Ansys Fracture Tutorial

Universitat de Girona
FRACTURE MECHANICS
Computer lab sessions
D. Trias
October 2012
This document can be found at: ftp://amade.udg.edu/amade/mme/MecFrac/MecFrac.pdf
Contents
1 Singular stresses
1.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.1
Effect of element type, size and shape
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1.2
Finite element discretisation of stresses at a crack tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
Quarter point / crack tip elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3
Creating quarter mid-nodes at crack tip with ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.1
Meshing with usual tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3.2
Meshing with special tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
1.4
Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
1.5
Suggested problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
1.6
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
2 Computational Fracture Mechanics I: Computation of G
17
2.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
2.2
Finite Crack Extension Method (FCEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
2.3
Crack Closure Method (CCM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
2.4
Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
2.5
Suggested exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
2.6
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
3 Computational Fracture Mechanics II: Computation of K
27
3.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.2
The stress intensity factor (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
3.2.1
Numerical estimation of the stresses at the crack tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
3.2.2
Computation of K by stress extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
3.2.3
Computation of K by displacement extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
3.2.4
Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Displacement extrapolation with quarter node elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
3.3.1
Formulae for the stress intensity factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
ANSYS commands for the computation of K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
3.4.1
Crack opening displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
3.4.2
KCALC command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
3.3
3.4
iii
3.5
Proposed exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
3.6
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
4 Computational Fracture Mechanics III: Computation of the J-integral
37
4.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
4.2
The J integral with ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
4.3
39
4.4
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
5 Computational Fracture Mechanics IV: Cohesive zone modeling
41
5.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
5.2
Cohesive laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
5.2.1
Bilinear law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
5.2.2
Exponential law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
Cohesive elements in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
5.3.1
Cohesive zone modeling with interface elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
5.3.2
Cohesive zone modeling with contact elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
48
5.4
Some remarks on element size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
5.5
51
5.6
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
5.7
Aknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
5.3
Chapter 1
Singular stresses
1.1
Introduction
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics deals with cracked solids. This means the stress and strain fields within
this loaded solids are assumed to be influenced somehow by the presence of cracks. In order to analyze
which is the efect of these cracks let us model a simple cracked plate.
Example 1.1 (Analysis of a cracked plate). Let us assume we consider the analysis of the cracked plate
component of Figure 1.1 by the Finite Element Method.
Figure 1.1: Plate with a central sharp crack.
For the sake of simplicity let us assume the material of the plate is steel and the applied pressure is 1
MPa.
Solution to Example 1.1. The ANSYST M command sequence for this example is listed below. You can either
type these commands on the command window, or you can type them on a file, then, on the command window enter
/input, file, ext or just use copy and paste.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/TITLE Stress singularity
Fracture Mechanics
!PRE-PROCESSOR *******************************
/PREP7
!Geometrical parameters
L = 50 ! Half length of component
a = 10 ! Crack half length
b = 0 ! Crack width
th = 30 ! Component thickness
el_len = 5 ! Element length (mesh)
el_shape=0 ! 0: quad, 1: triangle
ET,1,PLANE42 !4 node solid element
!ET,1,PLANE82 !8 node solid element
!Material properties
MP,EX,1,210000 !Young modulus
MP,PRXY,1,0.3 !Poissons coef.
KEYOPT,1,3,3 !Keyoption for thickness activation
R,1,th !Thickness for element type #1
!Geometry definition by keypoints
K,1,a,0
K,2,L,0
K,3,L,L
K,4,0,L
K,5,0,b
!Lines from keypoints
L,1,2,(L-a)/el_len
L,2,3,L/el_len
L,3,4,L/el_len
L,4,5,(L-b)/el_len
L,5,1,a/el_len
!Areas from lines
AL,1,2,3,4,5
!Mesh
LCCAT,5,1
MSHAPE, el_shape, 2D
MSHKEY,2
AMESH,ALL
FINISH
!SOLUTION ***********************************
/SOLU
Chapter 1. Singular stresses
DL,1,1,SYMM
DL,4,1,SYMM
SFL,3,PRES,-1 !Pressure on top tip
SOLVE
FINISH
!POST-PROCESSOR ****************************
/POST1
PLDISP,1 !Deformed shape

PLNSOL,S,Y ! Stresses Y direction
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! Path plot of stress components at theta=0
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!PATH,0DEG,2,10,50
!PPATH,1,,a,0,0
!PPATH,2,,3*a,0,0
!PDEF,SX,S,X,NOAV
!PDEF,SY,S,Y,NOAV
!PDEF,UY,U,Y,NOAV
!PDEF,SY2,S,Y,AVG
!PLPATH,SY2
!PLPATH,SX
!PLPATH,UY
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! Path plot of stress components at theta=45 deg
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PATH,45DEG,2,10,50
PPATH,1,,a,0,0
PPATH,2,,3*a,3*a-a,0
PDEF,SX,S,X,NOAV
PDEF,SY,S,Y,NOAV
PDEF,UY,U,Y,NOAV
PDEF,SY2,S,Y,AVG
PLPATH,UY
PLPATH,SX
PLPATH,SY
PRPATH,SY
FINISH
This file can be found at:

ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/1_stress_sing.dat
Fracture Mechanics
1.1.1
Effect of element type, size and shape
Let us consider now the effect of element size, type and shape in the stress field of the analyzed plate. To
do so, let us fill in the following table:
Element size
Triangle
Triangle
Quad
Quad
(el _l en )
PLANE42
PLANE82
PLANE42
PLANE42
1 mm
2 mm
3 mm
4 mm
1.1.2
Finite element discretisation of stresses at a crack tip
Try to explain what happens when regular elements are employed to approximate the stress field at a crack
tip. You may employ Fig 1.2 by drawing on it the stress field, different discretization sizes and the approximation obtained by each one. You may start thinking what happens when constant strain elements are used
and then try to figure out which is the solution given by linear elements.
Figure 1.2: Finite element discretization of the stresses near the crack tip
As you may have noticed, traditional engineering maximum stress-based failure analysis become senseless
when stress singularities appear, so other approaches must be used. These are basically stress intensity factor
(K) based approaches and energy release rate (G) based approaches. While G-based and K-based approaches
are the main topic of next chapters, the next section gives an introduction of quarter node tip elements,
which are used to capture efficiently the stress singularity in a finite element discretization.
1.2
Quarter point / crack tip elements

p
The aim of these elements is to introduce in the element formulation a stress singularity of the 1/ r type.
This is useful for stress related approaches, such as the numerical computation of the stress intensity factor.
To do so we may start by recalling the isoparametric formulation of a 1D quadratic Lagrangian element:
Figure 1.3: 8 node isoparametric quadrilateral element
N1
N2
N3
1
= (1 )
2
= (1 2 )
1
=
(1 + )
2
(1.1)
(1.2)
(1.3)
Since for an isoparametric element the same approximation for the geometry and for the displacements
is used, the geometry of the 1-3 edge may be expressed:
x=
n=3
X
i
1
1
Ni x i = (1 )x 1 + (1 2 )x 2 + (1 + )x 3
2
2
Figure 1.4: 8 node isoparametric element with quarter-side located mid-nodes
(1.4)
Fracture Mechanics
Then if we locate the origin of a quad element of side length L at node 1 and locate the mid-node (node
#2) at x 2 = L/4, as shown in Figure 1.4:
1
L
x = (1 + )L + (1 2 )
2
4
(1.5)
And solving for :

r
= 1 + 2
x
L
(1.6)
As you remember, the displacement approximation is given by:

u=
n=3
X
i
1
1
Ni u i = (1 )u 1 + (1 2 )u 2 + (1 + )u 3
2
2
(1.7)
where u 1 , u 2 and u 3 are the displacements at nodes 1,2 and 3. Using equation 1.6 in the former equation
we obtain the expression of the displacements as a function of the geometry (x):
r
r
r r
1
x
x
x x
x
x
1
u = 1 + 2
22
u1 + 4
u 2 + 1 + 2
2
u3
2
L
L
L L
2
L
L
(1.8)
If we now compute the strain in the x direction:
u u
1
3
4
2
4
4
1
1
=
= p
u1 + p
u1 + p +
u3
(1.9)
x x
2
2
xL L
xL L
xL L
p
We may easily verify that the former expression is a function of (1/ x) and, consequently, the strain
x =
field presents a singularity.

However, for a 2D element we might apply the same method for the 8-node serendipity element of Figure
1.4. This way, the singularity would be present only along the edge 1-3, and r would not be singular. We
may obtain a radial singular stress field by collapsing nodes 4, 5 and 6 of the quad of Figure 1.4, ash shown
in Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5: Quarter tip element from collapsed 8 node quadrilateral
1.3
Creating quarter mid-nodes at crack tip with ANSYS
As seen in the former sections, if we have to deal with the stresses when stress singularities are present it
is useful to use some kind of special elements. We also showed how, actually, these special elements may
be constructed from regular elements just by placing the mid-side nodes at a quarter of the element side
length of the crack tip. We usually may do this by our means or by using some special commands provided
by the commercial finite element software.
1.3.1
Meshing with usual tools
We may construct this kind of mesh at a crack tip manually, that is, placing the corresponding mid-side
nodes at a distance of a quarter of the side from the crack tip. The following ANSYS log file analyzes the
same problem of Figure 1.1, using N, NGEN and E commands to build the mesh.
Example 1.2. Model the cracked plate of Figure 1.1 using the isoparametric quarter node elements presented
in Section 1.2. Locate the quarter nodes by using ANSYS common node and element generation commands.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/TITLE Stress singularity - Mesh #2
!===================================
!PRE-PROCESSOR
!----------------------------------/PREP7
! Geometrical parameters in mm
L = 5 ! Plate length
a = 1 ! Crack length
b = 0 ! Crack heigth
th = 1 ! Plate thickness
el_len = 0.2 ! Element length
pi= 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
fx = a/10
rdiv = 4 ! radial divisions at crack tip (must be 4)
tdiv = 12 ! angular divisions at crack tip
rdiv2 = 10
ET,1,PLANE42
Fracture Mechanics
MP,PRXY,1,0.3 !Poissons ratio
KEYOPT,1,3,3 !Keyoption to introduce thickness in element 42
R,1,th ! Thickness
!Keypoints which define the geometry
K,1,a,0
K,2,L,0
K,3,L,L
K,4,0,L
K,5,0,b
K,6,a,L
K,7,2*a,0
K,8,2*a,a
K,9,a,a
K,10,0,a
K,11,a+2*fx,0
K,12,a,2*fx
K,13,a-2*fx,0
! Lines
L,1,11,100,1000 !1
L,11,7,rdiv2 !2
L,7,2,10 !3
L,2,3,tdiv/4 !4
L,3,6,tdiv/4 !5
L,4,10,10 !6
L,10,5,tdiv/4 !7
L,10,9,tdiv/4 !8
L,9,8,tdiv/4 !9
L,7,8,tdiv/4 !10
L,5,13,rdiv2 !11
L,9,12,rdiv2 !12
!L,1,13,85,20 !13
L,1,13,100,1000 !13
LARC, 11, 12, 1, 2*fx !14
LARC, 12, 13, 1, 2*fx !15
LESIZE,14,,,tdiv/2
LESIZE,15,,,tdiv/2
L,1,12,100,1000 !16
L,6,4,tdiv/4 !17
L,9,6,10 !18
! Nodes
CLOCAL,11,1,a,0,0
CSYS,11
N,1,0,0,0
N,rdiv,2*fx,0,0
FILL,1,,1,2,1,,,1
NGEN,tdiv*2+1,10,2,rdiv,1,0,90/tdiv,0,0
csys,1
! Generate 1/4 nodes
*DO,I,1,tdiv+1
FILL,1,2+20*(I-1),1,1000+I,,,,3
*ENDDO
*DO,I,1,tdiv+1
FILL,2+20*(I-1),4+20*(I-1),1,2000+20*(I-1),,,,1
*ENDDO
csys,1
ET,2,PLANE82
KEYOPT,2,3,3 !Keyoption to introduce thickness in element 82
R,2,th !thickness
TYPE,2
! Elements
csys,11
*DO,I,1,tdiv
E,2+20*(I-1),2+20*I,1,1,12+(I-1)*20,1001+I,1,1000+I
*ENDDO
E,2,4,24,22,2000,14,2020,12
EGEN,tdiv,20,tdiv+1
AL,2,10,9,12,14 ! Area created from lines

AL,11,15,12,8,7
AL,3,4,5,18,9,10
AL,18,17,6,8
AL,1,14,16
AL,16,15,13
ASBA,1,5,,DELETE,DELETE
ASBA,2,6,,DELETE,DELETE
LCCAT,4,5 !19
LCCAT,9,10 !20
LCCAT,7,8 !21
TYPE,2
!MSHKEY,2
AMESH,1,4 !Mesh
csys,11
10
Fracture Mechanics
NSEL,S,LOC,X,2*fx-fx/50,2*fx+fx/50
NUMMRG,NODE,0.001
theta=pi/(2*tdiv)
!*DO,I,1,tdiv
!NMODIF,12+20*(I-1),fx*cos(theta)
!NMODIF,14+20*(I-1),2*fx*cos(theta)
!*ENDDO
/PSYMB,ESYS,1
csys,0
ALLSEL
FINISH
/SOLU
ANTYPE,0
D,1,UY,0
D,1,ROTZ,0
D,2,UY,0
D,2,ROTZ,0
DL,1,5,SYMM
DL,2,1,SYMM
DL,3,3,SYMM
DL,6,4,SYMM
DL,7,2,SYMM
SFL,5,PRES,-1 !Pressure applied to upper line
SFL,17,PRES,-1
ALLSEL
SOLVE
FINISH
!===================================
!POST-PROCESSOR
!----------------------------------/POST1
PLDISP,1 !Deformed shape
PLNSOL,S,Y ! Stresses Y direction
angle=pi/6
PATH,30DEG,2,10,100
PPATH,1,,a,0,0
PPATH,2,,a+cos(angle),sin(angle),0
PDEF,SX,S,X,NOAV
11
PDEF,SY,S,Y
PDEF,UY,U,Y,NOAV
PLPATH,SY
PLPATH,SX
PRPATH
FINISH
ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/1_quarter_mid_nodes.dat
Figure 1.6 shows the different path plots for different elements sizes when using ANSYS PLANE42 and
PLANE82 elements compared to the solution obtained with 2 mm Quarter mid-side node elements which
were constructed the way described above. Results show as these elements are able to provide a solution
p
similar to that obtained by much smaller elements. Since these elements include the 1/ r singularity, they
do not provide a value for r = 0, which is the singular point.
0.5 mm PLANE42 TRI

2 mm PLANE42 TRI
5 mm PLANE42 TRI
Quarter midside nodes
yy (MPa)
yy (MPa)
5
4
3
5
4
3
2
1
0
2
2
r0 (mm)
3
2
r0 (mm)
10
1 mm PLANE82 QUAD
2 mm PLANE82 QUAD
5 mm PLANE82 QUAD
5
yy (MPa)
1
0
1
0
10
0.5 mm PLANE42 QUAD

2 mm PLANE42 QUAD
5 mm PLANE42 QUAD
5
yy (MPa)
1 mm PLANE82 TRI
2 mm PLANE82 TRI
5 mm PLANE82 TRI
4
3
2
r0 (mm)
10
1
0
r (mm)
10
Figure 1.6: y y at the crack tip region for the analyzed plate, as obtained with different element type/size
and with Quarter mid-side node elements (45o path)
1.3.2
Meshing with special tools
Since doing this may be tricky, commercial finite element software usually have special tools for meshing
the crack tip. The next box shows ANSYS command for crack tip meshing.
12
Fracture Mechanics
ANSYS Command: Meshing the crack tip
KSCON, NPT, DELR, KCTIP, NTHET, RRAT

NPT number of the node located at the crack tip
DELR Radius of first row of elements about crack tip
KCTIP Crack tip singularity key. For our purposes its value should be 1
NTHET Number of elements in circumferential direction. Default is one per 30o .
RRAT Ratio of 2nd row element size to DELR. Default is 0.5
The following ANSYS log file performs the same analysis but now the command KSCON is employed
to mesh the crack tip.
Example 1.3. Model the plate of Figure 1.1 using quarter node elements for the crack tip obtained with
the KSCON command.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/TITLE Stress singularities - KSCON
/PREP7
! Geometrical parameters in mm
L = 50 ! Plate length
a = 10 ! Crack length
b = 0 ! Crack heigth
th = 30 ! Thickness
el_len = 2 ! Element length
ET,1,PLANE82
MP,EX,1,210000 ! Young modulus
MP,PRXY,1,0.3 ! Poissons ratio
KEYOPT,1,3,3 ! Keyoption to introduce thickness
R,1,th ! Thickness
K,1,a,0
K,2,L,0
K,3,L,L
K,4,0,L
K,5,0,b
K,6,2*a,0
K,7,a,a
K,8,0,a
K,9,a+sqrt(2)*a/2,sqrt(2)*a/2
K,10,a,L
L,1,6,(2*a)/el_len
L,6,2,(L-2*a)/el_len
L,2,3,L/el_len
L,3,10,(L-a)/el_len
L,10,4,a/el_len
L,4,8,(L-a)/el_len
L,8,5,a/el_len
L,5,1,a/el_len
L,9,3,sqrt((L-a)**2+L*L)/el_len
L,1,7,a/el_len
L,7,8,a/el_len
LARC,7,9,1,a,6
LARC,9,6,1,a,6
L,7,10,(L-a)/el_len
KSCON,1,0.15,1,12,0.25
AL,2,3,9,13
AL,12,9,4,14
AL,1,13,12,10
AL,8,10,11,7
AL,11,14,5,6
AMESH,ALL
FINISH
/SOLU
DL,6,5,SYMM
DL,7,4,SYMM
DL,2,1,SYMM
DL,1,3,SYMM
SFL,4,PRES,-1
SFL,5,PRES,-1
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1
13
14
Fracture Mechanics
PLDISP,1
PLNSOL,S,Y
FINISH
ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/1_stress_sing_KSCON.dat
Figure 1.7 shows pathplots for y y as obtained with quarter mid-side node elements. Two of the plots
correspond to elements obtained with the KSCON command. The third one corresponds to the solution
given by the elements obtained in section 1.3.1.
30
KSCON1
KSCON2
modified mesh
yy (MPa)
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.5
1.5
r0 (mm)
2.5
Figure 1.7: y y at the crack tip region for the analyzed plate, as obtained with with Quarter mid-side node
elements: several mesh refinement with KSCON and by-hand mesh modification (45o path)
1.4
Summary and conclusions
When stress singularities are present in some kind of problem, the finite element analysis and specially
the mesh must be carefully considered.
If regular elements are employed, a very fine discretization is needed
Special crack tip elements may be used to estimate adequately the stress singularity with a lower
number of elements.
However the stress solution should still be used carefully, knowing that any solution with a finer mesh
at the crack tip will lead to a higher value of the maximum value of the stress (which analytical value
is )
Energy release rate (G) - based analysis or stress intensity factor (K) - based analysis are a much
better option for linear elastic fracture mechanics regime.
1.5
15
Suggested problems
Problem 1.1. Let us assume we want to model the bi-metal shown in Figure 1.1. Consider that the
bi-metal thickness is 30 mm. Apply the displacement on the right side of the steel block. Material data:
E st eel = 210000 MPa, st eel = 0.3, E Al = 70000 MPa, Al = 0.3.
Solve the problem for three different meshes and analyze the stress in the vertical direction.
Identify the zone which reaches higher stresses. What happens with the maximum value (absolute
value) of the stress when remeshing? Why?
Construct an adequate mesh using KSCON command and check that, at least for a range of some
element size at the crack tip, solution is not mesh dependent.
Figure 1.8: Aluminium-Steel Bi-metal for Suggested Problem 1.1
1.6
Further reading
Henshell R.D and Shaw K.G. (1975) Crack tip elements are unnecessary. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 9(3): 495-507.
Saouma V.E. and Schwemmer D. (1984) Numerical evaluation of the quarter-point crack tip element. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 20(9): 1629-1641.
Gray L.J., Phan AV. et al (2003) Improved quarter point crack tip element.Engineering Fracture Mechanics
70:269-283
Chapter 2
Computational Fracture Mechanics I:

Computation of G
2.1
Introduction
As seen in the former chapter, the traditional-materials strength stress analysis of a cracked component
may be hardly tackled. Although the stress discretisation may be improved by using crack tip elements, the
meaningful analysis is generally that performed using the energy release rate (G).
The energy release rate may be defined as the rate at which energy is dissipated () when a crack grows,
under constant boundary conditions:

G =
A constant B.C
(2.1)
As seen, the crack opening is measured in terms of the created area (A ). This is possible because G is
a state function which means it only depends on the updated geometry and the geometry but not on how
they change in the fracture process. So no matter if the crack grows we can compute G using different
crack lengths.
In the following sections, differents ways for the numerical computation of G, according to its definition
of equation 2.1 will be summarized. We will apply these methods to the classical example of a cracked plate
shown in figure 3.2.1, using an initial crack length a=10mm, L=50mm, unit pressure and a plate thickness
of 30 mm.
Although the crack length should be much more longer to satisfy the main assumptions involved, you
may compare the results we will obtain with the Classical Beam Theory approximation, in order to get a
rough idea of the magnitude:
GC BT =
P 2 a 2 12P 2 a 2
= 2 3
BE I
B h E
17
(2.2)
18
Fracture Mechanics
Figure 2.1: Plate with a side sharp crack.

G CBT =
N /mm
Recall that equation 2.2 is an approximation and the analyzed geometry does not satisfy the basic
assumpttions of the Classic Beam Theory, so the result for sure includes large errors. You may use it only
to check the order of magnitude of the computed energy release rate in the following sections.
2.2
Finite Crack Extension Method (FCEM)
In Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LFEM), in quasi-static conditions (which means the kinetic energy
involved in the process may be neglected), the elastic stored energy () equals the difference between the
strain energy (U ) and the external work (W ):
=U W
(2.3)
where the strain energy U :

U=
1
i j i j
2
(2.4)
According to the definition of G, it may be computed:
G=
(a + a) (a)
A
(2.5)
where, if B is the thickness of the component, A = a B . By these assumption, G may be computed

using two different finite element models with two different crack lengths and the same boundary conditions:
Finite Element Model 1. BC and crack length a
Finite Element Model 2. Same BC but crack length a + a
Chapter 2. Computational Fracture Mechanics I: Computation of G
19
ANSYS Command: Computation of Strain Energy

1. Using User GUI:
General Post-processor Element Table Define Table Add
General Post-processor Element Table Sum of each item
2. Using ANSYS commands:
AVPRIN
ETABLE
SSUM
Example 2.1. Compute the energy release rate (G) for the side-cracked plate of Figure 3.2.1 by means of
the Finite Crack Extension Method. You may use the parametrized ANSYS model given below.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/TITLE Computation of G - Crack length: a
/PREP7 !PRE-PROCESSOR
L = 50 !Length of component (mm)
a = 10 ! Crack length (mm)
b = 0 ! Crack heigth (mm)
th = 30 !Thickness (mm)
ET,1,PLANE42
KEYOPT,1,3,3 !Keyoption to activate thickness
R,1,th !Thickness assignment
K,1,a,0
K,2,L,0
K,3,L,L
K,4,0,L
K,5,0,b
L,1,2,(L-a)/el_len
L,2,3,L/el_len
L,3,4,L/el_len
20
Fracture Mechanics
L,4,5,(L-b)/el_len
L,5,1,a/el_len
AL,1,2,3,4,5
LCCAT,5,1
ARSYM,Y,1
LCCAT,7,8
MSHKEY,2
AMESH,ALL
ALLSEL
NSEL,S,LOC,X,a,L ! All nodes at y=0, but those of the crack
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,0
! are selected
CPINTF,ALL
FINISH
/SOLU !SOLUTION
DL,10,2,ALL,0
SFL,3,PRES,-1
!Pressure
nsel,s,loc,y,L
CP,1,UY,ALL
allsel
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1 !GENERAL POST-PROCESSOR
PLDISP,1
PLNSOL,S,Y
FINISH

ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/2_comp_g.dat
You may fill in the following table to compute the energy release rate according to the Finite Crack
Extension Method:
Magnitude
FE model 1 (a)
FE model 2 (a + a)
Strain energy
Displacement
Force
W
G IFCEM =
N /mm
21
2.3
Crack Closure Method (CCM)
The Crack Closure Method assumes that the energy which is dissipated when a crack grows some a is the
same energy needed to open the crack some a . So if, as in the former method, two different finite element
models are employed, the forces and displacements needed to close the crack by some a may be computed
as follows.
Finite Element Model 1 (Crack length = a ). Used to obtain the force acting at the crack tip. Since
this force is actually a reaction, some rigid link or Multi Point Constraint (MPC) should be employed
at the crack tip to obtain this force value.
Finite Element Model 2 (Crack length = a + a ). The longer crack length is achieved by removing
the rigid link at the former crack tip and keeping a rigid link at the new one. This model will be used
to read the displacements needed to close the crack by a .
The Energy Release Rate (G) may be computed:
h
i
(1)
(2)
G = F x(1) (2)
+
F
x
y
y
1
2 a B
(2.6)
where the first term of the addition corresponds to G I I and the second term to G I , that is:
GI =
(1)
(2)
1 F y y
2 a B
(2.7)
GI I =
1 F x(1) (2)
x
2 a B
(2.8)
(2)
0(2)
(2)
(2)
0(2)
and (2)
and superscripts (1) and (2) denote the model where the variable
x = u x u x , y = u y u y
is taken.
Figure 2.2: Closure Crack Method
ANSYS Command: Removing CPs

CPINTF
NUMMRG
22
Fracture Mechanics
ANSYS Command: Reading displacement and force results

PRNLD
PRRSOL
You may fill in the following table to compute G by using the nodal values of force and displacement,
according to the CCM:
Magnitude
FE model 1 (a)
Displacement (top)
Displacement (bottom)
FE model 2 (a + a)
Force (F y )
G ICCM =
2.4
N /mm
Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
The Virtual Crack Closure Technique makes a further assumption: the crack grows in a self-similar manner.
This means that if we only look at the nearby of the crack tip, from one growth step to the next one, we would
see about the same crack shape -the same displacements- and about the same forces acting at the crack tip.
Consequently, instead of using two different models to get the forces at the crack tip and the displacement
needed to close the crack by some a , we may use the same model, so the computational efforts are reduced.
Figure 2.3: Virtual Crack Closure Technique
So, now G may be computed as:
23
G = F x x + F y y
1
2 a B
(2.9)
where, again, the first term of the addition corresponds to G I and the second term to G I I , that is:
GI =
1 F x x
2 a B
(2.10)
GI I =
1 F y y
2 a B
(2.11)
where and x = u x u x0 , y = u y u 0y .
Finally, you may compute G through the formula derived by the Virtual Crack Closure Technique:
Magnitude
FE model (a + a)
Displacement (top)
Displacement (bottom)
y
Force (F y )
G IVCCT =
2.5
N /mm
Suggested exercises
Problem 2.1. Model the CT specimen of Figure 2.4 using ANSYS with W=5mm, A=25 mm, B (thickness)=10 mm, C=50 mm, D = 62.5 mm, E=5mm and F=60 mm.
Figure 2.4: CT specimen
With this model you are going to analyze G as a function of the crack length (a), using different methods
and for two different load cases: constant force (P=1000 N) and constant displacement (0.053mm). To
make this you have to use in the ANSYS model Constraint Equations in the line where the crack will grow.
24
Fracture Mechanics
The crack should grow between 2 mm and 16mm, so a element size of 2 mm may be a good choice. You
may use the provided file CT.dat.
In each model you have to keep the following data:
External load or applied displacement
In the constant force loadcase, the displacement of the node where the force is being applied.
In the constant displacement loadcase, the reaction at the node where the displacement is being
applied.
Force at the crack tip, in the vertical direction.
Displacement of the nodes closer to the crack tip, in the vertical direction.
Strain energy
Compute:
1. For both loadcases, get the compliance curve for the specimen as a function of the crack length
(C = f (a)). Derive numerically the obtained curve and use the computed derivative to compute
G=
P 2 dC
2B da
2. G(a) for both loadcase using the FCEM, CCM, VCCT methods. Plot in the same graph the obtained
curves together with the curve in the former question.
(The four methods should give similar results, for the following, use only the curve obtained with
FCEM.)
3. Assume that the material R-curve is given by:
G 1 (1 a/c )3 for
c
f
R=
Gc
for
a c f
a > c f
where c f = 1.25 mm and G c = 0.3N /mm . Find what load P produces instability.
4. Assume you are performing a laboratory test using a CT speciment, trying to measure the R-curve of
a material. Which loadcase would you use? Why?
5. Analyze the effect of the element size on FCEM, CCM, VCCT methods. Obtain G for three different
meshes with different element sizes using the three methods.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/TITLE Computation of G - Crack length: a
/PREP7 !PRE-PROCESSOR
a0=8
A= 25
W= 5
B=10
C=50
D=62.5
E=5
F=60

ET,1,PLANE42
KEYOPT,1,3,3 !Keyoption to activate thickness
R,1,B !Thickness assignment
K,1,0,0
K,2,C-A,0
K,3,C-A+E,w/2
K,4,D,w/2
K,5,D,F/3
K,6,D,F/2
K,7,C,F/2
K,8,0,F/2
K,9,C,F/3
L,1,2,(D-(D-C)-A)/el_len
L,2,3,sqrt(E*E+W*W/4)/el_len
L,3,4,(D-C+A-E)/el_len
L,4,5,(F/3-W/2)/el_len
L,5,6,(F/2-F/3)/el_len
L,6,7,(D-C)/el_len
L,7,8,C/el_len
L,8,1,(F/2)/el_len
L,5,9,(D-C)/el_len
L,9,7,(F/2-F/3)/el_len
AL,1,2,3,4,9,10,7,8
AL,9,5,6,10
LSYMM,Y,ALL
AL,11,12,13,14,19,20,17,18
AL,19,15,16,20
ACCAT,1,2
ACCAT,3,4
MSHKEY,2
AMESH,5
AMESH,6
ALLSEL
NSEL,S,LOC,X,0,C-A-a0 ! All nodes at y=0, but those of the crack
25
26
Fracture Mechanics
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,0
! are selected
CPINTF,ALL
FINISH
/SOLU !SOLUTION
KD,9,UX,0
KF,9,FY,1000 ! Comment for displacement loadcase
!KD,9,UY,10 ! Uncomment for displacement loadcase
KD,18,ALL
ALLSEL
SBCTRAN
SOLVE
FINISH
/POST1 !GENERAL POST-PROCESSOR
PLDISP,1
PLNSOL,S,Y
FINISH

ftp: // amade. udg. edu/ mme/ FEmet/ CT. dat
2.6
Further reading
Krger R. (2002) The Virtual Crack Closure Technique: History, Approach and Applications. NASA/CR2002-211628. ICASE. Report No. 2002-10.
Chapter 3
Computational Fracture Mechanics II:

Computation of K
3.1
Introduction
Although the use of the energy release rate is normally preferred in advanced analysis and in crack propagation simulation, the stress intensity factor K is widely used for design and verification of structures. While
G is a energy-based magnitude, K is a stress related value and so, any computational method used to compute it will have to deal somehow with the stress singularity and its related issues we introduced in Chapter 1.
As we saw in the first chapter, the stress discretisation in a finite element mesh may be improved by
using crack tip elements, to avoid the strong mesh dependence produced by the stress singularity.
In this chapter we will show how to use quarter mid-side node elements to discretize the stress field and
then, some method to compute K.
3.2
The stress intensity factor (K)
The plane stress field in the nearby of a crack tip of a crack loaded in mode I can be approximated by the
following expressions:
xI
Iy
xI y
3
KI
cos
1 sin
sin
p
2
2
2
2r

KI
3
cos
1 + sin
sin
p
2
2
2
2r

KI
sin
cos
cos
p
2
2
2
2r
(3.1)
(3.2)
(3.3)
were superscript I denotes mode I and and r are the polar coordinates (angle and distance, respectively)
in a polar coordinate system with center at the crack tip.
Analogously, the stress field ahead the crack tip in a Mode II situation is given by:
27
28
Fracture Mechanics
xI I
IyI
xI Iy
3
KI I
= p
sin
2 + cos
cos
2
2
2
2r

KI I
3
sin
= p
cos
cos
2
2
2
2r

KI I
3
= p
cos
1 sin
sin
2
2
2
2r
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
The stress at the crack tip might be seen as the limit:
KI
lim iI j = p
f iIj ()
=c
r 0
2r
(3.7)
where c denotes a constant. So if we are able to somehow know the stress field at the nearby of the
crack tip we are able to compute K I :
K I = lim iI j
r 0
p
2r
I
f i j ()
(3.8)
=c
since
f iIj ()
are known trigonometrical functions. Analogously for K I I :

K I I = lim iI Ij
r 0
p
2r
f iIjI ()
(3.9)
=c
3.2.1
Numerical estimation of the stresses at the crack tip
Let us recall the cracked plate of Figure that we analyzed in the former chapter, using the file 1_quarter_mid_nodes.d
Using the ANSYS commands of the next box, you may obtain the stresses at a given path (radius).
ANSYS Command: Path Plots
Command
Comments
PATH,NAME,nPTS,nSETS,nDIV
Defines geometrically a path by nPTS
PPATH,POINT,NODE,X,Y,Z,CS
Defines one of the points of the path.

POINT is the ID of the point. NODE is
a node number if the point is located in a
NODE. X,Y,Z may be used to define the location of the point
PDEF,LABEL,ITEM,COMP,AVGLAB
Defines the ITEM (for instance STRESS)

and COMP (for instance X) to plot and give
it a LABEL
PLPATH,NAME
Plots the path labelled with NAME
Chapter 3. Computational Fracture Mechanics II: Computation of K
29
Example 3.1. Obtain a plot for y for the side-cracked plate, using a path plot.
FINISH
/POST1
! Path plot of stresses
PATH,0DEG,2,6,100
PPATH,1,,a,0,0
PPATH,2,,a+5,0,0
PDEF,SX,S,X,NOAV
PDEF,SY,S,Y,NOAV
PLPATH,SY
PRPATH,SX,SY !Path results in a text file
ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/3_path.dat
A plot similar to that in Figure 3.1 should be obtained.
Figure 3.1: y at the nearby of the crack for = 0o .
30
Fracture Mechanics
3.2.2
Computation of K by stress extrapolation
Since we know how to obtain the stresses in the nearby of the crack tip we are able to obtain K I . If the
stresses when r 0 would not tend to we could compute K I with the stresses when r = 0, but since they
do tend to , we have to somehow compute numerically the limit of Eq. 3.8. To do so we compute K for
each value of the stress i j using equations as a function of r and plot the pairs (K,r). Since the values of
the stress for small r are affected by the stress singularity we will neglect them and fit the linear variation
of i j (r ). The extrapolation for r = 0 gives a good approximation of K I , as shown in Figure 3.2
12
KI (MPa mm
1/2
11
y = 0.183*x + 6.5
10
9
8
7
6
0
10
15
20
25
r (mm)
Figure 3.2: Computation of K I by stress extrapolation (from y
3.2.3
Computation of K by displacement extrapolation
The former procedure is strongly affected by the stress singularity. In a finite element procedure, stresses
are obtained from the displacements and so may contain larger errors, specially in cases like this one where
large stress gradients are present. For this reason, a more precise option is to use the displacement solution
for the computation of the stress intensity factor, K . In this case for the region near the crack tip, the
relations between the displacement field and K I and K I I are:
r
cos ( cos )
uI
2
2
KI
= 2G
sin ( cos )
r vI
2
(3.10)
r
sin (2 + + cos )
uI I
2
2
= 2G
KI I
cos (2 cos )
r vII
2
(3.11)
where G is the shear modulus:

G=
E
2(1 + )
(3.12)
and is a parameter which allows the simultaneous consideration of plane stress and plane strain cases,
with:
31
3
1+
= 3 4
=
for plane stress
(3.13)
for plane strain
(3.14)
Since in a finite element solution, the displacement field is generally a better solution than the stress
field, the value of K I obtained in this manner (see Figure 3.4) should provide a better approximation.
KI (MPa mm1/2)
8.5
8
7.5
y = 0.449*x + 6.78
7
6.5
6
0
0.5
1.5
2
r (mm)
2.5
3.5
Figure 3.3: Displacement extrapolation technique for the computation of K I (using u y ).
You may compare the numerical result with the analytical one, which may be obtained using the handbook formula of Figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Handbook expression for the analyzed case.
3.2.4
Remarks
The reviewed techniques for the computation of K are first approximations. Further developments
exist and are still object of current research.
Both stress and displacement extrapolation need of fine meshes to converge to the correct value of
K. Crack tip elements are strongly recommended for the stress extrapolation method.
32
Fracture Mechanics
3.3
Displacement extrapolation with quarter node elements
When the stress singularity is very well discretized, which practically means when quarter-point isoparametric
elements are used, some simple formulae can be applied with surprisingly accurate results. This formuale
are obtained making = in expressions 3.10 and 3.11, since for this angle the error is minimum.
If you recall the quarter node elements shown in Section 1.2, the approximation of the displacement
along edge 1-3 is given by:
r
u = u 1 + [4u 2 u 3 3u 1 ]
r
r
+ [2u 3 + 2u 1 4u 2 ]
L
L
(3.15)
and the same expression is valid for the vertical displacement v .

If we substitute this approximation of the displacement field in expressions 3.10 and 3.11 we obtain:
r
cos ( cos )
4u 2 u 3 3u 1
2
2
KI
= 4G
sin ( cos )
L 4v 2 v 3 3v 1
2
(3.16)
r
sin (2 + + cos )
4u u 3u
2
2
3
1
2
KI I
= 4G
cos (2 cos )
r 4v 2 v 3 3v 1
2
(3.17)
and for mode II:
So we can compute K I and K I I substituting any value of angle and using the displacements at nodes
1,2 and 3. If we particularize the former expressions for = and since v 1 = 0:
2G
KI =
+1
KI I
2G
=
+1
2
(4v 2 v 3 )
L
2
(4u 2 u 3 )
L
(3.18)
(3.19)
If we denote node 2 with an A and node 3 with a B and make L=` the former expressions may be
written in the form given by Guinea et al. (2000):
E0
KI =
4
2
(4v A v B )
`
(3.20)
where E 0 is the effective elastic modulus defined as equal to E for plane stress and E /(1 2 ) for plane
strain. v A is the vertical displacement of the quarter mid-side node and v B the vertical displacement of the
outer vertex node (See Figure 3.5) .
3.3.1
Formulae for the stress intensity factor
With some similar approach the following expressions may also be obtained to compute K I (Guinea et al,
2000):
E0
KI =
2
2
vA
`
(3.21)
33
Figure 3.5: Quarter-point singular elements and coordinates for near crack-tip field description. Source:
Guinea et al, 2000
E0
KI =
12
2
(8v A v B )
`
(3.22)
These methods provide objective ways of computing K. Similar expressions can be obtained for K I I ,
using 3.11. Again in mixed mode situations the superposition principle may be applied
3.4
ANSYS commands for the computation of K
3.4.1
Crack opening displacement
ANSYS offers a built in method for the computation of the Stress intensity factor (K). Although this method
is related to displacement extrapolation it is actually based on the concept of Crack Opening Displacement
(COD) and uses the formula obtained by Paris and Sih which describes the crack opening near the crack
tip for linear elastic-plastic materials:
V
KI 1 +
p =
p
r 2G 2
(3.23)
This expression can be easily obtained from 3.10 for = .

Since the crack opening displacement V can be obtained from the displacement solution at the nodes
which define the crack face, the parameters A and B can be obtained by a simple linear fit.
V
p = A + Br
r
(3.24)
V
lim p = A
r 0 r
(3.25)
Then, since:
K can be computed from 3.23:

KI =
p 2G A
2
1+
(3.26)
34
Fracture Mechanics
3.4.2
KCALC command
The main steps needed to perform the computation of K in a two-dimensional model are:
1. Define a path with three nodes. Where NODE1 must be the crack tip and NODE2 and NODE3 two
nodes in the same crack face. If quadratic elements are used, a choice which gives good results is to
use the three nodes of the crack tip element.
2. Define a cartesian local coordinate system with origin at the crack tip.
3. Execute the KCALC command
ANSYS Command: KCALC, KPLAN, MAT, KCSYM, KLOCPR
KPLAN Key to convert plane stress results into plane strain stress intensity factors:
0 - Plane strain and axisymmetric cases (default)
1 - Plane stress
MAT Material number used in the extrapolation (defaults to 1).
KCSYM Symmetry key:
0 or 1 - Half-crack model with symmetry boundary conditions in the crack-tip coordinate system.
KII = KIII = 0. Three nodes are required on the path.
2 - Like 1 except with antisymmetric boundary conditions (KI = 0).
3 - Full-crack model (both faces). Five nodes are required on the path (one at the tip and two on
each face).
KLOCPR Local displacements print key:
0 - Do not print local crack-tip displacements.
1 - Print local displacements used in the extrapolation technique.
Example 3.2. Compute the Stress Intensity Factor for the plate of Figure 3.2.1 using ANSYS KCALC
command.
35
SOLVE
FINISH
CS,12,0,1,4,124 !Define local coordinate system at crack tip
CSYS,12 ! Activate local coordinate system
PATH,K1,3,10,50 ! Define 3-node path
PPATH,1,1
PPATH,2,1013
PPATH,3,242
KCALC,0,1,0,1
!Execute KCALC

ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/3_kcalc.dat
3.5
Proposed exercises
Problem 3.1. Numerical validation of Irwins hypothesis

Irwins hypothesis may be used when plastic strains appear in the region near the crack tip. It is based on
defining an equivalent case in the elastic regime, with an equivalent crack length. Let us keep working with
the model 1_stress_sing_KSCON.dat we used in Chapter 1.
1. Introduce a perfect plasticity model as the material model. You can do this by adding the following
lines after the material properties definition:
TB,BKIN,1,1
TBDATA,1,270,0
where the value 270 MPa is the yield stress and 0 the hardening modulus.
2. Now increase the applied stress to a value that ensures that plastic strains appear near the crack tip
(representative results are obtained for about 40 MPa).
3. Obtain a curve of S y for r between 0 and 0.3 mm, approximately.
4. Compute the equivalent crack length according to the Irwins hypothesis. In the former plot you can
obtain the crack length for S y =270 MPa (the yield strength). Compare both values of the equivalent
crack length.
5. Using the analytical expression of the stress field in the nearby of a singularity, plot the S y curve for
the equivalent crack length of the former point. Compare this curve with the one of the question 3
6. Observe the results and comment on about the validity of Irwins hypothesis.
36
Fracture Mechanics
Problem 3.2. Consider again the side-cracked plate of Figure 3.2.1. Compute the mode I stress intensity
factor using equations 3.21, 3.22, 3.20. Compare the results with those obtained with the other methods
seen in this chapter. Comment on the results.
Problem 3.3. Superposition principle
Proof the principle of superposition can be used as schematized in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: Proposed exercise # 2.
Consider a cracked plate submitted to an stress (A). Consider the same plate with the same stress
but also closing stresses which make the crack remain closed (B). Consider the plate submitted only to the
closing stresses but in the oposite direction (C).
1. Considering that the superposition principle is applicable for a single opening mode, discuss how could
you compute K I(C ) .
2. Proof that K I(A) = K I(B ) + K I(C )
3.6
Further reading
Guinea G.V, Planas J. and Elices M. (2000) K I evaluation by the displacement extrapolation technique.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 66:243-255.
Tada H., Paris P.C., and Irwin G.R. (2000) The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. ASME Press. 3rd
Edition
Chapter 4
Computational Fracture Mechanics III:

Computation of the J-integral
4.1
Introduction
To complete the review of computational analysis for Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics we will summarize
the concept of J-integral and we will use ANSYS to compute it.
Let us consider a line integral going around the crack tip and starting in one side of the crack and ending
at the other side of the crack, as shown in figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: J integral.
It can be shown that the following integral is independent of the path for any curve which satisfies the
former conditions:
Z
~
u
J=
U dy ~t
ds
x
(4.1)
were U is the strain energy density (U = 21 : ), ~t is the traction vector defined by the external normal
~
n, ~
u is the displacement field and ds is an infinitesimal in the direction of the curve.
37
38
Fracture Mechanics
The integral is actually an equilibrium, for any path not including the crack, that is starting and ending
at the same point, J=0, so if the curve starts at one side of the crack and ends at the other side, its value
equals the energy inverted on the crack. The J-integral is also useful in non-linear fracture mechanics but,
since in LEFM its value equals the energy release rate G ,
4.2
The J integral with ANSYS
As usual, ANSYS help describes properly the procedure to compute the J-integral. Here we summarize this
procedure for bidimensional cracks:
1. Start the new computation of the J-integral with: CINT,NEW,ID where ID is an integer identifying
the path, for instance 1.
2. Define the node at the crack tip and the crack plane normal with:
CINT,CTNC,CMNAME
where CMNAME is the name of a node component1
CINT,NORMAL,par1,par2
where par1 is a coordinate system identifier and par2 is an axis of the coordinate system
3. Specify the number of contours n to compute with the command:
CINT,NCONTOUR,n
4. Activate the option for symmetry conditions, if present:
CINT,SYMM,ON
5. Specify the output controls:
OUTRES,ALL
or
OUTRES, CINT
6. Finally, the results for the value of the J integral may be listed or plotted:
PRCINT,ID
PLCINT,PATH,ID
where ID is the crack identifier.
Example 4.1. Compute the J-integral for the cracked plate of Figure 3.2.1, by using the ANSYS built-in
method.
1 The command CM,CMNAME,NODE stores the selected nodes under a node component of name CMNAME.
Chapter 4. Computational Fracture Mechanics III: Computation of the J-integral
39
Solution to Example 4.1. The following commands may be used in any of the parametrized models we
used before, with the crack tip located at (a,0) to define the J-integral computation.
The ANSYST M command sequence for this example is listed below. You can either type these commands on the
command window, or you can type them on a file, then, on the command window enter /input, file, ext or just use
copy and paste.
FINISH
\PREP7
CSYS,1
NSEL,S,LOC,X,a !Select the crack tip node, located at (a,0)
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,0
CM,CRACK,NODE
NSEL,ALL
CINT,NEW,1
CINT,CTNC,CRACK
CINT,NORMAL,0,2
CINT,NCONTOUR,20
CINT,SYMM,ON
OUTRES,CINT
ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/4_j_int.dat
After solving the model and in the \POST1 module, results ofr the J integral may be obtained with
the commands PRCINT,1 or PLCINT,PATH,1. It is important to set a sufficient number of contours in the
command CINT,NCONTOUR,n, so the integral converges to a value.
4.3
Proposed exercises
Problem 4.1. Compute the J-integral for the model 1_stress_sing_KSCON.dat we used in Chapter 1.
Compare the value of J, with that of G and K, obtained in the corresponding examples.
4.4
Further reading
Rigby R.H. and Aliabadi M.H. Decomposition of the mixed-mode J-integral - Revisited. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 35(1):2073-2099, 1998.
Chapter 5
Computational Fracture Mechanics IV:

Cohesive zone modeling
5.1
Introduction
Whilst Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics assumes the presence of a crack in a perfectly elastic brittle or
quasi-brittle material this is an idealization. Generally, in the nearby of the crack tip there exists a zone
where the material is damaged due the presence of microcracks. When the number of microcracks grow a
larger crack is formed and crack growth takes place. This region of the material is called Failure Process
Zone or, in the case of crack growth modeling, cohesive zone.
Some modeling techniques treat the material in this more realistic manner: before crack growth the
region at the crack tip follows a failure process.
This chapter summarizes the different possibilities included in ANSYS for the cohesive zone modeling.
5.2
Cohesive laws
Cohesive laws describe mathematically the separation or debonding of two material surfaces. They are usually
presented as - curves. is the stress acting to separate the surfaces and the relative displacement
between them.
The different cohesive laws have some similarities:
Some positive slope region in which, when an increase in implies an increase in .
Some inflexion point m . Once this point is reached, the cohesive material starts the failure/damage
process.
Some negative slope region. Since the material is damaged the stress to achieve larger decreases.
Some m for which = 0, which means the total damage of the material
41
42
Fracture Mechanics
The behaviour of the cohesive material is sketched in Figure 5.1. If the material is loaded with < m ,
the unload follows the same path since the material is not damaged. On the other hand, if the material is
loaded producing some > m , the material starts to damage and then the unload follows the secant.
Figure 5.1: Cohesive law
This material behaviour can be modeled with different laws. Usually the linear (sometimes called
bilinear), linear-parabolic, exponential and trapezoidal are included in the commercial FE software. They
are sketched in Figure 5.2. ANSYS includes only the bilinear and exponential laws.
Figure 5.2: Usual cohesive laws
5.2.1
Bilinear law
This is the cohesive law used for the contact elements so the names of the variables are slightly different
P normal contact stress (tension). Equals
K n : normal contact stiffness
u n : contact gap. Equals
43
Chapter 5. Computational Fracture Mechanics IV: Cohesive zone modeling
Figure 5.3: Bilinear Cohesive law
u n : contact gap at the maximum normal contact stress (tension)

u nc : contact gap at the completion of debonding
d n : debonding (damage) parameter. d n = 0 for the virgin material and d n = 1 for the totally damaged
material
For mode II or mixed mode, additional parameters are required.
5.2.2
Exponential law
This law is the only one available for interface elements.

= exp max n expn expt
(5.1)
with:
max : stress for which crack opening starts
n : maximum normal displacement
t : maximum tangential displacement
Parameters must be given so:
Z
() d = Gc
5.3
(5.2)
Cohesive elements in ANSYS
ANSYS offers two different possibilities for the cohesive zone modelling. A straight forward manner is the
use of interface elements. A second approach, is the use of ANSYS contact elements together with a
cohesive law.
44
Fracture Mechanics
5.3.1
Cohesive zone modeling with interface elements
Element type
Cohesive elements are referred as interface elements in the literature because of their topology. That is, the
element is located in the interface between two solid structural elements to simulate the debonding process
between them.The different interface elements available in ANSYS are shown in the next Table:
Element Characteristics Interface Element Structural Elements
2D, linear
INTER202
PLANE42, VISCO106, PLANE182
2D, quadratic
INTER203
PLANE2,
PLANE82,
VISCO88,
SOLID95,
SOLID186,
SOLID46,
SOLID64,
PLANE183
3D, quadratic
INTER204
SOLID92,
SOLID187
3D, linear
INTER205
SOLID45,
SOLID65, SOLID185, SOLIDSH190

Material definition
As mentioned before, when using interface elements, the only material model which can be used is the
exponential. It needs of three parameters:
max : maximum stress
n : normal displacement at maximum stress
t : tangential displacement at maximum stress
ANSYS Command: Material definition for interface elements

TB,CZM,MAT,NTEMP,NPTS,EXPO
TBDATA,1,SMAX,DN,DT
where SMAX is max , DN is n and DT is t .
Example 5.1. DCB test modeling with interface elements

Since the DCB specimen is controlled to always be in crack-opening situation, interface elements may be
successfully employed in the modeling of this test.
Solution to Example 5.1. The following file reproduces an Example of ANSYS verification manual which
aim is to test its cohesive modeling with a DCB test.
45
The ANSYST M command sequence for this example is listed below. You can either type these commands on the
command window, or you can type them on a file, then, on the command window enter /input, file, ext or just use
copy and paste.
FINISH
/CLEAR
/COM,ANSYS MEDIA REL. 11.0 (10/27/2006) REF. VERIF. MANUAL: REL. 11.0
/TITLE, VM248, DELAMINATION OF DOUBLE CANTILEVER BEAM - 2D PLANE STRAIN
/COM,
REF: ALFANO, G. AND CRISFIELD, M. A.,
/COM,
"FINITE ELEMENT INTERFACE MODELS FOR THE DELAMINATION ANALYSIS
/COM,
OF LAMINATED COMPOSITES: MECHANICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL ISSUES"
/COM,
INT. J. NUMER. METH. ENGNG 2001, 50:1701-1736.
/PREP7
ET,1,182
!* 2D 4-NODE STRUCTURAL SOLID ELEMENT
KEYOPT,1,1,2
!* ENHANCE STRAIN FORMULATION
KEYOPT,1,3,2
!* PLANE STRAIN
ET,2,182
KEYOPT,2,1,2
KEYOPT,2,3,2
ET,3,202
!* 2D 4-NODE COHESIVE ZONE ELEMENT
KEYOPT,3,3,2
!* PLANE STRAIN
MP,EX,4,1.353E5
!* E11 = 135.3 GPA
MP,EY,4,9.0E3
!* E22 =
9.0 GPA
MP,EZ,4,9.0E3
!* E33 =
9.0 GPA
MP,GXY,4,5.2E3
!* G12 =
5.2 GPA
!MP,GYZ,4,5.2E3
!MP,GXZ,4,3.08E3
MP,PRXY,4,0.24
MP,PRXZ,4,0.24
MP,PRYZ,4,0.46
GMAX = 0.004
TNMAX = 25
!* TENSILE STRENGTH
TB,CZM,5,,,EXPO
!* COHESIVE ZONE MATERIAL
TBDATA,1,TNMAX,GMAX,1000.0
RECTNG,0,100,0,1.5
!* DEFINE AREAS
RECTNG,0,100,0,-1.5
LSEL,S,LINE,,2,8,2
!* DEFINE LINE DIVISION
LESIZE,ALL,0.75
LSEL,INVE
LESIZE,ALL, , ,200
ALLSEL,ALL
TYPE,1
!* MESH AREA 2
MAT,4
LOCAL,11,0,0,0,0
ESYS,11
AMESH,2
CSYS,0
TYPE,2
ESYS,11
AMESH,1
CSYS,0
NSEL,S,LOC,X,30,100
NUMMRG,NODES
ESLN
TYPE,3
MAT,5
!* MESH AREA 1
46
Fracture Mechanics
CZMESH,,,1,Y,0,
!* GENERATE INTERFACE ELEMENTS
ALLSEL,ALL
NSEL,S,LOC,X,100
!* APPLY CONSTRAINTS
D,ALL,ALL
NSEL,ALL
FINISH
/SOLU
ESEL,S,TYPE,,2
NSLE,S
NSEL,R,LOC,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,1.5
!* APPLY DISPLACEMENT LOADING ON TOP
D,ALL,UY,10
NSEL,ALL
ESEL,ALL
ESEL,S,TYPE,,1
NSLE,S
NSEL,R,LOC,X
NSEL,R,LOC,Y,-1.5
!* APPLY DISPLACEMENT LOADING ON BOTTOM
D,ALL,UY,-10
NSEL,ALL
ESEL,ALL
NLGEOM,ON
AUTOTS,ON
TIME,1
NSUBST,40,40,40
OUTRES,ALL,ALL
SOLVE
!* PERFORM SOLUTION
FINISH
/POST26
NSEL,S,LOC,Y,1.5
NSEL,R,LOC,X,0
*GET,NTOP,NODE,0,NUM,MAX
NSEL,ALL
NSOL,2,NTOP,U,Y,UY
RFORCE,3,NTOP,F,Y,FY
PROD,4,3, , ,RF, , ,20
/TITLE,VM248, DCB: REACTION AT TOP NODE VERSES PRESCRIBED DISPLACEMENT
/AXLAB,X,DISP U (mm)
/AXLAB,Y,REACTION FORCE R (N)
/YRANGE,0,60
XVAR,2
PLVAR,4
PRVAR,UY,RF
*GET,TMAX,VARI,4,EXTREM,TMAX
!* TIME CORRESPONDING TO MAX RFORCE
FINISH
/POST1
SET, , , , ,TMAX
!* RETRIEVE RESULTS AT TMAX
NSEL,S,NODE, ,NTOP
!* SELECT NODE NTOP
*GET,RF_NTOP,NODE,NTOP,RF,FY
!* FY RFORCE AT NODE NTOP
*GET,UY_NTOP,NODE,NTOP,U,Y
!* DISP AT NODE NTOP CORRESPONDING TO RFORCE
RF_MAX = RF_NTOP*20
!* PLANE STRAIN OPTION AND WIDTH = 20 mm
SET,LAST
!* RETRIEVE RESULTS AT LAST SUBSTEP
*GET,RF_END,NODE,NTOP,RF,FY
!* FY RFORCE AT NODE NTOP AT LAST SUBSTEP
*GET,UY_END,NODE,NTOP,U,Y
!* DISP AT NODE NTOP CORRESPONDING TO RFORCE
RF_END = RF_END*20
!* PLANE STRAIN OPTION AND WIDTH = 20 mm
*DIM,LABEL,CHAR,2,2
*DIM,VALUE,,2,3
47
*DIM,VALUE2,,2,3
LABEL(1,1) = RFORCE,DISP
LABEL(1,2) = FY (N),UY (mm)
*VFILL,VALUE(1,1),DATA,60.0,1.0
*VFILL,VALUE(1,2),DATA,RF_MAX,UY_NTOP
*VFILL,VALUE(1,3),DATA,ABS(RF_MAX/60.0),ABS(UY_NTOP/1.0)
*VFILL,VALUE2(1,1),DATA,24,10.0
*VFILL,VALUE2(1,2),DATA,RF_END,UY_END
*VFILL,VALUE2(1,3),DATA,ABS(RF_END/24.0),ABS(UY_END/10.0)
/COM
/OUT,vm248,vrt
/COM,------------------- VM248 RESULTS COMPARISON -------------/COM,
/COM,
TARGET
ANSYS
RATIO
/COM,
/COM,MAX RFORCE AND CORRESPONDING DISP USING INTER202:
/COM,
*VWRITE,LABEL(1,1),LABEL(1,2),VALUE(1,1),VALUE(1,2),VALUE(1,3)
(1X,A8,A8,
,F10.3,
,1F10.3,
,1F5.3)
/COM,
/COM,RFORCE CORRESPONDING TO DISP U = 10.0 USING INTER202:
/COM,
*VWRITE,LABEL(1,1),LABEL(1,2),VALUE2(1,1),VALUE2(1,2),VALUE2(1,3)
(1X,A8,A8,
,F10.3,
,1F10.3,
,1F5.3)
/COM,----------------------------------------------------------/OUT
FINISH
*LIST,vm248,vrt
ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/5_VM248.dat
Figure 5.4 shows the force-displacement curve for the DCB specimen, as obtained from the model using
cohesive elements.
Figure 5.4: Force-displacement curve
48
Fracture Mechanics
Figure 5.5: Force-displacement curves for different parameters of the cohesive law
5.3.2
Cohesive zone modeling with contact elements
Element type
On the other hand, for complex boundary conditions which may not always tend to open the crack, contact
elements may also be employed. In this case
Element
Formulation
Usage
Target element
CONTA171
linear
2-D 2-Node Surface-to-Surface
TARGE169
CONTA172
quadratic
TARGE169
CONTA173
linear
TARGE170
CONTA174
quadratic
TARGE170
Material definition
When using contact elements the only material model which can be employed is the bilinear. This can be
defined in ANSYS in two different ways: by maximum traction and maximum separation (CBDD) or by
maximum traction and critical energy release rate (CBDE).
ANSYS Command: Material definition for cohesive zone modeling through contact elements
TB,CZM,MAT,NTEMP,NPTS,CBDX (changing X by D or E)
TBDATA,1,C1,C2,C3,C4
Example: DCB test modeling with contact elements

The DCB test may also be modelled with contact elements. This option requires higher computational time.
49
finish
/clear
/prep7
et,1,182
! solid 4 node element
keyopt,1,3,2
! plane strain
et,2,182
keyopt,2,3,2
et,3,169
! target 2d element
et,4,171
! 2d contact element
keyopt,4,12,5
! bonded: cohesive law must be defined
et,5, 169
! target 2d element
et, 6, 171
! 2d contact element
keyopt,6,4,2
! Nodal point contact
keyopt,6,2,4
! Lagrange multiplier method
MP,EX,1,1.353E5
!* E11 = 135.3 GPa
MP,EY,1,9.0E3
!* E22 =
9.0 GPa
MP,EZ,1,9.0E3
!* E33 =
9.0 GPa
MP,GXY,1,5.2E3
!* G12 =
5.2 GPa
MP,GYZ,1,5.2E3
MP,GXZ,1,3.08E3
MP,PRXY,1,0.24
MP,PRXZ,1,0.24
MP,PRYZ,1,0.46
kopen
= 1.e6
smax=25
! Stiffness contact
! Definition of Cohesive law
gic=0.26
tb,czm,2,1,1,cbde
tbdata,1,smax,gic,smax,gic,1.e-5,1e15
!Geometry
a=35
length=100
h=1.5
l=length/2
rectng,0,length,0,h
rectng,0,length,0,-h
e_size=0.5
esize,e_size
type,1
mat,1
local,11,0,0,0,0
esys,11
amesh,2
csys,0
type,2
esys,11
! Element size
50
Fracture Mechanics
amesh,1
! Contact between specimen two arms
real,3
! real set of contact between arms
r,3
rmodif,3,3,-kopen
! Normal contact stiffness
rmodif,3,12,-kopen
! Tangential contact stiffness
asel,s,area,,1
nsla,s,1
nsel,r,loc,y,0
type,3
mat,2
esurf
asel,s,area,,2
nsla,s,1
nsel,r,loc,y,0
nsel,r,loc, x, 0, a+e_size/2
real,3
mat,3
type,6
esurf
allsel,all
nsel,all
finish
/solu
dk,6,all
dk,3,uy,30
nsel,all
esel,all
eqslv,front
neqit,200
nropt, unsymm
nlgeom,on
autots,on
time,1
deltime,0.0005,0.000005,0.1
outres,all,all
solve
finish

ftp://amade.udg.edu/mme/FEmet/5_DCB_comp.dat
5.4
51
Some remarks on element size
The use of cohesive elements, in any of the available forms, implies that the cohesive zone (failure process
zone) must be meshed with a sufficient number of elements. A rule of the thumb is to use at least three
cohesive elements for the failure process zone. Some estimation for the length of the FPZ should be used
to determine a critical element size. For instance, the length of the fracture process zone for delamination
in a unidirectional test specimen loaded in mode I can be estimated as:
`fpz =
9 E 3G I c
32 (o3 )2
(5.3)
where E 3 and o3 are respectively the Young modulus and the strength for the direction 3 of the composite
and G I c is the critical energy release rate for mode I. Under mixed-mode loading, the length of the failure
process zone is larger than the obtained using the former expression, so the given estimation is conservative.
For typical CFRP the latter expression leads to element size between 0.1 and 0.5 mm. Obviously this is
unsuitable for large structures. Then, some engineering methods may be applied which allow the use of
larger element sizes (Turon et al, 2007).
5.5
Proposed exercises
Perform a mesh-size dependence analysis for the simulation of the DCB test, using interface elements. You
may use the Example given in section 5.3.1. Compare the results with equation 5.3.
5.6
Further reading
Mi, Y., Crisfield, M. A., Davies, G. A. O. and Hellweg, H. (1998) Progressive delamination using interface
elements. Journal of Composite Materials 32(14):1246 1272.
Alfano, G. and Crisfield, M. A. (2001) Finite element interface models for the delamination analysis of
laminated composites: mechanical and computational issues. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering 50(7):1701 1736.
Turon A., Dvila C.G., Camanho P.P., Costa J. (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the
simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 74(10):16651682.
5.7
Aknowledgements
The autor is very grateful to Iigo Llanos at IKERLAN for decisive help with the modelling of the cohesive
zone using contact elements.

Ansys Fracture Tutorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ansys Fracture Tutorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Universitat de Girona

Effect of element type, size and shape

Finite element discretisation of stresses at a crack tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Quarter point / crack tip elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Creating quarter mid-nodes at crack tip with ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Meshing with usual tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Meshing with special tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Computational Fracture Mechanics I: Computation of G

Finite Crack Extension Method (FCEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crack Closure Method (CCM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Computational Fracture Mechanics II: Computation of K

The stress intensity factor (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numerical estimation of the stresses at the crack tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of K by stress extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Computation of K by displacement extrapolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Displacement extrapolation with quarter node elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Formulae for the stress intensity factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANSYS commands for the computation of K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crack opening displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Computational Fracture Mechanics III: Computation of the J-integral

The J integral with ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Computational Fracture Mechanics IV: Cohesive zone modeling

Cohesive elements in ANSYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cohesive zone modeling with interface elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cohesive zone modeling with contact elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Some remarks on element size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 1.1: Plate with a central sharp crack.

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

PLDISP,1 !Deformed shape

This file can be found at:

Effect of element type, size and shape

Finite element discretisation of stresses at a crack tip

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

Quarter point / crack tip elements

Figure 1.3: 8 node isoparametric quadrilateral element

Figure 1.4: 8 node isoparametric element with quarter-side located mid-nodes

And solving for :

As you remember, the displacement approximation is given by:

If we now compute the strain in the x direction:

field presents a singularity.

Figure 1.5: Quarter tip element from collapsed 8 node quadrilateral

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

Creating quarter mid-nodes at crack tip with ANSYS

Meshing with usual tools

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

AL,2,10,9,12,14 ! Area created from lines

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

0.5 mm PLANE42 TRI

0.5 mm PLANE42 QUAD

and with Quarter mid-side node elements (45o path)

Meshing with special tools

ANSYS Command: Meshing the crack tip

KSCON, NPT, DELR, KCTIP, NTHET, RRAT

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

Summary and conclusions

Chapter 1. Singular stresses

Figure 1.8: Aluminium-Steel Bi-metal for Suggested Problem 1.1

Computational Fracture Mechanics I:

Figure 2.1: Plate with a side sharp crack.

Finite Crack Extension Method (FCEM)

where the strain energy U :

According to the definition of G, it may be computed: