NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 11 (1969) 323-332.

NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY, AMSTERDAM

THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

FOR PREDICTION OF CRACK BEHAVIOR *

V.B.WATWOOD Jr.
Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, Washington, USA

Received 6 May 1969

A direct method of computation of the stress intensity factor, K, of linear fracture mechanics is discussed. Poor
accuracy of the method, unless extremely small elements are used near the crack tip, leads to its abandonment in
favor of direct computation of the strain energy release rate which is equivalent to K. This procedure consists of com-
puting the strain energy for two slightly different crack lengths and employing numerical differentiation to determine
the strain energy release rate. The accuracy is quite good for a relatively coarse finite element mesh for the example
problems presented. Finally the question of bounds to the true solution is considered and it is suggested, but not
proved, that the method will always bound the solution in a manner depending on whether the stress intensity
factor increases or decreases with crack length growth.

1. Introduction and at lower cost. The objective of this paper is to

Finite element methods of analysis in solid me-
chanics are enjoying a steady rise in popularity as
they become more efficient and versatile. Great
strides have been made to increase the accuracy of
the method by use of more refined elements while
at the same time more efficient equation solving
numerical schemes are permitting the use of more
degrees of freedom in the simulation. Another im-
portant aspect to the user is the continual improve-
ment and automation of data input routines. Clearly
it is becoming easier to obtain linearly elastic solu-
tions to geometrically complex structures such as
occur in real life. Some progress is evident toward
nonlinear analysis of structures; but, generally speak-
ing, such methods are still too unstable as well as
expensive for everyday use.
Therefore as this efficient, versatile tool comes
into widespread usage, the engineer should be quick
to make use of the method wherever possible to
obtain better solutions to his problems in less time
* This paper is based on work performed under United States
Atomic Energy Commission Contract AT(45-1)-1830.
describe a procedure for the utilization of finite
element analysis in applications involving linear frac-
ture mechanics or crack propagation.
2. Background
2.1. Finite element method
Much literature (e.g. ref. [17] ) has been devoted
to the subject per se so little will be said here of the
method. The particular finite element code used here-
in is described in Appendix A. It is enough to say that
the finite element method furnishes one with esti-
mates o f the displacement vector and stress tensor
components at a limited (but more or less evenly dis-
tributed) number o f points throughout a loaded
structure. Although generally very good these are not
exact but are approximations to the true solution.
2.2. Fracture mechanics and crack propagation
A complete summary of the fields of brittle frac-
ture and fatigue crack propagation is b e y o n d the
scope of this paper. For such a discussion the reader
is referred to refs. [3] and [5]. However, it is desir-
324 V.B.WATWOODJr.
able if not necessary to briefly describe the ideas of
what is referred to here as "classical elastic fracture
mechanics and crack propagation" since that field is
also evolving rapidly.
First of all, both subjects make use of the fact that
the limiting solution for the elastic state of stress
around a sharp crack as the distance from the crack
tip becomes small is of the form:
K and crack length, the behavior of the crack can be
o =- f(o)
r½
where o = one of the stress components, e.g. Or;
r, 0 = polar coordinates with origin at the crack tip;
f = a trigonometric function of 0 only which depends
on the stress component considered and symmetry of
the problem.
K is a constant dependent on the geometry such as
crack length and loading. Since this solution is based
on linear elasticity K is linearly dependent on the
magnitude of the loading. It is important to note that
this general form of the solution holds for any arbi-
trary structure in which the crack is loaded. The K is
referred to as the stress intensity factor since it is
some kind of measure of the intensity of the local
crack tip stress field.
The hypothesis is made that for a given material
the behavior of the crack, whether it remains stable ha
length, grows without bound or grows at some defi-
nite rate, depends only on the magnitude of this
parameter. Thus for a given material it is possible to
test a single specimen for which K can be analytically
determined in terms of the load and crack length,
thereby resolving its behavior as a function of K. This
same behavior as a function of K is assumed to hold
for any structure. For example, if unstable crack
growth occurs at a value of loading and crack length
for which K is 100 ksi X x / ~ then Kcr for that mate-
rial is 100 ksi × X/~. Then for any other structural
configuration of the same material in the same
environment, if K reaches the value of 1O0 ksi × ,v/in
unstable crack growth is said to occur. In the same
manner data for crack growth is empirically related to
K as e.g., from ref. [18] :
d a = C(AK)4
dN
where a = crack length, N = number of cycles of load-
ing, C = constant depending on environment, ',3K =
change in stress intensity factor K during a ]oad
cycle.
Obviously, this explanation has been oversimpli-
fied as attempts to make the hypothesis fit real life
have demanded some compromises, e.g. thickness
corrections. Nevertheless it can be seen that if K can
be determined for a given structural configuration
predicted using previously catalogued material data.
No attempt is made here to defend or condemn
tile procedure. The facts of the case are that the real
world demands best estimates from engineers of
structural behavior. Since the above procedure seems
to be the best available means of estimating that
behavior short of full scale tests, an engineer is tbrced
to use it.
Before proceeding, one final statement on fracture
mechanics theory is warranted. Another quantity
generally referred to as the strain energy release rate,
G, is directly related to K through an equation involv-
ing only the elastic constants of tile material. This
equation is (ret'. [51):
K2
G = ~ - ( 1 - v 2) (plane strain) ,
K2
G = ~:- (plane stress) ,
where E = Young's modulus, u = Poisson's ratio.
G conveys more physical meaning than K because in
addition to the interpretation implied by its name,
strain energy release rate, it can be viewed as the por-
tion of the work performed by the external loads
during crack extension that goes into failure of the
material per unit area of crack growth (or one half of
the total new surface area).
3. Application of the finite element methods to elas-
tic fracture mechanics and crack propagation
theory
To utilize existing elastic crack propagation theory
it is necessary to determine the appropriate value of
the stress intensity factor (K) or equivalently the
 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD F O R PREDICTION OF CRACK BEHAVIOR 3 25

strain energy release rate, G. In the past use was made b .......... ~
of a few closed form solutions, ref. [3], or a colloca-
tion technique, ref. [10], to determine these param-
eters. These methods were, however, not general
enough or convenient enough for most applications
although they have performed quite well in analyzing
specimens.
Finite element methods, on the other hand, are
well known for their generality particularly with
respect to geometric irregularities. In addition, they
are becoming increasingly easier and more efficient to
use. Therefore the decision was made to attempt to
use existing finite element codes to determine the
appropriate value of the stress intensity factor. For
the sake of completeness the finite element code used
here is described in Appendix A.

3.1. Direct method

The first and most obvious attempt was to utilize
the stress distribution associated with the tip of a
crack. For the two dimensional case this is (ref. [3] ):

i ]11
J[]]ll]l]JllilZlt
~ l l l l ] l [ : l l : l i11111111]1 ']] Ii I--I
i L I

ox - (27rr)
KI cos ~ 0 { 1 - sin 1 3
½ ] 0 sin ~ 0} (1)
Fig. 1. Finite element idealization for center slotted panel
KII and side slotted panel. L = 85, b = 40, a is variable. N u m b e r
- - sin 71 0 { 2 + c o s ~-
1 0 cos~0} o f elements = 470, n u m b e r o f nodal points = 478.
(27rr) ½

plus similar equations for Oy and Yxy" The origin here
is at the crack tip and the x-direction is parallel to the
crack axis and into the uncracked material, r and 0
are the usual polar coordinates. Since a finite element
solution provides a stress distribution it is a simple
matter to solve eq. (1) and the other component
equations for K I and KII utilizing the finite element
solution at discrete points. One would expect, of
course, to utilize only those elements near the tip of
the crack because of the local nature of the theoreti-
cal solution.
To verify this process a problem was solved for
which the solution is known. This was the center
slotted panel under tension shown in fig. 1. The ele-
ment idealization is indicated in the figure and con-
sists of 478 nodes and 470 elements. The stress dis-
tribution is symmetrical about the axis through the
crack and therefore KII is zero. It is also symmetrical
about the vertical plate centerline so that only one
fourth of the plate need be analyzed. The appropriate
geometrical boundary conditions are shown in fig. 2.
Each element furnishes an estimate of the three
stress components. Making use of the appropriate
values o f r and 0 one can use eq. (1) to solve for K I
for each stress component. This procedure is dis-
cussed in more detail in Appendix A. Therefore it
can be seen that each element offers three possible
values for K I (actually more since similar computa-
tions can be made for the predicted displacements).
A blowup of the elements near the tip is shown in
fig. 3 and the results are tabulated in table 1. Since
these results range from a low of 1.5 to a high of
18.5 (correct value K I = 5.82) it becomes apparent
that this procedure lacks consistency. By choosing
only those values derived from Oy where 0 remains
less that 90 ° much better results are obtained. This is
perhaps a logical choice for Mode I and perhaps
those associated with 7-xy would be appropriate for
Mode II. There still remains an annoying degree of
arbitrariness and considering the apparent conse-
326 V . B . W A T W O O D Jr.

o-

ttttttt 'ltttTf
1~4 Panel Considered • ,1/2 Panel Considered
Below a~ Below

1)

Crack Nodes Crack Nodes

Free Free
lai Center Cracked (b) Side Cracked Panel
Panel Boundary Boundary Conditions
Conditions
Fig. 2. Boundary conditions for center cracked and side cracked panels.

size (relative to overall plate dimensions) of the

a ~ 10
b - 40
L : 85
5 6 ?
] 2 3 4
Crack Tip
Fig. 3. Elements near tip of crack for use with table 1.
quences of a poor choice (when the answer is not
known), one is led to look for a better method. It
should be noted that u s e o f the displacement field in
the same manner produced about the same results as
above.
Ref. [9] utilized the above approach with some-
what more success by use of an automatic mesh gen-
erating scheme which enabled very small element
sizes to be used in the vicinity of the crack (the
smallest elements are on the order of ~1 to ~ 1 the
smallest elements used in the example above). In their
approach the writers of ref. [9] pick a particular value
of 0 in eq. (1) and plot K 1 (or KII ) as computed from
one of several ways for various values of r. Three
methods are used. The first two of these make use of
the stress components or the displacement compo-
nents as mentioned previously. The third makes use
of a line integral which is proportional to the square
of the stress intensity factor (ref. [16] ). The methods
are equally accurate if one chooses the appropriate
stress or displacement component. The resulting K - r
plot is approximately straight (for the problems
worked) for a range of r (it goes awry as r ~ 0 and at
"large" values o f r). That slope is projected into r = 0
to get the final estimate. Even so the question of
which stress component or displacement to use is
open to question (particularly when the correct
answer is unknown). Undoubtedly the use of such
small elements leads to long computer times and high
costs. Applying the above method to the results in
table 1 using the Oy component and 0 = 45 ° results in
a prediction for K I of 5.23 which is greater than 10%
in error. Refinement of element size would undoub-
 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF CRACK BEHAVIOR 327

Table 1
Predicted values of KI for center slotted panel based on finite element stress solution.
Element idealization shown in fig. 1, 2, and 3.

Elt ox Factor KI ay Factor KI rxy Factor KI

1 0..469 5.05 2.37 2.010 6.24 12.5 -1.130 -7.43 8.40

2 1.016 3.35 3.40 3.156 1.76 5.55 0.349 53.1 18,5
3 0.743 3.50 2.60 2.000 2.94 5.88 0.207 24.4 5.05
4 0.548 4.16 2.28 1.680 3.89 6.54 0.0974 44.0 4.28
5 -0.0846 7.10 X 1.673 4.35 7.28 -0.858 -7.22 6.19
6 -0.115 8.40 X 2.324 2.53 5.88 -0.172 -22.4 3.85
7 0.256 6.08 1.56 2.112 2.93 6.19 0.195 28.9 5.64

KI = a/factor. Correct KI = 5.82.

tedly improve the estimate but at considerable in-
crease in data preparation and computer time. If one
has the automatic element ref'ming scheme built into
his finite element code such as in ref. [9] then only
computer time would be lengthened. However it
would be most desirable for most engineers to be able
to use their existing codes without such extensive
modification.
3.2. Energy or compliance m e t h o d
Since the above procedure lacks sufficient accu-
racy without resorting to very small element nets it
was considered desirable to seek a better procedure.
The approach that finally evolved was basically an
analog to the so called compliance method of experi-
mentally determining the K or G value. The method is
quite simple and consists of computing the strain
energy stored for two or more slightly different crack
lengths and making use of the definition of G, i.e.,
dU
G = ( ± ) * d--A'
*( + if constant load,
- if constant displacement)
where U = strain energy stored, A = crack opening
area i.e., the crack length for a plate of unit thickness.
The easiest way to calculate the strain energy is to
make use of Clapeyron's theorem i.e., that the strain
energy stored for an elastic body is equal to one-half
the work that would be done by the applied forces
(of the equilibrium state) acting through their total
displacements. For the finite element method this
means a multiplication of the generalized forces at the
nodes by one-half the nodal displacements. Such a
procedure is simple, both in concept and in imple-
mentation. For those problems with a small number
of external loads, it can be done by hand from the
existing output of most finite element codes. Only a
few additional FORTRAN statements were necessary
to modify an existing finite element code to accom-
plish this objective. Alternatively, the strain energy in
each element may be calculated directly from the
nodal displacements and these summed. This proce-
dure is a little more complicated but is sometimes
more convenient since the summation can proceed as
stresses are being evaluated. Furthermore, no special
manipulations are required when displacement
boundary conditions are applied.
About the only word of caution necessary here is
that the basic element mesh and nodal point coor-
dinates must remain fixed from one crack length to
another. This is required because the quantity which
(2) is desired is the change in stored strain energy as the
crack changes in length. Therefore the only changes
that should occur in the strain energy estimate
should be related to change in crack length and not
change in the element mesh. In order to eliminate
possible confusion in this matter the recommended
procedure for extending the crack is simply to add
another node at the crack tip (with the same coor-
dinates as the original one) and renumber the ele-
ments in such a way as to separate the two elements
just inside of the crack tip. Thus the crack is extended
in length by an amount equal to the element length.
328 V.B.WATWOOD Jr.

Table 2 Table 3
Values of K I by finite element energy method for center Values Of Kl/o by finite element energy method for side
cracked panel with evenly distributed end loads a. a as shown; cracked panel with evenly distributed end loads o. a as shown;
b = 40;L = 85; unit thickness. b = 40; L = 85; unit thickness.

UE/a 2 FG/o 2 UE/o 2 EG/o 2

Ki/cr from ........................ Kl/o from
a (plane strain, Ki/o a ref. [3] % diff. a (plane strain, Ki/o a ref. [10] % diff.
v = 0.3) u = 0.3)

7 3160.04 9 3271.28
21.50 4.86 7.5 4.96 2.0 55.10 7.78 9.5 8.00 2.8
8 3181.54 10 3326.38
24.76 5.22 8.5 5.32 1.9 67.10 8.58 1 0 . 5 8.76 2.!
9 3206.30 11 3393.54
28.14 5.56 9.5 5.66 1.8
10 3234.44
31.66 5.90 1 0 . 5 6.00 1.7
11 3266.10 fig. 2. Again the results are excellent when compared
35.38 6.23 11.5 6.34 1.8 to another numerical scheme.
12 3301.48 Note that for both cases the finite element proce-
39.26 6.57 12.5 6.67 1.5 dure consistently underestimates the stress intensity
13 3340.74
43.36 6.90 13.5 7.01 1.6 factor.
14 3384.10

4. Bounds to the exact solution

After the strain energy is calculated for several
crack lengths, numerical differentiation may be used
to obtain dU/dA. For this work the most elementary
type numerical differentiation was utilized which was
simply to subtract the strain energy estimate for ad-
jacent crack lengths and then divide by the increase
in area. The resulting derivative is said to apply for a
crack length half way between the two used for the
strain energy difference.
To illustrate this procedure consider the identical
problem as discussed in section 3.1. Several crack
lengths with the same element idealization were con-
sidered. The strain energy for each configuration was
c o m p u t e d and these are given in table 2. The differ-
encing scheme is illustrated in the presentation o f
data and a comparison with the work of Isida [3] is
given. Isida's work is also numerical but is generally
considered the best solution available. The agreement
is excellent with the error tess than 2%. There is no
ambiguity since only a single estimate is produced.
Another example, the side cracked plate, was
solved and the results are given in table 3. Again the
element idealization of fig. 1 was utilized but with
the appropriate boundary conditions as shown in
Since bounds are of importance both from an aca-
demic and a practical point o f view the discussion will
be directed toward the problem of determining when
and in what direction the procedure outlined above
could be expected to bound the true solution.
The finite element m e t h o d can and in fact is most
easily viewed as a generalization o f the Raleigh-Ritz
method o f approximate analysis. The functional
which is minimized is the potential energy (for the
compatible displacement model finite element). The
fact that the potential energy is directly related to
the strain energy is probably the primary reason for
the remarkable accuracy of the method presented
herein.
4.1. L o w e r bound on G
It is well known that the predicted strain energy is
a lower b o u n d to the true solution for the compatible
displacement element model. However since the stress
intensity factor derived herein is the consequence of
the subtraction of the strain energy estimates for two
slightly different configurations, little can be said
directly regarding bounds. What determines the bound
 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF CRACK BEHAVIOR 329

on G is the way in which the quality of the strain Table 4

energy estimate changes in moving from one configu- Values of KI/P for cracked infinite strip with center wedge
loads. Length to width ratio of finite element simulation
ration to the other. Since the strain within each ele-
= 5.25. a as indicated, b = 50.0.
ment is constrained by the assumed deformation pat-
terns within the element, the greater the strain UE/P2 EG/P2 KI/P
gradient the more accurate the approximation will be. % diff.
a (plane strain, Kl/P (from ref. [3])
Therefore since the stress intensity factor K (or G) is see formula
directly related to the "magnitude" of the stress con- v = 0.3) below
centration and hence to the "steepness" of the strain
9 1.43052
gradient, it seems reasonable that i f K is increasing 9.5 0.03539 0.1972 0.1919 2.8
with crack length then the strain energy estimate 10.0 1.46591
quality will be decreasing resulting in a lower bound 10.5 0.03293 0.1902 0.1845 3.1
on the predicted K (or G). 11.0 1.49884
To make this idea a little more precise let the
strain energy estimate for the initial crack length be /q_ 1 I- "°7 -,/2
P x/r~aL~a sin b j from ref. [3].
given by:

U1 = U1 + el '
where U 1 = strain energy estimate of configuration 1,
U1 = exact strain energy for configuration 1, e I =
error associated with the strain energy estimate for
configuration 1.
A similar relation holds for the case where the
crack length has grown slightly and is referred to as
configuration 2. Substituting such equations into eq.
(2) for a plate of unit thickness gives:
U2 U1 + e2 -- el
a = , (4)
a2 al
which reduces in the limit to:
G=G+e G ,
where G = estimated value o f the strain energy release
rate, G = exact value o f strain energy release rate,
e G = (e 2 - e l ) / A a = error associated with estimate.
Since U is underestimated using compatible ele-
ments then e I and e 2 are negative. Then as before if
G is increasing with crack extensions, e 2 should be
greater in magnitude than e I so that e G will be nega-
tive. The accuracy of this argument rests heavily on
the assumption that the element net changes asso-
ciated with the crack extension only affect the strain
energy estimate because of the crack length change
and do not produce significant side effects.
The center slotted panel and the side slotted panel
under tension are examples where G increases with
crack length and indeed as pointed out earlier the
predictions herein are less than the values given in the
other references. Also note that since the other meth-
ods used may well err in the opposite direction, the
error o f the finite element procedure herein with
respect to the true solution may even be smaller than
that indicated.
4.2. Upper bound on G
If G is decreasing with crack extension then e 1
exceeds e 2 in absolute value though both are still
negative and e G is positive thus producing an upper
bound on G.
To check for the other bound the center slotted
infinite length panel with a centered wedge load was
worked using the finite element scheme. The element
layout and displacement boundary conditions were
similar to fig. 1 except that the quarter-plate was
taken longer (210 versus 85) to better simulate the
infinite length situation. Also the loading was changed
from an end tension to a vertical concentrated load
applied at the left edge (which puts it at the center of
the full simulation, of course) of the plate. The
results are given in table 4 with a comparison to an
approximate closed form solution as given in ref. [3].
Note that the finite element values are greater than
the reference values. It can be seen then that the
limited results presented herein bear out the bounds
concept outlined before. However, the author wishes
330 V.B.WATWOOD Jr.
to make clear that no claim is being made that the
statements on bounds have been proven. Clearly this
is not so and a much more precise argument involving
numerical differentiation as well as a more definitive
relationship between K and the quality of the finite
element estimate of the strain energy is required.
The converse argument applies to an element
model that satisfies equilibrium throughout the struc-
ture. For a discussion of equilibrium models see ref.
[15]. The combination of upper and lower bounds
would provide a much needed assurance of accuracy
without resorting to finer gridworks.
5. Generalization of the method
The procedures outlined above may be applied
directly to any geometry desired which enables one
to apply the method to real engineering problems as
well as to specimen analysis. The finite element code
used herein was for two dimensional problems only,
either axisymmetric or plane but the method applies
equally well to the three dimensional case. However
a problem which rears its head immediately is that in
the general case the distinction between modes I and
II is lost. This at first appears disturbing as almost all
material fracture data is classified by mode. However
this apparent problem becomes less significant when
one considers that almost all such data is for mode I.
The writer knows of only two apparently successful
attempts to measure Knc, refs. [11] and [12]. In
ref. [11] Erdogan and Sih find that Kic andKit c are
about equal in value for plexiglass (Kic = 460 psi V ~
and KII c = 410 psi x/~). However, in ref. [12] Corten
states that GII c >> Glc and gives some experimental
data where KII c is about four times Kic for a glass
fiber in epoxy resin matrix material. The presence of
fibers in the material may well influence the relation-
ship between K I and KII.
Mode II data is completely lacking for most mate-
rials of interest. Hence for most practical purposes
one is justified and conservative to say that Guc =
Glc and to simply ignore the mode concept. The
same conclusion can be reached for crack propaga-
tion. It should be pointed out however that with the
above finite element procedure the modes could be
separated with acceptable accuracy by applying the
proper constraints in the vicinity of the crack. For
example, the mode 11 contribution could be suppressed
by forcing the nodal points on opposite side of the
crack opening to move together in a direction parallel
to the crack surface. In a similar manner the mode I
contribution could be suppressed by forcing these
same modes to move together in a direction normal
to the crack surface.
It can be seen that the proposed finite element
method above offers a convenient, economical and
suitably accurate method of determining stress inten-
sity factors. Probably the most glaring weakness is
one of knowing when the element mesh is refined
enough to provide suitable accuracy. The problem is
best met by utilizing more than one mesh size and
observing the sensitivity of the results or by providing
a dual equilibrium model analysis and examining the
size of the "gap" between the two solutions. The
severity of this problem is diminished however when
one considers the overall accuracy of classical fracture
mechanics.
/
21_
I
Fig. 4. Centre cracked panel with center wedge loads.
6. Summary and conclusions
The application of classical crack propagation
analysis is made much easier and more general by the
use of finite element methods to provide the neces-
sary estimates of the stress intensity factor K. By a
straight forward procedure utilizing existing codes,
accurate estimates of this factor can be made. This
procedure consists simply of calculating the strain
energy at several crack lengths and numerically dif-
ferentiating the resulting strain energy-crack length
curve. Indications have been given of the direction
of the error involved and it has been suggested that
use of both equilibrium and displacement finite ele-
ment models with the same element idealization will
result in estimates on both sides of the exact result.
 FINITE ELEMENT METHOD FOR PREDICTION OF CRACK BEHAVIOR 331

Appendix A
1
4
KI 5 F(Oi)
Description of finite element code used for the i=1 a i - 4 x / ~ i=1 X/Tii
numerical calculation
or
The code used is fairly typical of the codes cur-
rently in widespread use to solve two dimensional 4x/~a
problems in plane and axisymmetric elasticity. For a KI- 4 F(Oi ) '
complete description of the theory involved see refs.
[1] and [2]. i=1 N/~i
For both the axisymmetric and plane cases the
basic element is triangular and within that element where r i and 0 i are the coordinates of the geometric
the displacement field is constrained to be a linear center of the ith element. The second alternative was
function of the coordinates. Thus, the resulting strain considered the most accurate and therefore was the
field is constant within each element. Complete con- one used to generate table 1.
tinuity of displacements is achieved at the element
boundaries by demanding continuity at the element
vertices. Notation
The quadrilateral element in the code is made up
of an assembly of four triangles with an additional A = crack opening area
a = crack length
node introduced at the geometrical center of the
E --- Young's modulus
quadrilateral. This node is reduced out by considering
G = strain energy release rate, general
the subassembly of four elements as a substructure.
GI, GII = strain energy release rate, mode I
Element stresses are computed directly from the
or II
displacement field for each triangle. For the quadri- g stress intensity factor, general
lateral these stresses are merely averaged and the
resulting state o f stress is said to exist at the geomet- KI, Kn = stress intensity factor, critical
ric center of the quadrilateral. Kcr = stress intensity factor, critical
N = number of load cycles
Some care must be exercised in regard to the
U = strain energy
interpretation of stresses for use in computing K I
x,y = Cartesian coordinates,
from eq. (1). Two choices exist. First one may simply
r, 0 = polar coordinates
use the values of r and 0 corresponding to the geo-
o, Or, Ox, etc. = stress component, subscript indicates
metric center of the element and compute K I from
direction,
(KII is assumed zero here):
= Poisson's ratio
x/ gc
KI = F - - ~ c ) 0 •
References

Where r c and 0 c are the coordinates of the geo-

metric center of the quadrilateral, a is the average
stress of the four surrounding triangular elements and
F is the appropriate function depending on which
stress component is under consideration.
The other method is to make use of the definition
of the average stress and use the values o f r and 0 for
the geometric center of each of the four triangles, i.e.:
[1] E.L.Wilson, Structural analysis of axisymmetric solids,
AIAA Journal 3, No. 12 (1965).
[2] R.W.Clough and Y.Rashid, Finite element analysis of
axisymmetric solids, J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE 91, No.
EM1 (1965).
[3] P.C.Paris and G.C.M.Sih, Stress analysis of cracks, Frac-
ture toughness testing and its application, ASTM
Special Tech. Pub. No. 381 (1965).
[4] M.B.Reynolds, Fracture mechanics and the stability of
engineering structures, Vallecitos Atomic Lab., General
Electric, GEAP-4678, September 1965.
332 V.B.WATWOOD Jr.
[5] G.R.Irwin, Encylopedia of physics, elasticity and plas-
ticity, vol. 6 (1958).
[6] G.R.Irwin, Structural Mechanics, Proceedings of the
First Symposium of Naval Structural Mechanics (Perga-
mon Press, 1960).
[7] W.F.Brown and J.E.Srawley, Plane strain crack tough-
ness of high strength metallic materials, ASTM Special
Techn. Pub. No. 410 (1966).
[8] B.Gross and J.E.Srawley, Stress intensity factors for
single-edge-notch specimens in bending or combined
bending and tension by boundary collocation of a stress
function, NASA TND-2603, January 1965.
[9] S.K.Chan, I.S.Tuba and W.K.Wilson, On the finite ele-
ment method in linear fracture mechanics, presented at
the 2nd National Fracture Mechanics Symposium,
Lehigh U., 17-19 June 1968.
[ 10] B.Gross, J.E.Srawley and W.F.Brown, Jr., Stress-inten-
sity factors for a single-edge-notch tension specimen by
boundary collocation of a stress function, NASA TN
D-2395, August 1964.
[11] F.Erdogan and G.C.Sih, On the crack extension in
plates under plane loading and transverse shear, Journal
of Basic Engineering, ASME, December 1963.
[12] R.T.Schwartz and H.S.Schwartz, eds., Fundamental
Aspects of Fiber Reinforced Plastic Composites, Chap-
ter 6, Influence of fracture toughness and flaws on the
interlaminar shear strength of fibrous composites by
H.T.Corten (Interscience, New York).
[ 13] O.C.Zienkiewicz and G.S.Holister, eds., Stress Analysis
(Wiley, New York, 1965).
[ 14] M.J.Turner, R.W.Clough, H.C.Martin and L.J.Topp,
Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex structures,
J. Aeronaut. Sci. 23, No. 9 (1956).
[ 15] V.B.Watwood and B.J.Hartz, An equilibrium stress field
model for finite element solutions of two-dimensional
elastostatic problems, Int. J. Solids Structures 4 (1968)
857.
[16] J.R.Rice, A path independent integral and the approxi-
mate analysis of strain by notches and cracks, Brown
Engineering Report No. E39, May 1967.
[ 17] O.C.Zienkiewicz and Y.K.Cheung, The Finite Element
Method in Structural and Continuum Mechanics (Mc-
Graw-ltill, New York, 1967).
[18] G.R.Irwin, J.M.Krafft, P.C.Paris and A.A.Wells, Basic
aspects of crack growth and fracture, Naval Research
Lab. Report 6598, November 1967.