossed triangle quadrilateral
pattern. (b) Node connections
at an
intersection of quadrilaterals.
(c) Node connections at a quadrilateral
center.

a point where four triangles meet. The separation

between elements in Fig. 3 is for
illustrative purposes only. The initial coordinates of each node at an intersection are
identical. Interpenetration
is discouraged
by the strong stiffening response of the
normal cohesive traction in compression
(16).
When the finite element discretization
of the displacement
field is substituted into
the principle of virtual work (4) and the integrations
are carried out, the discretized
equations of motion are obtained as

where U is the vector of nodal displacements,

M is the mass matrix and R is the nodal
force vector consisting
of contributions
from the area elements and the cohesive
surfaces. Along each element boundary the surface integral on the left-hand side of
(4) is computed as described by Needleman (1987).
A lumped mass matrix is used in (26) instead of the consistent mass matrix, since

I406

X.-P XU and A. NEEDLEMAN

this has been found preferable for explicit time integration procedures. from the point
of view of accuracy as well as computational
etficiency (Krieg and Key. 1973). An
explicit time integration
scheme that is based on the Newmark /i-method with /i = 0
is used to integrate (26) to obtain the nodal velocities and the nodal displacements
(Belytschko 01 trl.. 1976) via

(-[;

/,,

_,
(

iu,,_,
i/

iI:,,
i/

M -It,,

,.

(2X)

I-

I
+ -At,,
3

(29)

Here. the subscripts II and II + I refer to quantities evaluated at I,, and I,, , , . respectivei!.
At each time step, displacements
LJ,,, , are obtained from (27). The volumetric
constitutive
updating LISCS (U,,., , - U,,):A/,, to represent the displacement
rate components. The stress components.
5. and strain components.
I?,,. at I,, , are obtained
from
is

.s:,i., = s::+ i, A/,,.

i I:.,,

tic,,),,, , = (fc,),,+- i,

A/t,.

(.30)

where CS)i/ and iE,,, i/ are related by the moduli (IO). The cohesive surface tractions
from
T,, and T, are calculated from ( 16) and ( 17). The force vector K,, , is determined
the left-hand side of (4) (there are no prescribed tractions on the external surlhcc).
Accelerations
and velocities at I,, , arc then obtained from (28) and (29).
The three meshes shown in Fig. 4 are used in the calculations.
In each case. the
mesh consists of a uniform region around the initial crack tip surrounded
by ;I
graduated mesh out to the block boundaries.
Rather coarse ~mxl~~s. ax shown in Fig.
4(a) with 40 x 40 quadrilaterals
and 12 x 40 squares of side length 0.075 mm, are used
to explore some qualitative features of the behavior of the model. This mesh has 6400
triangular elements and 38.400 degrees of freedom. The mesh in Fig. 4(b) consists of
100 quadrilaterals
in the .I,-direction and 40 quadrilaterals
in the I,-direction giving
16.000 triangular elements and 96,000 degrees of freedom. The uniform mesh in front
of the initial crack tip is comprised of X0 x 15 rectangles. In most calculations
using
this resolution. these are 0.01875 mm x 0.0 I X75 mm squares and so extend I .S mm in
front of the initial crack tip. A 700 x 120 quadrilateral
mesh (336.000
triangular
elements and 2,016.OOO degrees of freedom when aII element boundaries are cohesive
surfaces) is shown in Figs 4(c) and 4(d). In this case. the uniform region also extends
1.S mm in front of the initial crack tip. but has 600 x 40 square elements. with side
length 0.0025 mm.
Initially, there is a well-defined
crack tip location, namely the terminus of the
interval over which CJ,,
,,,, = T,,,,,, = 0. Once crack growth initiates, this is no longer the
case because of the continuous
dependence of the cohesive surface tractions on the
displacement jump A. For presentation
of the results, the largest value 0f.j. for which

(d)

Fig. 4. Meshes used for the region analysed in the calculations

(~3 > 0). (a) A 40 x 40 quadrilateral
mesh. (b) A 100 x 40 quadrilateral
mesh with 80 x 16 uniform
square elements ahead of the initial crack tip. (c) A 700 x 120 quadrilateral
mesh with 600 x 40 uniform square elements ahead of the initial crack tip. (d) Mesh
near the initial crack tip of(c).

(a)

a:

Simulations

I409

of fast crack growth

A,, 3 6,, is recorded together with the current time. This value of J is denoted by cl
and is identified with the current crack tip position. A quadratic polynomial
is fit
through three points of the a versus t curve, say (I,,_, , u,, and a,,, , , and the slope of
this quadratic at t,, is taken as the crack speed at t,,, ci,,. Note that this procedure does
not guarantee that the location so recorded is continuously
connected to the current
main crack. Presuming that there is such a continuous
connection
(the numerical
results indicate that this is generally the case), the value recorded numerically
corresponds to the projection of the current crack tip location on the initial crack line.
Some numerical experiments were carried out using other values of A,, to define the
crack location, e.g. 26,, or 5d,,, and the predictions of crack location and crack speed
were not sensitive to the precise choice.

4.

QUALITATIVE

BEHAVIOR

First, we consider plane strain wave propagation

in a block without an initial crack,
i.e. N, = 0. Figure 5 shows results from two calculations using a 40 x 40 quadrilateral
mesh. One calculation
is based on an ordinary displacement
finite element formulation, with displacement
continuity across element boundaries.
In the other case, the
cohesive surface formulation
is used with all area elements surrounded
by cohesive
surfaces. The calculations are carried out for a block with L = 5 mm and II = 10 mm,
undergoing
one-sided impact, V, = 0 in (21), with the impact velocity. V, in (20),
equal to 10 m s-. The wave is essentially one of uniaxial strain, with wave speed
2090 m s- and the stress carried by this wave is 25 MPa, which is 7.7% of Go,:,\.
of Cauchy stress, versus ~3
Curves of cz2. where cr12 is the axial physical component
along _t. = 2 mm at 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 ps are shown in Fig. 5. These are taken from
contour plots.? The contouring
program uses nodal values of field quantities, which
are obtained by extrapolation
from the element integration points to the nodal points.
The extrapolated
values associated with all elements connected to a node are then
averaged. The time step used in these calculations
is At = 0.01/1/~.~. where h is the
minimum mesh spacing. This time step is used because accuracy requires small changes
in A,,/6,, and A,/fi, in each time step. Of course, for the ordinary displacement
finite
element calculation
in Fig. 5(b) much larger time steps can be taken. In subsequent
calculations where a finer mesh is used, the time steps are taken as AZ = 0. l/?/cd. Note
that regardless of the formulation,
there is a numerically
induced smoothing of the
leading edge of the wave. However, the wave speed as calculated from the progression
of a stress level of z 5 MPa or greater is in good agreement with the theoretical value.
Figure 5 shows that as long as the stress levels remain small compared to the cohesive
strength, the predictions using the cohesive surface model are in excellent agreement
with those of a conventional
formulation.
The remaining calculations
discussed in this section are for a block with L = 1.5
mm. II = 3 mm, and an initial crack length a, = 0.3 mm. Deformed finite element
meshes for the region analysed numerically,
y 3 0, are shown in Figs 668. These
calculations
were carried out using a 40 x 40 quadrilateral
mesh, with the element
t Using the commercial

plotting

program

Tecplot

from Amtec Engineering

Inc.. Bellewe.

WA

1310

diagonals
at 45 to the coordiwte
:tscs and with each plonc strain i~rcil clement
surrounded
by cohesive surface elements. Clearly. the mesh ib not fine enough to
resolve detailed fields around the crack tip. Nevertheless. the analyses illustrate qualitative features of observed failure behavior. Note also that although crack branching
can only take place parallel to the coordinate
axes or at 1-45 to them, the o\er~ll
branching angle is noticeably less than 45 from the .1,-axis.
Figure 6 illustrates the elect of varying the impact velocity. Symmetric loading ib
imposed; in Fig. 6(a). V, = - J., == I.0 m s . lvhile in Fig. h(b) J, .= ..- 1~: = 15.0
n-l s . The main feature of the results is that the higher the impact velocity the lea
crack growth ther-c is before branchins.
With J., = I .O III s. crack br~tllcll~i~~ occurs

Simulations

of fast crack growth

0-3

Fig. 6. Deformed finite element meshes for blocks with L = I.5 mm, IV= 3 mm and N, = 0.3 mm.
Syn nmetric loading with V, = - V2 = 1 m SC. (b) Symmetric loading with V, = - V, = ISms~ .

ta)

tb)

Simulations

of fast crack growth

fa)

tb)

Fig. 8. Deformed finite element meshes for the blocks with t = 1.5 mm. tt = 3 mm and n, = 0.3 mm. (a)
The cohesive strength is reduced by 10% in y2 > 0 and increased by 10% in J, < 0, while the cohesive
strength along J. = 0 has the standard values CJ,,, = 324.0 MPa and r,,,;,, = 755.4 MPa. (b) The cohesive
strength has the standard values for 0 < ,I. < I mm and is increased by a factor of 3 for _I, 3 I mm.

1414

X -P. XU and A. KCEDLEMAN

when (I = I .5 mm and the crack speed is 757 m SK (0.81~~) ; the corresponding

values
with I, = 15.0 m s- are a = 0.6 mm and 674 m SK (0.72~~). The crack branching
angles, which are taken to be the angles between the initial crack tip and the point at
which growth on a multi-element
segment parallel to the Is-axis begins. are 31 in
Figs 6(a) and 6(b). The failure patterns are symmetric about 1. = 0, although this is
not explicitly enforced by the solution procedure.
This shows that the symmetric
pattern is stable with respect to the perturbations
induced by the round offcrrors that
occur in a numerical solution. It will be seen that this is not necessarily the case with
the much finer meshes used in the next section. Additional
branching occurs near the
free surface, ~3 = II, particularly
with the higher impact velocity in Fig. 6(b). The
triangular
elements on the crack surface in Fig. 6(b) are the result of the start of
branches that were not taken. The qualitative features in Fig. 6 agree well with those
seen in Field (1971) and McClintock
and Argon (1966, p. 501).
Calculations
with symmetric and asymmetric impact are shown in Fig. 7. In Fig.
7(a). V, = 5.0 m s- and V, = -5.0 m s- ; while in Fig. 7(b), V, = IO m s and
1,: = 0. All the parameters in Fig. 7 are the same as in Fig. 6. except for the impact
velocity. Symmetric crack branching
occurs at (I = 1.28 mm. which is intermediate
between the two values in Fig. 6. In the calculations,
when growth initiates along
several branches, continued growth takes place on one or more of these branches and
the remaining branch or branches heal. This process occurs very locally, at the current
crack tip. and also on a larger scale. For example. at the stage shown in Fig. 7(a)
crack growth is occurring along four branches. Subsequently.
two of the branches
dominate (one for which _I > 0 and its symmetric counterpart
with J. < 0) and the
other two close. The crack branching
angle in Fig. 7(a) is about 34
Figure
7(b) illustrates that asymmetric loading can lead to a strongly asymmetric cracking
pattern. There is also some cracking in Fig. 7(b) that is not connected with the main
crack.
Some elects of a spatial variation in cohesive surface strength are illustrated in Fig.
8. In Fig. 8(a). the cohesive surface along J. = 0 in front of the initial crack tip has
the standard values listed in Section 2, while cohesive strength is reduced by 10% in
1%> 0 and increased by 10% in _I. < 0. In Fig. 8(b), G,,,.!, = 324 MPa for 0 < .I. < I .O
~IIN and (T,,,,, = 972 MPa for J. > 1.0 mm (T,,,:,, is also increased by a factor of 3).
The loading is symmetric in both cases with V, = - C:, = 5 m s . In Fig. X(a). the
amount of crack growth prior to branching is about the same as in Fig. 7(a). although
evidence of an earlier abortive attempt at branching off the interface at (I = 0.83 mm
can be seen. In Fig. 8(b) the crack grows straight to the interface and then comes to
an abrupt stop.
Curves of crack speed. ir, versus time are shown in Fig. 9 for the cases shown in
Figs 7(a) and 8(b). For the calculation
in Fig. 7(a), opening (A,, 3 (j,,) in the earl)
stages of crack growth occurs only for the cohesive surface directly in front of the
current crack tip. Eventually, a stage is reached where A,, 3 ij,, occurs on the cohesive
surfaces at +45 to the current crack plane as well as directly in front of the crack.
The crack continues to grow straight ahead when this first occurs and the openings
at +4S heal. The first drop in crack speed is associated with this event. At the next
element, the opening directly in front of the current crack tip heals and growth takes
place at ,45
Two curves of crack speed versus time are shown for this case. One

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1415

1200.0

T 600.0
E
.rn
400.0

200.0

0.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5 IO .O

t (WI
Fig. 9. Curves of crack speed, d. versus time, I, for the cases shown in Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 8(b). For
comparison
purposes, a curve of crack speed versus time is shown for a calculation where crack growth is
confined to 1. = 0. For the case in Fig. 7(a), crack speeds based on two definitions of crack position are
shown; A,, = 6,, and A,, = 56,,. The dashed line shows the Rayleigh wave speed.

is based on using A,z 3 6,, to define the crack position

(as is the case for all the
other curves in Fig. 9) and the other curve is based on A,, 3 56,, defining the crack
position. As is evident in Fig. 9, the crack speed versus time curve is not sensitive to
this choice. Oscillations in crack speed versus time, as occur for the case in Fig. 7(a),
have been observed by Fineberg et al. (1992).
For comparison purposes, a curve of crack speed versus time is shown in Fig. 9 for
a calculation
where cmax = 324 MPa along y = 0 in front of the initial crack and
=
972
MPa
for $ # 0, so that the crack is constrained
to grow along the initial
~max
crack line. In this case, the crack speed increases rapidly initially, then rather gradually
to about 900 m ss, and then falls off somewhat when the crack is very near the free
surface ~9 = iv. There are some slight oscillations in crack speed prior to that, probably
due to wave reflections. Abrupt arrest when the crack in Fig. 8(b) reaches the stronger
region is clearly seen in Fig. 9. The crack then remains stationary until the stress level
becomes high enough for it to propagate through the stronger material, which occurs
at t = 10.4 ps. Abrupt crack arrest, although in different circumstances
from what is
modelled here, was observed by Ravi-Chandar
and Knauss (1984a).
Figure 10 shows how the energy of each term in (24) varies as a function of time
for the calculation
in Fig. 7(a), which is a case having uniform properties
and
symmetric loading with V, = - Vz = 5 m s-. In the very early stages of loading,
there is a relatively equal partition of the work done by the imposed loading into
kinetic energy and strain energy stored in the material. As the stresses build up, the
strain energy increases much more than the kinetic energy. Energy stored in the
cohesive surfaces also increases and crack growth eventually initiates. The kinetic
energy and cohesive surface energy increase at the expense of the strain energy after
crack branching.
The strain energy reaches a plateau and then decreases with the
stress relaxation
accompanying
the final stages of failure. As a check, the kinetic

curve

X.-F. XU and A. NEEDLEMAK

1316

24o i
-..- .- .-. -.-.. Work of imposed loading

energy, the strain energy and the elastic energy stored in the cohesive surfaces wcr~
computed and, to a very good ~~pl.oxinl~tioll.
their sum was equal to the work done
by the imposed loading throughout
the deformation
history.

5
_.

CRACK

GROWTH

Figure I1 (a) shows curves of crack speed. ir, versus time for three c~~lc~ll~iti~~lls
where crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane. The fine mesh in Figs 4(c)
and 4(d) is used for these calculations.
but symmetry about ,I. = 0 is imposed so that
only the region ,? 3 0 is analysed numerically.
The only cohesive surface is along
j* = 0 and symmetry about j = 0 is imposed by setting I = (/ = 0. with 6, 7t 0. so
that T = 0 on J = 0. Two block sizes are considered. In both cases. 11~= 10 mm and
(I, = 4.25 mm. For one block L_= I mm, while f. = 3 mm for the other. With f_ = I
mm. the first loading wave arrives at the crack plane at / = 0.48 ,us, the second zt
t = I .44 J~Sand the third at t = 2.39 ps. When L = 3 mm, the loading wave arrives at
I = 1.44 /IS and there are no further wave arrivals over the time interval considered.
The impact velocities are V, = 1Om sag with L = I mm and both I/, = I5 and 30 m
for five impact velocities for the block with II = 10
s1 with L = 3 mm. Calculations
mm and L = 3 mm are shown in Fig. I l(b) using the mesh in Fig. 4(b).
In Fig. 1l(a). when there are no wave reflections (L = 3 mm). the crack speed
increases smoothly to a limiting speed. With V, = I5 m s . a constant speed. just
below the Rayleigh wave speed. is reached when the crack has grown through 340
elements and the plateau corresponds
to growth through 250 elements (the uniform
region of the mesh extends 600 elements in front of the initial crack tip). With I, = 30
m s , ;i constant crack speed is reached after crack growth through 260 elements
and this is maintained
as crack growth extends through 330 elements. In this case.
however. the crack speed is 1010 m s-. which is 7.7% above the Rayleigh W;L\Y

Stmulations

of fast crack growth

1417

speed. Similar trends are seen in Fig. 1 I(b), with the limiting crack speeds being
slightly slower with the coarser mesh. The calculations in Fig. 11(b) show that as the
impact velocity increases, the crack speeds attained get closer together and appear to
be approaching a limiting value. The small amplitude, high frequency fluctuations in
Fig. I l(a) are a consequence of the discretization and the frequency of these fluctuations is lower in Fig. 11(b), where the mesh spacing is larger.
The good agreement between the limiting crack speeds in Figs 11(a) and 1l(b),

1000.0

L=Smm, V,&Omfs

L=3mm, V,=lSm/s

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

t (WI

1000.0

800.0

F
5600.0

.tU
400.0

200.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

p
v =30&s
/,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,/.,,,,,/.,,
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

4.5

5.0

t (Id

Fig. Il. Results for calculations

where crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane, _I. = 0. and
symmetry about x2 = 0 is assumed. (a) Crack speed. 2, versus time. 1. with a 700 x 60 quadrilateral
mesh
for a LU= 10 mmxL = I mm block with V, = IO m s- and for a IZ= 10 mm XL = 3 mm block with
P, = I5 m SK and with V, = 30 m s-. (b) Crack speed, ii, versus time, 1. with a 100x 20 quadrilateral
mesh for a w = 10 mm x L = 3 mm block with I, = 10, IS, 20, 25 and 30 m s-. (c) J versus time, i, for
the cases in (a). The dashed line in (a) and (b) shows the Ravleigh wave speed, while the dashed line in (c)

141x

X.-P. XU and A. NEEDLEMAT\;

600.0

,,,,

,.,,/I,,,,

,.,,,,,

,,,/,,,I

L=Smm
500.0 -

400.0

N~300.0
2
7
200.0

V,=l5m/s
/
i

100.0 -

0.0 ""
0.0

0.5

"""'1"""""'
1.0
1.5

2.0

2.5

"I
3.0

"4
"'
3.5
40

t (lls)
(c)
t.q! I I (~~oil//Jr/wr/)

where the node spacings in the miilorm mesh region ditter by 2~factor of 7.5. show\
that the crack speed exceeding the Rayleigh wave speed is not an artifact of the spatial
discretization.
Furthermore,
with I,, = 30 m s . a numerical experiment in\,olving
increasing the time step by a factor of 5 did not result in a significant change in the
crack speed. although the amplitude
of the high frequency fluctuations
about
the
111eat1 speed did increase substantially.
That the crack speed can exceed the Rayleigh wa\c speed IS a consquence
of the
cohesive surface model. Under quasi-static loading conditions and for non-vanishing
ci,,. decohesion
involves a combination
of crack-like propagation
and ;I lifting-of
mode of separation. Needleman (1990a). To see the implications
of this in the prcscnt
circumstances.
consider ;I plane
wave
impinging
on a cohesi\c surface capable of
purely normal separation.
q = I. = 0 in ( 16). If the stress cnrricd by the plane \va\c
exceeds (T,,,,,,. decohesion
can
occur
uniformly
along
the
surface (cdpe clttcts and
stability considerations
aside) in a lifting-off mode. so that the apparent
speed 01
propagation
along the surface is infinite. With a crack-like defect. the amount of lifoff increases with the amplitude of the loading wave and this can act to increase
the
speed of propagation
when the crack tip position is defined by an opening
displacement. At I., = 30 m s . the stress carried by the loading wave is 231~0 otrr,,,,,,. so that
the effects of the finite strength
are not negligible. Evidence for this is seen in the crack
speed versus time curve for the block with L = I mm and I , = IO 111
s . The rclati\cl\,
abrupt increase in crack speed at I 2 2.4 jts is associated with the art-i\21 of ;I retlected
loading wave.
Figure 1l(c) shows curves of Rices (1968) ./-integral \crsus time. where under
dynamic loading conditions
the computation
of J involves an area integral as well as
a line integral.
as in Nakamura CI N/. (I 985). Here, ./was computed on several contours
ignoring any contribution
of the cohesive surface. Suficiently
far away from the
current crack tip path independent
J values arc obtained. within 2.5!~1over the time
interval in Fig. I I (c) and with even less variation in the early stages of crack gro\vth

Simulations at fastcrack growth

1419

X.-P.

XEJ and A. NEERL~M~N

of

Fig. 11. Contours of the axial physical component

Cuuchy stress. (rll. The extent ol the region s1wu.n is
0. I mm in the j*-direction and 0.073 mm in the ,v-direction. (a) For the wse in Fig. 1I (a) with L = 3 mm
and iV, = 30 m s- at f = 3.06 p (b) The asymptotic field for a crack speed of 910 m \i plotted on the
deformed configuration of Fig. 13(a).

Simulations of fast crack growth

1421

Fig. 15. Deformed finite element meshes at three stages of crack growth for a w = IO mm x L = I mm
black with V, = - Vz = IO m s- using a 700 x I20 ~~adrj~~t~ra~mesh. The extent ofthe region shoxvn is
0.767 mm in the y-direction and 0.4 mm in the ,y-dire&on and the left edge is the initial crack tip posirian.
(a) At t = 1.50jts. (b) At t = 1.75ps. fcf At I = 2.25 #is.

1422

X.-P. XU and A. N~~~LE~A~

225
200
17s
150
$25
toa
75
50
25
0

Fg.

17. Contours

of the axial physical component

f = 1.50 its. (b) At f

of Cauchy

stress. (T:~, over the region in Fig. 15. (a) At

= 1.75 ps. (c) At f = 2.25 /IS.

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1423

200
175
150

125
loo
75
50

25
0

Fig. 18. Contours

of the hoop physical component of Cauchy

r=l.25ps.(b)Att=1.50ps.(c)Att=1.75/~~.

stress, ~Oo.over the region in Fig. 16. (a) At

I424

X.-P. XU and A. NEEDLEMAN

(4

Fig. 20. Deformed meshes for a II = 10 mm x L = 1 mm block with V, = - Vz = 10 m s- using a 100 x 40

quadrilateral
mesh illustrating the modes of crack growth with different cohesive surface orientations.
(a)
15 . at / = 1.71 DS, u = 4.58 mm. (b) 30 . at f = 1.6Ops. a = 4.44mm. (c) 45 , at t = 1.64 ps. CI= 4.66mm.
(d) 60 , at t = 2.86 ps, a = 5.62 mm.

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1425

(within 1% at initiation).
With V, = 10 and 15 m SK, crack growth begins when J
has increased to $,,. With V, = 30 m SK, crack growth begins when J = 346 J me2.
which is 1.8% below 4,,. This may be an effect of the lift-off that occurs at high stress
levels. In any case, J is nearly constant during the early stages of crack growth and
then exceeds 4,,. For the two cases with L = 3 mm, J is varying while there is a
clearly constant value of the crack speed. Values of J were also calculated for the
computations
in Fig. 1 l(b), but high frequency numerical
oscillations
in J were
obtained with the coarser mesh and these masked any trends.
Contours of the axial physical component of Cauchy stress, g2?, are shown in Figs
12 and 13. Figure 12(a) is for the calculation with V, = 15 m s- and b = 928 m s- .
while V, = 30 m ss and ir = 1010 m SK in Fig. 13(a) (recall that the Rayleigh wave
speed is 938 m s-l). For comparison
purposes, corresponding
contours from the
asymptotic
linear elastic field (Freund,
1990, p. 163), are plotted in the current
configuration
in Figs 12(b) and 13(b) for crack speeds of 870 and 910 m SK, respectively. These values of crack speed, with the amplitude of the singular field computed
from the current value of J, were chosen to provide a qualitative, visual match to the
location, shape and orientation
of the stress contours in the range between 100 and
150 MPa. In both cases, the high stresses very near the crack tip that are predicted by
the asymptotic field are reduced by the lift-off. This is particularly
evident in Fig. 13.
The contour plots in Figs 12 and 13 are taken from the last time step of each
calculation
and the fit in Fig. 12 is substantially
better than in Fig. 13. One possible
explanation
is that at higher speeds the region of dominance of the singular fields is
smaller so that the role of non-singular
terms is greater. Another explanation
for the
greater discrepancy
in Fig. 13 is that at the higher crack speed, the time for the
singular field to develop is greater. Although the crack speeds are constant, the stress
fields are evolving and appear to be tending to the linear elastic singular fields.
Approximately
at least, there does appear to be a ring where the stress field is
reasonably
described by the linear elastic singular field, but corresponding
to a
crack speed lower than the actual crack speed. In conventional
linear elastic fracture
mechanics the energy supplied to the crack tip vanishes at the Rayleigh wave speed
(Freund,
1990). If the crack tip stress field is described by a singular linear elastic
crack tip field with a positive energy release rate, that field must correspond
to one
for a crack speed less than the Rayleigh wave speed.
Figure 14 shows a curve of crack speed versus time for a calculation
for the block
with L = 1 mm and where all element boundaries
are cohesive surfaces. Symmetric
loading with V, = - VZ = 10 m SK and the fine mesh in Figs 4(c) and 4(d) is used.
For comparison
purposes. the crack speed versus time curve for the same block size
and loading conditions is repeated from Fig. 11. Crack initiation is somewhat delayed
because the additional
compliance
of the cohesive surfaces somewhat reduces the
stress concentration
at the initial crack tip. The crack speed at first increases smoothly.
then an oscillating crack speed versus time curve is obtained. The crack speed reaches
about 420 m s- (0.45~~) before the first large oscillation in crack speed, which occurs
between t = 1.40 and 1.42 ps. This is shortly before the arrival of the reflected stress
wave at t = 1.44 ps. There are then some high frequency, relatively low amplitude
oscillations in crack speed followed by an attempted branching that gives rise to the
large drop in crack speed at t = 1.57 ps. Crack growth then resumes on the initial

1426

X.-P.
I

Constrained

XU and A. NEEDLEMAN

crack path

z600.0
.!%
.a
400.0

crack plane and the crack speed increases. The crack bifurcates into two branches at
about I = 1.75 ~_ts. In the latter stages of crack growth the mean crack speed is
2350 m s (~0.37c,).
The oscillations
in crack speed for the calculation
with
unconstrained
crack growth are of larger amplitude and lower frequency than the
discretization
induced fluctuations.
Typically. from peak to trough. the crack has
grown through two quadrilateral
elements.
Three stages of crack growth are shown in Fig. 15. Crack growth is initially straight
and the stage shown in Fig. 15(a) is after the first large oscillation in the crack speed
versus time curve in Fig. 14. There is an initial attempt at branching
off the crack
plane that results in a slight asymmetry
about J. = 0. even though the block configuration and loading are symmetric about this axis. This unsuccessful
attempt at
branching results in the protuberance
on the lower crack surface in Fig. 15(b). Crack
branching is not quite symmetric, but for both branches the angle of crack branching
is about 29 in Fig. 15(c). After branching. the crack path changes direction to become
more or less parallel to the j,-axis. as in Figs 6 and 7(a). The initiation of additional
branching can be seen in Fig. 15(c), particularly
in the lower branch.
Figure 16 shows the current crack tip configuration
at three stages of deformation.
In Figs 16(a) and 16(b), the crack growth continues straight ahead. although openings
at k45
to the current crack plane are evident. Figure 16(b) shows that the crack
continued to grow along its initial line and that some of the micro-cracks in Fig. 16(a)
have healed. Figure 16(c) is near the beginning
of crack branching.
Some microcracking not directly connected to the current crack tip can be seen in Fig. 16(c).
In Fig. 17. contour plots of the axial physical component
of Cauchy stress, (T:?. are
shown at the same three stages of crack growth and to the same scale as in Fig. 15.
The first stage is before crack branching, and the expected shape of the elastic singular
field is evident. Even though the amount of crack branching
is small in Fig. 17(b).

Fig. 16.Deformed meshes near the current crack tip at three stages cfcrack growth for 8 M= t 0 mm x t = I
mm block with I/, -I - tl; = 10 m s-l using a 700 x IX! mesh. The extent of the region shawn is 0.07h7
mm in the ,v-directian and 0.04 mm in the )--dire&cm. (aa) At 2 = 125 $s, (b) At I = 1.50 jw. Ic) At

f = 1,75ps.

14%

X.-P.

XU and A. IcEEDLEMAI\;

the surrounding
stress field is affected. After substantial
branching.
Fig. 17(c). local
high stress fields have developed near the tip of each branch. However. the beginning
of further branching can be seen at this stage.
The contour plots of (TV),,,
the hoop stress component
in a polar coordinate system
centered at the current crack tip position with 0 measured from the J-axis. in Fig. IX
show the stress distribution
near the current crack tip (the same region as shown in
Fig. 16). At the stage shown in Fig. IS(a), the crack speed VU-sus time curve is still
smooth and crack growth is straight ahead. Figure 1X(b) is the same stage of crack
growth as Fig. 17(a) and there is crack growth along several directions
lrom the
current crack tip. It appears that each branch is essentially growing in a Mode I
fashion. However. the very local details are not resolved by the discretization
used
here. For example, the extensions at the tip of the main crack extend only one or two
elements and with the constant strain triangles. the detailed stress distribution
around
the new branches is not resolved. In any case, crack growth immediately
following
the stage in Fig. 18(b) is straight ahead and the additional
branches close. Figure
IX(c) is the same stage as Fig. 17(b) ; crack growth now continues along the branches
off the initial crack line and the opening directly in front of the main crack closes.
Some opening of the cohesive surfaces can be seen in the region around the main
crack tip as a consequence
of the relatively high stresses that occur away from the
main crack tip.
In all the calculations
so far. the cohesive surfaces not along the coordinate
axe\
have been taken to be at + 45 to them. Figures 19 and 20 show the effects of varying
this angle. Curves of crack speed versus time for cohesive surfaces at IS . 45 and 60
to the initial crack line are shown in Fig. 19. Figure 20 shows the modes of crack
growth for four cases; 15 , 30 . 45 and 60 cohesive surfaces (for clarity, curbus of
crack speed versus time are only shown for three of these cases in Fig. 19). In these

800.0 -

T600.0
g
.CU

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1429

calculations L = 1 mm, the loading is symmetric with V, = - VZ= 10 m s-r and a

100 x 40 quadrilateral mesh was used. For the cases with 15 and 30 cohesive surfaces,
the crack grows in a zigzag mode from the point of initial crack growth. All three
cohesive surfaces at the initial crack tip open, but crack growth eventually occurs on
only one of the cohesive surfaces off the initial crack plane, and healing takes place
on the other two. Initial crack growth is straight ahead for the 45 and 60 cases.
Since the geometric configuration and loading are symmetric, the asymmetry in the
mode of crack growth is due to the very small perturbations that are inevitable in a
numerical solution. For the cases with 15, 30 and 45 cohesive surfaces, the onset
of crack bifurcation occurs at a = 4.58, 4.44 and 4.66 mm, respectively, and the
corresponding crack speeds are ci = 725, 553 and 654 m s-. Note that the crack
branching point does not vary monotonically with cohesive surface orientation. Also,
it appears that crack bifurcation is imminent in the 60 case as well, but the stage of
deformation shown in Fig. 20(d), at a = 5.62 mm, is near the end of the uniform
mesh region. The crack speed versus time curve in Fig. 19 for the case with cohesive
surfaces at 15 shows lower amplitude oscillations with crack zigzagging and higher
amplitude oscillations associated with crack branching. A similar curve was obtained
for the calculation with cohesive surfaces at 30.
Additional calculations were carried out to explore the effect of varying various
parameters. For the case with cohesive surfaces at 30 a calculation was carried out
with V, = 5 m sP . Crack growth in a zigzag mode occurred as seen in Fig. 20, but
crack branching was delayed until LZ= 4.60 mm. A calculation was also carried out
for the 30 case and V, = IO m s-l with the cohesive surface parameter P= 0.5, as
opposed to r = 0, which was used in all other calculations. There was no change in
the qualitative response ; branching was slightly delayed from a = 4.44 to 4.48 mm.
Finally, one calculation with 45 cohesive surfaces was carried out with T,,,~halved,
so that q = 0.5. Again, the qualitative response was the same, but crack branching
occurred somewhat sooner, at CI= 4.60 mm, instead of at CI= 4.66 mm as in Fig. 20.

6.

DISCUSSION

When crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane, and over a time scale
before wave reflections from the block boundaries reach the crack, the crack speed
reaches a plateau that increases with increasing impact velocity and that appears to
be reaching a limiting value for large impact velocities [Fig. 11(b)]. What is surprising
is that this plateau can exceed the Rayleigh wave speed. This can be understood as a
consequence of the finite strength of the cohesive surface; for V, = 30 m s-, the
stress carried by the loading wave is 23% of urnaxand the separation mode is a
combination ofcrack-like propagation and lift-off. It seems plausible that the Rayleigh
wave speed limit would be obtained as crmax---fcc, because for Mode I crack-like
behavior conventional fracture mechanics corresponds to the limit cmax-+ co and 6,, -+ 0
(with & remaining finite). It is interesting to note that crack speeds inferred from
linear elastic singular fields, as in Figs 12 and 13, are less than the Rayleigh wave
speed. Thus, the present results suggest the possibility that crack speeds determined

I430

X.-P. XU and A. NEEDLEMAN

experimentally
from a measure of crack position versus time and those determined
from a measure of the crack tip stress field could differ.
The calculations
provide a rationale for the result that very high crack speeds.
approaching
90% of the Rayleigh wave speed. have been measured in -anisotropic
solids, but that limiting crack speeds in isotropic solids are closer to 50% of the
Rayleigh wave speed (Field, 1971). The cohesive surface formulation
indicates that
what matters is the orientation
dependence
of strength, with the initial crack plane
being weaker than alternative
cleavage planes, so that crack growth off the initial
crack plane is suppressed. or at least delayed. Similarly, the observation
that very fast
crack speeds can be obtained
in isotropic solids when the initial crack plane is
intentionally
weakened (Lee and Knauss, 19X9) is consistent with the present results.
For fast cracks very large stresses occur over some distance around the crack. Some
microcracking
unconnected
to the main crack is seen in the computations
even though
the cohesive properties have been taken to be uniform. lf some statistical distribution
of defects were included in the problem formulation,
more extensive microcrackins
would be expected.
Yoffe (1951) observed that the hoop stress maximum shifts to about 60 from the
initial crack plane when the crack speed exceeds O.~C,. This has been identitied as the
speed for crack branching
given by linear elastic fracture mechanics.
so that the
general observation
that crack branching and crack surface roughening are associated
The picture of crack growth that
with crack speeds 20.4~, has been unexplained.
emerges from the calculations
here is as if the crack were performing a stability test
at each step. Some crack growth occurs along each cohesive surface emanating from
the current crack tip. A point is reached at which one or more of the incipient cracks
continue to grow and the remaining unload and close. The oscillations
in the crack
speed versus time curves occur shortly before crack branching and are not associated
with any dramatic change in the mode of crack growth; crack extension appears to
slow down as growth occurs along several alternative
branches and then speed up
when the crack extends along one or more of these branches and the others heal. This
scenario suggests that the crack speed oscillations are associated with the resistance
to crack growth being nearly the same for straight ahead growth as for growth along
the inclined branches.
Indeed, Rice ct (I/. (1994) have recently observed that the
analyses of Eshelby (1970) and Freund (1972) indicate that there is enough energy
available to create two crack surfaces as was available to create one when the crack
speed is about 0.45~,,.
Once the point of incipient branching
is reached, the branching
process can be
sensitive to small perturbations.
For example, the very small asymmetries induced by
the numerics leads to the somewhat asymmetric mode of crack growth in Fig. 15. The
sensitivity to numerical perturbations
is more pronounced
in Fig. 20. For the cases
with cohesive surfaces at + 15 and + 30 to the coordinate
axes, crack growth
initiates in a zigzag mode, even though the block configuration
and the loading are
symmetric. Within the context of the cohesive surface model. the tendency to zigzag
depends on the orientation
of the cohesive surfaces relative to the initial crack line.
The crack growth mode prior to branching is much like the wavy crack mode discussed
by Gao (1993).
The oscillations in the crack speed versus time curve in Fig. 14 are very much like

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1431

those observed by Fineberg et al. (1992). The correlation

found here between these
oscillations and incipient crack branching is consistent with the relation between crack
speed oscillations
and fracture surface roughness found by Fineberg et al. (1992),
although the calculations are two dimensional
while the roughness in the experiments
was fully three dimensional.
It is expected that a corresponding
three dimensional
analysis would lead to non-uniform
growth in the crack plane as well as out of it.
Rice et al. (1993) carried out a perturbation
solution for a three dimensional
model
problem with a single displacement
variable that satisfies the wave equation. Oscillations in response arise from pre-existing heterogeneities
in fracture resistance on the
crack plane. This is different from the situation here where oscillations in crack speed
occur with spatially uniform properties (but separation is limited to discrete surfaces).
When discretized, the present formulation
leads to a set of equations that can be
regarded as representing
a collection of nodal points connected by springs. Viewed
this way, it bears some relation to discrete models of macroscopic
cracks. Discrete
lattice models have been used to address issues of fast fracture in brittle solids, e.g.
Kulakhmetova
et al. (1984) and Marder and Liu (1993). Marder and Liu (1993) have
shown that straight ahead steady state crack growth in a triangular lattice becomes
unstable at a critical crack speed. Above this speed, the solution involves the breaking
of bonds off the initial crack line. Although such discrete models give a range of
possible paths for defect growth, the extent to which they provide an accurate representation
of macroscopic cracks is questionable.
The cohesive surface formulation
includes a description of the separation process within a framework that allows the
continuum
stress and deformation
fields to be resolved. In this regard, it is interesting
to note that some qualitative features of fast crack growth in brittle solids are reproduced by analyses (Figs 6-8) that clearly do not resolve the details of the crack tip
fields. However, there are important features, e.g. the crack speed at which branching
occurs and the average crack speed after branching,
that do require more detailed
resolution.
Continuum
formulations
are available, such as the cleavage grain formulation
in
Tvergaard and Needleman (1993) or the cell model of Broberg (1979), where brittle
fracture involves the loss of stress carrying capacity over a volume (or area). In
particular, Johnson (1992, 1993) has carried out finite element calculations
of rapid
crack growth in brittle solids using a cell damage model where the linear elastic
stiffness tensor is multiplied by a factor that is a function of the relative density and
that decreases from unity to zero with decreasing density. The physical basis for this
damage model is not clear. A limiting crack speed is found in a number of the
calculations,
but interestingly
not when softening is allowed in only one row of
elements. Crack branching
is also found to occur for certain parameter
values.
However, in the implementation
in Johnson (1992, 1993) the cell size is tied to the
finite element mesh size, so that there is no way to distinguish
between cell size
dependence and mesh size dependence. In contrast, in the cohesive surface framework,
the characteristic
length associated with the cohesive surfaces is independent
of the
discretization,
and the finite element size and the cohesive surface spacing can be
varied independently.
In principle, the extension of the present formulation
to three dimensions is straightforward. although
the increase in the computational
resources needed would be

I431

X-P. XII and A. NEEDLEMAN

substantial. The two dimensional

calculation in Figs 14-I X using the 700 x 120 quadrilateral mesh and having 2016,000 degrees of freedom took 30.914 time steps and
required about 22.5 h of CPU time on a Gray C90 computer with the code running
at 265 MFlops. A similar calculation using a mesh with 100 x 40 quadrilateral
elements
and having 96.000 degrees of freedom took 4200 time steps and required about X min
of CPU time for the same amount of crack growth. The computer time could be
reduced somewhat by having some, rather than all. element boundaries
as cohesive
surfaces. Also, additional code optimizations
are most likely possible.
For quantitative
predictions, an accurate characterization
of the cohesive properties
of the material is required. While difficult in practice, what is needed is conceptually
clear. What is more difficult to quantify. except for crystalline solids or for interfacial
fracture, is the geometry of the cohesive surfaces. The computations
indicate that
some features of the response. e.g. crack branching.
are not particularly
sensitive to
this characterization,
but others, such as crack zigzagging. are. Also. while a systematic
mesh refinement study was not carried out. the agreement between calculations
using
various degrees of mesh resolution
suggests that the finer meshes do accurately
represent the initial-boundary
value problem solutions. For example. even though
the cohesive surfaces in Fig. 15 are parallel to the coordinate axes or at i45
to them.
the crack branching angles are about 29 Furthermore,
the crack branching angle in
this fine mesh calculation
is not very different from those in the coarse mesh calculations in Figs 6 and 7(a).
The computational
framework involves the explicit solution of the equations
of
motion. The increase in the number of equations associated with the additional finite
element nodal points in the present formulation
would make a quasi-static
solution
based on a direct solution of a system of linear equations
prohibitively
expensive.
However, quasi-static crack growth phenomena
could be investigated using dynamic
relaxation or other iterative methods.
In the computations.
both the material stress ~strain response and the cohesive
surface separation
law have been taken to be elastic. The results show that many
characteristic
features of fast crack growth in brittle solids occur in such a conservative
system. In the calculations,
the microcracking
and attempted branching prior to the
actual onset of branching are suggestive of the mirror.
mist, hackle fracture
surface evolution often seen in fast brittle fracture. e.g. Field (1971). Ravi-Chandar
and Knauss (1984b). However, due to the elastic characterization
of the cohesive
surfaces much complete crack healing occurs. A more realistic model would account
for time dependence of the separation process, which would preclude complete crack
healing after some opening time. Also. in the computations
the only interaction
between material elements is through the initial cohesive surface. Large separations
can occur and, effectively, free bodies can be created as fracture progresses. Here, the
motion of such free bodies is unimpeded by the surrounding
material. Computation
of extensive fracturing
and. in particular.
of the transition
from cracking to fragmentation would need to account for such interactions.
In the cohesive surface formulation,
the fracture resistance ofthe material is characterized by the geometry and properties of a set of cohesive surfaces. Calculations
carried out within this framework provide a unified description of a broad range of
observed phenomena characteristic
of fast crack growth in brittle solids. They exhibit.

Simulations

of fast crack growth

1433

in detail, the relation between the mode of crack growth and crack speed. The present
formulation, perhaps involving other cohesive surface and material constitutive
relations, can be used to investigate a variety of fracture processes that have not, at
least readily, been amenable to treatment within a conventional fracture mechanics
framework.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant DDM-9016568.
We are grateful to Professor L. B. Freund of Brown University for helpful discussions. A.N.s
work on this topic was stimulated by participation
in the program on Spatially Extended
Nonequilibrium
Systems at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California.
Santa Barbara during October-November
1992. The computations
were carried out on the
Cray C90 computer at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing
Center.

REFERENCES
Belytschko, T., Chiapetta,
R. L. and Bartel, H. D. (1976) Efficient large scale non-linear
transient analysis by finite elements. ht. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 10, 579.. 596.
Belytschko, T., Lu, Y. Y. and Gu, L. (1994) Element free Galerkin methods. ht. J. Numer.
Mcth. Engng 37, 229-256.
Broberg. K. B. (1979) On the behaviour of the process region at a fast running crack tip. H&h
Velocity D~~~r~~at~ana_fSoiid.~ (ed. K. Kawata and J. Shioiri), pp. 182-194. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Eshelby, J. D. (1970) Energy relations and the energy-momentum
tensor in continuum mechanics. Inelastic Behariur cfSo/ids (ed. M. F. Kanninen, W. F. Adler, A. R. Rosenfield and
R. I. Jaffe), pp. 77-l 15. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Field, J. E. (1971) Brittle fracture : its study and application. Cuntemp. Ph?Fs. 12, l-31.
Fineberg, J., Gross, S. P.. Marder, M. and Swinney, H. L. (1992) Instability in the propagation
of fast cracks. PhJs. Rec. B45, 5146--5154.
Finot, M., Shen, Y.-L., Needleman, A. and Suresh, S. (1994) Micromechanical
modelling of
reinforcement
fracture in particle-reinforced
metal-matrix composites. Metall. Trans. (to be
published).
Freund, L. B. (1972) Crack propagation
in an elastic solid subject to general loading-I.
Constant rate of extension. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20, 129-140.
Freund, L. B. (1990) Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gao, H. (1993) Surface roughening and branching instabilities in dynamic fracture. J. Hertz.
Phys. Solids 41,457-486.
Johnson, E. (1992) Process region changes for rapidly propagating
cracks. ht. J. Fract. 55,
47-63.
Johnson, E. (1993) Process region influence on energy release rate and crack tip velocity during
rapid crack propagation.
ht. J. Fract. 61, 183-187.
Krieg, R. D. and Key, S. W. (1973) Transient shell response by numerical time integration.
Int. J. Numrr. Meths. Engng 7, 273-286.
Kulakhmetova.
Sh. A., Saraikin, V. A. and Slepyan, L. 1. (1984) Plane problem of a crack in
a lattice. Me&. Solids 19, 102-108.
Lee, 0. S. and Knauss, W. G. (1989) Dynamic crack propagation along a weakly bonded plane
in a polymer. E-y. Mech. 29, 342-345.
Levy, A. J. (1994) Separation at a circular interface under biaxial load. J. Me&. Phys. Solids
42, 1087-I 104.
Marder. M. and Liu, X. (1993) Instability in lattice fracture. P&s. Rev. Lett. 71, 2417-2420.

1434

X.-P. XU and A. I\jEEDLEMAh

McClintock. F. A. and Argon. A. S. ( 1966) M~~~~Iz~IIII~~/

Bcltuc?o~ of .Wtrrwitr/s. Addison-Wale)
Reading, MA.
Nakamura.
T.. Shih. c. F. and Freund. L. R. (19X5) Computattonal
methods baed on an
energy integral in dynamic fracture. /,?I. J. Ftw/. 27, 229 243.
Needleman. A. (1987) A continuum model for void nucleation by inclusion debonding. .I. ,1/1,1)1.
:zIPc~ll.54, 525 53 1.
Nccdleman. A. ( IYYOa) An analysis of decohcsion along an imperfwt interface. I/r/. ./. l-rwr.
42, I 40.
Needleman. A. ( IYYOb)
An analysis of tensile dccohcsion alon, ~7an tntcrface. .1. ~ll~~~~/i.
P/II.\.
Solic/.s 38, 289 324.
Needleman. A. and Tvergaard. V. (1987) An analysis of ductrlc rupture modes al :I crack lip.
J. Mwlr. P/t,r.s. S0litl.s 35, I51 I 8.1.
Povirk. G. L., Needleman.
A. and Nutt. S. R. (lY91) An analysis of the effect of residual
stresses on deformation
and damage mechanisms in AI-Sic composites.
Mtr/cr. %. &qqq
Al32, 31 38.
Ravi-Chandar,
K. and Knauss. W. G. (lYX4a) An rxperimcntal
inwstigation
into dynamic
fracture: I. Crack initiation and art-at. I/r/. J. F/w/. 25, 347 262.
Ravi-Chandar,
K. and Knauss, W. G. (1984b) An experimental
investigation
into dynamic
fracture: II. Microstructural
aspects. Irrt. J. Fwc,t. 26, 65 X0.
Rav-Chandar.
K. and Knauss. W. G. (19x4~) An experimental
inwstigation
into dynamic
fracture: 111.On steady-state crack propagation
and crack branching. //I/. ./. Fwc,r. 26, I31
154.
Rice. J. R. (1968) A path independent
integral and the approxtmate
analysts of strain conccntration by notches and cracks. J. A//II. M&I. 35, 37Y 386.
Rice, J. R.. Ben-Zion. Y. and Kim. K.-S. (1994) Three-dimcnsion~tl
perturbation
solutton fot
a dynamic planar crack moving unsteadily in a model elastic solid. $1.Mwh. P/r)..\. So/it/.\ 42,
x13- X43.
Rose. .I. H.. Fcrrante, J. and Smith. J. R. (IYXI) Universal binding energy curvc~ for metals
and bimetallic interfaces. P/t~~.v.RN. Lcf/. 47, 675- 67X.
Slcpyan. L. I. (1993) Principle of maximum energy dissipation ralc in crack dynamics. ./. :Zlw/t.
P/lj~.$.Solit/.s41, 1019 1033.
Suo. Z.. Orti7. M. and Nccdletnan. A. (199) Stability of solids with interfaces. J. :Zlec#t. P/t>.\.
Solids 40, 6 I 3 640.
Tvergaard. V. (19X2) Influence of\~id nucleation on ductile shear fracture at ;I fret surtitcc. ./.
,Wct,/t. P/I~,s. Solid5 30, 399 425.
Tvergaard, V. (1990) Effect of tibre dcbonding in ;I whisker-reinforced
metal. /Lltr/w. SC,/. Dtqr~q
A125, 203 213.
Tvergaard. V. and Hutchinson, J. W. (IYY?) The relation between crack grwth resislance and
fracture process parameters in elastic plastic solids. J. Mwh. ~/I~~.s.So/it/.\ 40, 1377 I iY2.
Tvergaard, V. and Hutchinson. J. W. (1993) The influence ofplasttctty on mixed mode interface
toughness. J. Mcc,h. P/r!,.\. Solids 41, 1I I9 1135.
Tvcrgaard. V. and Needleman. A. (1993) An analysis ofthc brittle ductile transition in dynamic
crack growth. 1//r. J. Frtrc t. 59, 53 67.
Xu. X.-P. and Needleman.
A. (lY93) Void nuclcahn
by inclusion dcbondinp
in a cryatal
matrix. il4Ofl~ll. Sirulrl. ,VMt/lrr. SC,;. Dlg/?,q 1, I I I 132.
Xu. X.-P.
and Nccdleman.
A. (1994) Continuum
modelling of interfactal dccoheston.
Di.\/oc,ctrio/~.yY3, Solid Srcrte P/tcvto/w/t~~ Vol. 35 36 (cd. J. Rabier. A. George. Y. Brcchet and L.
Kuhin). pp. 287 302. Scitec Publications, Zug, Switzerland.
Y&e. E. H. (1951) The moving Griffith crack. Phil. Mugg. 42, 730 750.