Computational Fracture Mechanics: Summer School On Fracture Modelling and Assessment

Computational Fracture Mechanics
Summer School on
Fracture Modelling and Assessment
Wolfgang Brocks
Christian Albrecht University Kiel
Trondheim, June 2014

Part I: Fracture Concepts
(1) Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
(2) Small scale yielding (SSY)
(3) Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
Part II: Determination of Fracture Parameters

(4) FE meshes for structures with cracks
(5) CTOD, CTOA
(6) Stress intensity factors
(7) Elastic-plastic J-integral
Part III: The Cohesive Model

(8) Background - fundamentals
(9) The traction-separation law
(10) Examples, applications
(11) Cohesive elements in ABAQUS
Part I: Fracture Concepts
(1) Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

(2) Small Scale Yielding (SSY)
(3) Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM)
Wolfgang Brocks
Christian Albrecht University , Kiel (Germany)

Materials Mechanics
LEFM
• Stress intensity approach (IRWIN)

• Energy approach (GRIFFITH)
• J-integral
Fracture modes
CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 2
Seite 1
LEFM: Stress Field at a Crack Tip
IRWIN [1957]:
KI
σ ij ( r ,ϑ ) = f ijI (ϑ ) + T δ i1δ1 j mode I
2π r
KI = stress intensity factor

T = non-singular T-stress RICE [1974]
K I = σ ∞ 2π a Y ( geometry )
General asymptotic solution

1
stresses σ ij ( r ,ϑ ) =  K I fijI (ϑ ) + K II f ijII (ϑ ) + K III f ijIII (ϑ ) 
2π r 
1 r
displacements ui ( r , ϑ ) =  K I giI (ϑ ) + K II giII (ϑ ) + K III giIII (ϑ ) 
2G 2π 
Angular Functions in LEFM
1,5
Modus I f xx
fij f yy
1
f xy
0,5
-0,5 2
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180 Modus II f xx
1,5
θ[] fij 1
f yy
f xy
0,5
-0,5
-1
-1,5
-2
-180 -120 -60 0 60 120 180
θ[ ]
Seite 2
LEFM: Energy Approach
A.A. Griffith [1920]: mode I

∂
Crack extends if
∂Acrack
(U relel − U sep ) ≥ 0
Energy release rate

∂U el ∂U rel
el
G el = − =
∂Acrack ∂Acrack
Work of separation ∂U sep

= 2γ = Γ c Note that the GRIFFITH
(energy per area) ∂Acrack crack has two crack tips!
K I2 ∂ ∂
IRWIN [1957]: G el = =
E′ ∂Acrack B∂ 2a
Mixed mode: G el =
1
E′
( K I2 + K II2 ) + 21G K III2
Path Independent Integrals
φ(xi) is some (scalar, vector, tensor) field quantity being

steadily differentiable in domain B and divergence free
∂ϕ
ϕ ,i ≐ = 0 in B
∂xi
GAUSS theorem ∫ϕ
B
,i dV = ∫ ϕ ni dS = 0
∂B
Singularity
∫ ϕ n dS = ∫ ϕ n dS + ∫ ϕ n dS + ∫ ϕ n dS + ∫ ϕ n dS = 0
i i i i i
∂B0 ∂B ∂B − ∂BS ∂B +
∫ (..) = − ∫ (..) und ∫ (..) = − ∫ (..) ⇒ ∫ ϕn i dS = ∫ ϕ n i dS

∂B + ∂B − ∂B ∂B ∂B ∂ BS
ESHELBY [1965]: conservation law for energy momentum tensor

∂w
Pij , j = 0 for Pij = wδ ij −
∂uk , j
uk ,i ⇒ “material forces” Fi = ∫ Pn
∂B
ij j dS
Seite 3
J-Vector as Material Force
Boundary value problem for quasistatic deformation of a solid body B:
• Equilibrium: σ ij , j = 0 in B
• Boundary conditions: σ ij ni = t j on ∂Bσ

ui = ui on ∂Bu
• Small (linear) strains: ε ij = 1
2 (u + u j ,i ) in B
i, j
∂w
• Hyperelastic material: σ ij = in B
∂ε ij
The components of the material force Fi = ∫  w(ε

∂B
ij )ni − σ jk nk u j ,i  dS
are different from zero, if B contains a singularity.
Applied to a panel of thickness h, dS = h d s
yields the vector Ji = ∫Γ  wn − σ

i jk nk u j ,i  ds
as material force per thickness h.
J-Integral (1)
The 1st component of this J vector is the J-integral of

CHEREPANOV [1967] and RICE [1968]
J= ∫Γ  wdx 2 − σ ij n j ui ,1 ds 
• Due to its path-independence, it can be calculated in the far field but

controls the crack-tip near field.
• For r → 0, J has a finite value different from zero, only if the strain energy
density has a singularity of the order r--1 .
 ∂U 
RICE [1968, 1973]: J = G = −  energy release rate
 h ∂a vL
LEFM: mixed mode
J = J1 = GI + GII + GIII =
1
E′
( K I2 + K II2 ) +
1 2
2G
K III
K I K II
J 2 = −2
E′
Seite 4
J-Integral (2)
further time independent processes

requirements: no volume forces
homogeneous material
plane stress and strain fields, no dependence on x3
straight and stress free crack faces parallel to x1
Extension to 3D:
• KIKUCHI et al. [1979],
• AMESTOY et al. [1981],
• BAKKER [1984]
J ( sc ) = ∫Γ  w n − σ
1 ij n j ui ,1  ds
∂
− ∫∫  wn1 − σ ij n j ui ,1  dS
S−
∂ξ3 
Correction terms for body forces, surface tractions, thermal

loading, multiphase materials exist in the literature:
DE LORENZI [1982], KIKUCHI & MIYAMOTO [1982], MUSCATI & LI
[1984], SIEGELE [1989]
SSY: Plastic Zone at the Crack tip
IRWIN [1964]: extension of LEFM to small plastic zones

Small Scale Yielding, SSY
K dominated stress field – mode I
Yielding in the ligament θ =0

perfectly plastic material RF (ε p ) = R0
“Radius” of plastic zone rp ≪ a
 1
2
1  KI  plane stress
rp =   
2π  R0  (1 − 2ν )
2
plane strain
effective crack length aeff = a + rp
effective SIF
a 
K Ieff = K I (aeff ) = σ ∞ π aeff Y  eff 
W  no singularity
Seite 5
DUGDALE Model
strip
yield
model
2 c = 2a + 2 d p
DUGDALE [1960]: σ yy ( r,0) = R0 , 0 ≤ r ≤ d p

2 a
Superposition K I(1) = σ ∞ π c , K I(2) = − R0 π c arccos
π c
! a  π σ∞ 
no singularity K I(1) + K I( 2) = 0 ⇒ = cos  
c  2 R0 
no restriction
  π σ ∞    π σ∞   with respect to
d p = c 1 − cos    = a sec   − 1
  2 R0     2 R0   plastic zone size!
CTOD
IRWIN [1957]: crack opening profile
KI r  1 plane stress
u y ( r,π ) = 4 
E 2π 1 − ν 2 plane strain
WELLS [1961]: CTOD δ t = 2u y ( rp ,π )
4 K I2  1 plane stress
δ tIrwin = 
π ER0 (1 − ν ) (1 − 2ν ) plane strain
2
DUGDALE [1960]: crack opening profile

R0  π σ∞ 
u y ( x = a , y = 0) = 4 a ln sec  
Eπ  2 R0 
CTOD δ t = 2u y ( x = a, y = 0)
8 R0  π σ∞ 
δ tDugdale = a ln sec   no dependence on geometry!
π E  2 R0 
Seite 6
BARENBLATT Model
Idea:
Singularity at the crack tip is unphysical
• GRIFFITH [1920]: Energy approach
• IRWIN [1964]: Effective crack length
• DUGDALE [1960]: Strip yield model
• BARENBLATT [1959]: Cohesive zone
Stress distribution σ(x) is unknown and cannot be measured

Cohesive model: traction-separation law σ(δ)
Energy Release Rate
 ∂U  ∂Urel
G = −  =
 B∂a vL B∂a
2
KIeff a + rp KI2
= Gssy = ≈ = Ge + Gp
E′ a E′
∂Usep
= Γ c > Γ ce = 2γ
B∂a
Fracture criterion: G = Γc
δc
Cohesive model: Γ c = ∫ σ (δ ) d δ Separation energy

0
local criterion!
Seite 7
EPFM
Analytical solutions and analyses in

Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics,
i.e. fracture under large scale yielding (LSY) conditions
are based on “Deformation Theory of Plasticity”
which actually describes hyperelastic materials
∂w t t
σ ij = w= ∫ σ ijεɺij dτ ≈ ∫ σ εɺ dτ
p
∂ε ij τ =0 τ =0
ij ij
in the following, the superscripts “e” stands for “linear elastic”

“p” stands for “nonlinear”
K I2  ∂U p 
U = U e + U p = ∫ F dvLe + ∫ F dvLp J = Je + Jp = − 
E ′  ∂Acrack v
L
J as Stress Intensity Factor
Power law of RAMBERG & OSGOOD [1945]
n
ε εe εp σ σ 
uniaxial = + = +α  
ε0 ε0 ε0 σ 0 σ0 
1− n
ε ijp 3  σ  σ ij′
3D = α 
ε0 2  σ 0  σ0
HUTCHINSON [1968],
RICE & ROSENGREN [1968]
singular stress and strain fields at the crack tip (HRR field) – mode I
1
− 1
σ ij = Kσ r σɶ ij (θ )
n +1
 J  n +1
Kσ = σ 0  
 ασ 0 ε 0 I n 
n
 Kσ  − nn+1
ε ij ≈ ε ijp = αε 0   r εɶij (θ ) σ ijε ijp = O ( r −1 )
 σ0 
Seite 8
HRR Angular Functions
σɶ xx
σɶ yy
EPFM: CTOD
n
 J  n+1 n1+1
HRR displacement field ui = αε 0   r uɶi (θ )
 ασ 0 ε 0 I n 
Crack Tip Opening Displacement, δt , SHIH [1981]
δ t = 2u y (rt , π ) , r − u x (rt , π ) = u y (rt , π )

J
δ t = dn
σ0
1
d n = (αε 0 ) n Dn
Seite 9
Path Dependence of J
FE simulation
C(T) specimen
plane strain
stationary crack
incremental theory
of plasticity
ASTM E 1820: reference value

“far field” value
K I2
J =J e + J p Je =
E′
KI = σ ∞ π a Y (a W )
ηU p
Jp =
B (W − a )
Stresses at Crack Tip
• incremental theory of plasticity HRR

1 1
− −
• large strain analysis σ ij  r  n +1  r  n +1
σ 0  J σ 0 
≃ ≃ 
 δt 
open symbols: J = 250 N/mm

solid symbols: J = 380 N/mm
Seite 10
Literature
W. BROCKS, A. CORNEC, I. SCHEIDER: Computational Aspects of

Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics. In: I. Milne, R.O. Ritchie, B. Karihaloo
(Eds.): Comprehensive Structural Integrity - Numerical and
Computational Methods. Vol. 3, Oxford: Elsevier, 2003. 127 - 209.
(ISBN: 0-08-043749-4)
W. BROCKS: Computational Fracture Mechanics. In: D. RAABE, F.
ROTERS, F. BARLAT, L.-Q. CHEN (Eds.): Continuum Scale Simulation of
Engineering Materials. Weinheim: WILEY-VCH, 2004. 621 - 637
W. BROCKS, W.: Computational Fracture Mechanics. In: R. BLOCKLEY,
W. SHYY (Eds.): Encyclopedia of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 3, John
Wiley & Sons, 2010.
M. KUNA: Finite Elements in Fracture Mechanics, Springer Dordrecht,
2013. (ISBN 978-94-007-6679-2)
Seite 11
Part II: Determination of Fracture Parameters
(1) FE meshes for structures with cracks

(2) CTOD, CTOA
(3) Stress intensity factors
(4) Elastic-plastic J-integral
Wolfgang Brocks

Materials Mechanics
FE Models - General
Cracks and crack-like defects induce high stress and strain gradients
which require a fine discretisation → large number of elements and
degrees of freedom.
Reduce number of DOF by
2D models whenever possible,
Coarsening of the mesh remote from the defect,
Account for symmetry conditions,
Apply singular elements with special shape functions.
Modelling means reduction of complexity and simplification:

• Models should be as simple as possible and only as
complex as unavoidable
Seite 1
FE Models – Example C(T)
symmetry line
BC: u2 = 0, x1≥ a
2D model:
plane strain
Crack Tip and Ligament
stationary crack:
collapsed (singular) elements
α ij(0) (ϑ ) α ij(1) (ϑ )
ε ij ( r ,ϑ ) = + + α ij(2) (ϑ )
r r
extending crack:
regular array of elements
Seite 2
Biaxially Loaded Centre-Cracked Panel
two-fold symmetry
2D plane stress analysis
3D Models: Tubular Joint
1 symmetry plane
CORNEC, SCHÖNFELD, ZERBST [1999]: ESIS TC1.3 Round Robin
Seite 3
3D Models: Railway Axle
ZERBST [2005]: ESIS TC24

ZERBST, SCHÖDEL et al. [2011]
full 3D model,
no symmetry plane
loading by tension,
bending, torsion
CTOD , CTOA
• crack-tip blunting of a
stationary crack
• collapsed elements with 1/r
singularity
• elasto-plastic, large-strain
(geometrically nonlinear)
analysis
• CTOA controlled crack

extension
• regular isoparametric
elements
• elasto-plastic, large-strain
(geometrically nonlinear)
analysis
Seite 4
Stresses at the Crack Tip
• incremental theory of plasticity

• large strain analysis accounting
open symbols: J = 250 N/mm
for crack-tip blunting
solid symbols: J = 380 N/mm
CTOA Controlled Crack Extension
10
Steady state crack extension R-curve
CTOA [ ]
Newman [1999] 8
ψ ( ∆a ) = ψ c , ∆a > ∆ass
6
0
0 5 10 15
∆a [mm]
• Constant CTOA with initial

transient regime
 p C ∆a p −1
∆ a ≤ ∆ ass
ψ R ( ∆a ) =  • Transient regime is determined by
 ψ ss ∆ a > ∆ ass
derivative of δ5R-curve
• ψss from simulation of F-VLL curve
For COD and CTOA based R-curves
see also ASTM E 2472 and δ5R-curve
Seite 5
CTOA in FEM
Simulation of crack extension by node release
• ABAQUS:
*DEBOND
*FRACTURE CRIT, TYPE=COD 1/2
• CTOA = COD / BL CTODFE
1/2 CTOAFE
• Base length BL = 1mm
base 0,25m
• Linear 2D Plane Stress Elements lengthFE m
1/2 CTOAFE
As CTOA is dependent on base length

a
(BL), it has to be uniquely defined in
both testing and FE simulation node release
Results M(T)
Validation of ψR-curve
effect of base length
Seite 6
Stress Intensity Factors (LEFM)
extrapolation from stress field  KI   σ yy ( r ,0) 

 K  = lim 2π r  σ (r ,0) 
 II  r →0  xy 
K   σ (r ,0) 
 III   yz 
extrapolation from displacement field  KI   κ1+1 u y (r , π ) 

 K  = E lim 2π  1 u (r , π ) 
 II  1 + ν r →0 r  κ +1 x 
K   1 u (r , π ) 
 III   4 z 
 3 −ν
 plane stress
κ =  1 +ν
3 − 4ν plane strain
energy release rate (pure mode I) K I = G E′
 E plane stress

′
E = E
plane strain
1 −ν 2
Energy Release Rate
Virtual crack extension (VCE) method

GAUSS’ divergence theorem: converting
contour to domain integral
Gϕ =
1
h∆a ∫∫
(σ iju j ,k − wδ ik ) ∆ xk ,i dS
B0
K I2 + K II2
G ϕ = 0 = J1 = J =
E′
KK
G ϕ =π = J 2 = −2 I II
2 E′
KI4 − E ′J1KI2 + 41 E ′2J 22 = 0
(K ) 2
I 1,2 = 21 E ′J1 ± 1
2 (
E ′2 J12 − J22 ) more than one solution!
Virtual crack closure integral (VCCI): “negative crack extension”

δa
G I (a ) = lim ∫ σ yy (r = x,ϑ = 0, a ) u y (r = δ a − x,ϑ = π , a + δ a ) dx
1
2
δ a→0
x=0
Seite 7
Contour / Domain Integral
ABAQUS 11.4.2: “Abaqus/Standard offers the evaluation of several

parameters for fracture mechanics:
• the J-integral, which is widely accepted as a quasi-static fracture
mechanics parameter for linear material response and, with limitations,
for nonlinear material response;
• the Ct-integral, which has an equivalent role to the J-integral in the
context of time-dependent creep behavior;
• the stress intensity factors, which are used in linear elastic fracture
mechanics to measure the strength of the local crack-tip fields (?);
• the crack propagation direction. i.e., the angle at which a preexisting
crack will propagate; and
• the T-stress, which represents a stress parallel to the crack faces and is
used as an indicator of the extent to which parameters like the J-integral
are useful characterizations of the deformation field around the crack (?).
Using the divergence theorem, the contour integral can be expanded (?)
into an area integral in two dimensions or a volume integral in three
dimensions, over a finite domain surrounding the crack. This domain
integral method is used to evaluate contour integrals in Abaqus/Standard.”
Determination of SIFs in ABAQUS (I)
Interaction integral method - SHIH & ASARO, [1988]

for isotropic and anisotropic linear materials
 KI 
{K} =  KII  J = G = {K} {B} {K}
T −1
K 
 III  E ′ 0 0 
for isotropic material: {B} =  0 E ′ 0 
 0 0 2G 
 
−1 −1 −1
general J = KIB11 KI + 2KIB12 KII + 2KIB13 KIII + ...
−1
mode I “auxiliary” crack-tip field JIaux = kIB11 kI superimposed
JItot = ( KI + kI ) B11

−1
( KI + kI ) + 2 ( KI + kI ) B12−1KII + 2 ( KI + kI ) B13−1KIII + ...
−1 −1 −1
interaction integral JIint = JItot − J − JIaux = 2kI B11 KI + B12 KII + B13 KIII 
mode I, II, III: J(intα ) = 2k(α )B(−α1) β K β no summation on α = I, II, III
Seite 8
Determination of SIFs in ABAQUS (II)
JIint 
kα assigned as unit values {K} = {B}{J }
1
2
int
{J }
int  
= JIIint 
J int 
 III 
∫ Γ n (σ ε δ − σ ik uk(α, j) − σ ik(α )uk , j ) q j ds
(α )
Jαint = lim i kl kl ij
Γ →0
calculated with domain integral method

“auxiliary” crack-tip fields (see part I: LEFM)
fij(α ) (ϑ ) gi(α ) r
σ ij(α ) ( r ,ϑ ) = ; ui(α ) ( r ,ϑ ) = note that kα = 1
2π r 2G 2π
But why lim ?? J is path independent!

Γ →0
Discretisation errors become larger for Γ→0 !
Comments on „path dependence“ in the ABAQUS

manual are generally disputable!
Path Dependence
ABAQUS Manual 11.4.2 Contour integral evaluation:

“The stress intensity factors have the same
domain dependence features as the J-integral.”
???
Path (or domain) dependence generally has two reasons:

• Numerical errors due to discretisation,
• Violation of physical conditions for path independence,
commonly the assumption of a hyperelastic material.
The former occurs in the determination of SIFs in LEFM ,

the latter in the calculation of the elasto-plastic J-integral.
The ABAQUS manual confuses both!
- see later -
Seite 9
Example: Railway Axle - Geometry
ZERBST [2005]: ESIS TC24

ZERBST, SCHÖDEL et al. [2011]
Railway Axle: SIFs FV1

80
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FV1

70
KI [MPa sqrt(m)]
cont1
cont2 10
cont3
60 cont4
50
KII [MPa sqrt(m)]
0
30
cont1
cont2 a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1, FV1
40 -5
-10 -5 0 5 10
cont3 20 cont1
cont4
cont2
crack front
cont3
KIII [MPa sqrt(m)]
-10 10
cont4
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FV1
strong domain -15
0
dependence at free -10 -5 0 5 10
surface, crack front -10
no r -1/2 singularity!
-20
-30
-10 -5 0 5 10
results by courtesy of MANFRED SCHÖDEL crack front
Seite 10
Railway Axle: SIFs FV2
5
cont1
cont2
cont3
4,5 cont4
K I [MPa sqrt(m)]
1,5
4 a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1, FV2

1
KII [MPa sqrt(m)]

0,5
3,5
4
cont1
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1, FV2 0 cont2 cont1
cont3 cont2
3 cont4 cont3
KIII [MPa sqrt(m)]

-10 -5 0 5 -0,510 2
cont4
crack front
-1
0
-1,5
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front -2
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1, FV2
-4
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front
Railway Axle: SIFs FH1
100
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: F H1
90
KI [MPa sqrt(m)
15
80
10
70 5
KII [MPa sqrt(m)]
cont1 0
60 30
cont2
cont3 -5 cont1
cont4 cont2 20
50 cont1
-10 cont3
-10 -5 0 5 10 cont2
cont4
K III [MPa sqrt(m)]
10 cont3
crack front cont4
-15
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FH1
0
-20
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front -10
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FH1

-20
-30
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front
Seite 11
Railway Axle: SIFs FH2
-50
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FH2
K I [MPa sqrt(m)]
-75
40
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FH2
-100 cont1
30
cont2
cont3 cont1
KII [MPa sqrt(m)]

cont4 20 cont2
-125 cont3
cont4
10 30
a/c=0.5, a/t=0.1: FH2

-150 0 20
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front
KIII [MPa sqrt(m)]

-10 10
crack closure! -20 0

-10 -5 0 5 10
condition KI > 0 crack front -10 cont1
cont2
-20 cont3
cont4
-30
-10 -5 0 5 10
crack front
J-Integral in ABAQUS
ABAQUS 2.16.1: „In the context of quasi-static analysis the J-integral is

defined in two dimensions as
 ∂u 
J = lim ∫ n ⋅  wI − σ ⋅  ⋅ q d Γ (1)
Γ →0 Γ
 ∂x 
where Γ is a contour beginning on the bottom crack surface and ending
on the top surface, the limit indicates that Γ shrinks onto the crack tip (2);
q is a unit vector in the virtual crack extension direction; and n is the
outward normal to Γ.“
ABAQUS 11.4.2: “The J-integral is defined in terms of the energy

release rate associated with crack advance. For a virtual crack
advance λ(s) in the plane of a three-dimensional fracture (?), the energy
release rate is given by
 ∂u 
J = ∫ λ (s ) n ⋅  wI − σ ⋅  ⋅ q dA (1)
A
 ∂x 
where dA is a surface element along a vanishing small (2) tubular surface
enclosing the crack tip or crack line, n is the outward normal to dA, and q
is the local direction of virtual crack extension. “
Seite 12
Comments
(1) Definitions as contour integral and domain

integral have obviously been confused.
contour: J= ∫Γ  wn − σ
1 jk nk u j ,1  ds
• What is q ? – There is no “virtual crack

extension”, here!
domain: J =
1
∆ Acrack ∫∫
(σ iju j ,1 − wδ i1 ) ∆ x1,i dS
B0
• What is “a surface element along (?) a …

tubular surface”?
• Sign of integrand?
• Denominator ∆Acrack missing – but see
JP = J P ∫N
P
eq. (2.16.1-9) in the ABAQUS manual: ds
(2) Why “vanishingly small” or “Γ shrinks onto the crack tip”?
J is (supposed to be) path independent!
This ignores fundamentals of the J-integral concept: J is a “far-field”
quantity which, under certain conditions, controls the near-field!
Comments ctd.
ABAQUS 11.4.2:
“For elastic material behavior w is the elastic strain energy (3); for elastic-
plastic or elasto-viscoplastic material behavior w is defined as the elastic
strain energy density plus the plastic dissipation, thus representing the
strain energy in an equivalent elastic (4) material. Therefore, the J-
integral calculated is suitable only for monotonic loading (5) of elastic-
plastic materials.”
(3) density
(4) hyperelastic σ ij = ∂w ∂ε ij
(5) necessary but not sufficient!
Seite 13
Domain Dependence (1)
ABAQUS 11.4.2: “The J-integral should be independent of the domain

used provided that the crack faces are parallel to each other (1), but J-
integral estimates from different rings may vary because of the
approximate nature of the finite element solution (2). Strong variation in
these estimates, commonly called domain dependence or contour
dependence, typically indicates an error in the contour integral
definition (3) . Gradual variation (4) in these estimates may indicate that
a finer mesh is needed or, if plasticity is included, that the contour
integral domain does not completely include the plastic zone. If the
“equivalent elastic (5) material” is not a good representation of the
elastic-plastic material, the contour integrals will be domain
independent only if they completely include the plastic zone. ...”
(1) This is one of several conditions!
(2) This holds for LEFM (see above) but is not the main reason for contour
dependence of the elastic-plastic J
(3) What kind of error? Or does this mean “violation of the assumptions
made for path independence”.
(4) What is “strong” and what is “gradual”?
(5) hyperelastic
Domain Dependence (2)
“... Since it is not always possible to include the plastic zone in three
dimensions (6), a finer mesh may be the only solution (7). If the first
contour integral is defined by specifying the nodes at the crack tip, the
first few contours may be inaccurate (8). To check the accuracy (8) of
these contours, you can request more contours and determine the
value of the contour integral that appears approximately constant from
one contour to the next. The contour integral values that are not
approximately equal to this constant should be discarded. (9) “
(6) This may also occur in 2D under conditions of full yielding.
(7) This is rubbish: (i) a fine mesh does not change the size of the plastic
zone; (ii) mesh refinement is commonly counterproductive in plasticity
and may make things worse!
(8) This is not a question of (numerical) accuracy but of physics, i.e. energy
dissipation in plasticity!
(9) Absolutely! It indicates that a “far-field” value of J has been reached
which corresponds to the value determined from the load-displacement
curve.
W. BROCKS & I. SCHEIDER: Materialprüfung 45 (2003), 264-275.
Seite 14
J Calculation
ABAQUS/Standard uses the domain integral method to evaluate the J-

integral and automatically finds the elements that form each ring from the
regions defined as the crack tip or crack line.
Each contour provides an evaluation of the contour integral. The number,
n, of contours must be specified in the history output request.
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n, TYPE=J
• Defining the crack front

• Specifying the virtual crack extension direction
Defining the Crack Front
The user must specify the crack front, i.e., the region that defines the
first contour. ABAQUS/Standard uses this region and one layer of
elements surrounding it to compute the first contour integral. An additional
layer of elements is used to compute each subsequent contour. The crack
front can be equal to the crack tip in two dimensions or it can be a larger
region surrounding the crack tip, in which case it must include the crack tip.
By default ABAQUS defines the crack tip as the node specified for the
crack front in the so called CRACK TIP NODES option of the contour integral
command:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n, CRACK TIP NODES
Specify the crack front node set name and the crack tip node number or
node set name.
Alternatively, a user-defined node set which include the crack tip can
be provided to ABAQUS manually by omitting the crack tip nodes
option:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n
Specify the crack front node set name and the crack tip node number or
node set name.
Seite 15
VCE Direction (1)
The direction of virtual crack extension must be specified at each crack

tip in two dimensions or at each node along the crack line in three
dimensions by specifying either the normal to the crack plane, n, or
the virtual crack extension direction, q,
Note: n is not the normal to Γ as in
the equations for J given above!
The normal to the crack plane, n, can be
defined in ABAQUS using the so called normal
option in the contour integral command:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n, NORMAL
nx-direction cosine, ny-direction cosine, nz-direction cosine(or blank),
crack front node set name (2-D) or names (3-D)
ABAQUS will calculate a virtual crack extension direction, q, that is
orthogonal to the crack front tangent, t, and the normal, n,
The normal option can only be used if the crack plane is flat
VCE Direction (2)
Alternatively, the normal option can be omitted and the virtual crack
extension direction, q, can be defined directly:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n
crack front node set name, qx-direction cosine, qy-direction cosine, qz-direction
cosine (or blank)
Problem
Penetration point of a surface flaw to the free surface of the structure
No HRR singularity!
What is the „correct“ vce direction, q1 or q2?
See results of SIFs above.
The symmetry option must be used to indicate that the crack front is
defined on a symmetry plane:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS=n, SYMM
The change in potential energy calculated from the virtual crack front
advance is doubled to compute the correct contour integral values.
Seite 16
Example: 2D FE Analysis of a C(T)
side-grooved C(T) specimen with stationary crack
plane strain model
Definition of contours for J-integral evaluation
Automatic option :
1st contour = crack tip,
last contour #24
Contour Definition
Manual option of contour definition
1st contour = „node set“ last contour #12
Plastic zone at VLL = 1 mm and 11th Plastic zone at VLL = 1 mm and 3rd
J-contour of automatic option J-contour of manual option
Seite 17
Contour Dependence (1)
800
J [kJ/m2]
J 24
"automatic"
J 12
Contour dependence of J:
600 J 10
“automatic option”,
J8
J7 1st contour = crack tip

400
J6
J5
200 J4
J3
J2
0
J 1 (crack tip)
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
800
VLL [mm]
J [kJ/m2]
J 12
"manual"
J9
600 J7
J5
J3
400
J 1 (node set)
Contour dependence of J: 200

“manual option”,
1st contour = user defined 0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
node set
VLL [mm]
Contour Dependence (2)
800
Contour dependence of J
J [kJ/m2]
600
automatic
manual
400 800
J [kJ/m2]
J_ASTM
200 600 J 24 (automatic)
VLL = 3.0 mm
J 12 (manual)
0 400
0 5 10 15 20 25
contour
200
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
VLL [mm]
W. BROCKS, D. ARAFAH [2014] J from “far-field” domain

integral and ASTM 1820
Seite 18
Surface Flaw in a Pressure Vessel
6
p = 160 [MPa]
p = 165 [MPa]
5
p = 170 [MPa]
normalised J-integral
0
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
normalised crack front coordinate
results by courtesy of DIYA ARAFAH
References
M. MADIA, S. BERETTA, M. SCHÖDEL, U. ZERBST, M.. LUKE, I. VARFOLOMEEV:

Stress intensity factor solutions for cracks in railway axles. Engng. Fract.
Mech. 78 (2011), 764-792
U. ZERBST, M. SCHÖDEL, H.TH. BEIER:
Parameters affecting the damage tolerance behaviour of railway axles. Engng.
Fract. Mech. 78 (2011), 793-809.
U. ZERBST, S. BERETTA:
Failure and damage tolerance aspects of railway components. Engng. Fail.
Anal. 18 (2011), 534-542.
W. BROCKS, D. ARAFAH:
Computational Fracture Mechanics. Students project, final report, Dipartimento
di Meccanica,Politecnico di Milano, January 2014.
http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/instmat/departments/brocks/brocks_homepage_en.html
Seite 19
Part III: The Cohesive Model
(1) Background - Fundamentals

(2) The Traction-Separation Law
(3) Examples, Applications
(4) Cohesive Elements in ABAQUS
Wolfgang Brocks

Materials Mechanics
Simulation of Crack Extension
Morphological
Node release + fracture mechanics criterion (R-curve)
no splitting of dissipation into global plasticity and local separation
Cohesive surface
Interface elements with traction-separation law responsible for local
separation
Continuum damage mechanics

Unified constitutive equations for deformation and damage, e.g. porous metal
plasticity
Seite 1
BARENBLATT Model
Barenblatt [1962]
Avoid unphysical singularity at

the crack tip
However:
σ(x) unknown, not measurable
instead:
σ (δ ) traction-separation law,
cohesive law
δ ( x ) =  u y  separation
local fracture (separation)
criterion = u y ( x,0 + ) − u y ( x,0− )
Cohesive Model
Phenomenological representation
of various failure mechanisms
by cohesiveOverview
interfaces
Structure is divided into

material with elastic-
plastic properties
crack Ligament (continuum elements)
∆a interface with damage
Separation δ of the
cohesive elements properties
(cohesive elements)
Seite 2
Cohesive Law
Traction-Separation Law (TSL)

Two material parameters:
• Cohesive strength, σc (MPa)
• Critical separation, δc (mm) Ligament
Crack
1
σ / σc
0,5
Γc
mode I: normal stresses σn
normal separation δn
0
δ / δc
0 0,5 1
δc
• Separation energy, Γc (J/mm2), defined by Γ c = ∫ σ n (δ n )dδ n

0
Cohesive Laws (I)
• As the cohesive law (or TSL) is purely phenomenological, it

cannot be measured directly, in general
• Cohesive law depends on fracture mechanism
• Various functions have been proposed in the literature
Hillerborg [1976] Bazant [1993] Tvergaard [1992]
1 1 1
σ /σ c
σ /σ c
σ /σ c
0,5 0,5 0,5
0 0 0
0 0,5 δ / δc 1 0 0,5 δ /δ c 1 0 0,5 δ / δc 1
Needleman [1987] Needleman [1990] Scheider [2001]

1 1 1
σ / σc
σ /σ c
σ / σc
0,5 0,5 0,5
0 0 0
0 0,5 δ /δ c 1 0 0,5 δ / δc 1 0 0,5 δ / δc 1
Seite 3
Cohesive Laws (II)
 δ 
HILLERBORG [1976]: linear σ (δ ) = σ c  1 − 
 δc 
concrete, brittle fracture
1
separation energy Γ c = σ cδ c
2
BAZANT [1993]: bilinear   δ  δ
σ c  1 −  + σ 1 für 0 ≤ δ ≤ δ1
  δ 1  δ
σ =
1
two additional shape
parameters δ1, σ1  σ  1 − δ − δ1  für δ1 ≤ δ ≤ δ c
 1 
  δ c − δ1  n
concrete, e.g. σ 1 = 0.2 σ c , δ1 = 0.2 δ c
MAIER et al. [2006]
ductile tearing, e.g. σ 1 = σ c , δ1 = 0.5δ c
 δ1 σ1 
Γ c = 12 σ cδ c  +
σ c 
separation energy
 δc
• Infinite initial stiffness is numerically detrimental
Cohesive Laws (III)

2
27 δ  δ 
NEEDLEMAN [1987]: polynomial σ (δ ) = σ c 1 − 
4 δc  δc 
ductile tearing
9
separation energy Γc = σ cδ c
16
 ∂σ  27 σ c
initial stiffness K coh =  =
 ∂δ δ →0 4 δ c
16e 2 δ  16e δ 
NEEDLEMAN [1987]: exponential σ (δ ) = σ c exp  − 
9 δc  9 δc 
various materials and
applications e = exp(1)
9
separation energy Γc = σ cδ c
16
 ∂σ  16e 2 σ c
initial stiffness K coh =  =
 ∂δ δ →0 9 δc
• Initial stiffness depends on σc , δc
Seite 4
Cohesive Laws (IV)
TVERGAARD & HUTCHINSON [1992]: trilinear  δδ

 1
( ) δ ≤ δ1
 δ1 δ 2  σ (δ ) = σ c  1 δ1 ≤ δ ≤ δ 2
Γ c = 12 σ cδ c  1 − + 
 δc δc  (
 δ c −δ
 δc −δ 2 ) δ2 ≤ δ ≤ δc
 ∂σ  σ
K coh =  = c
 ∂δ δ →0 δ1
SCHEIDER [2001]: piecewise polynomial


( ) ( )
2
2 δδ1 − δδ1 δ ≤ δ1



Γ c = 12 σ cδ c  1 −
2 δ1 δ 2 
+
σ (δ ) = σ c  1 δ1 ≤ δ ≤ δ 2
3 δ c δ c  

(
δ −δ 2 3
)
1 + 2 δc −δ 2 − 3 ( δ −δ 2 2
δ c −δ 2) δ 2 ≤ δ ≤ δc
 ∂σ  2σ
K coh =  = c
 ∂δ δ →0 δ1
Two additional shape parameters δ1 and δ 2

Various fracture phenomena depending on δ2
• Initial stiffness is determined by δ1
Micromechanisms: Atomic Scale
Molecular Dynamics (MD)

simulations
fcc single-crystal
with crack in {100} plane
Newton‘s 2nd law of motion
interatomic forces
∂U
Fi = ∇ iU =
∂xi
NEEDLEMAN‘s law is derived from an

atomic potential of ROSE et al. [1981] KRULL & YUAN [2011]
Seite 5
Micromechanisms: Void Growth
Ductile tearing:
• void nucleation,
• growth
• coalescence
σ hyd RVE – unit cell

T= triaxiality
σ vonMises
Siegmund & Brocks [1999]
3D Generalisation
Traction vector (isotropic material) Separation vector

σ = σ ηη eη + σ ηξ eξ + σ ης eς δ = δη eη + δ ξ eξ + δς eς
= σ nen + σ tet = δ nen + δ te t
σ t = σηξ2 + σης2 δ t = δηξ2 + δης2
δt Mixed Mode
Crack δn Interaction σ n = f n (δ n , δ t )
σ t = f t (δ n , δ t )
δn
Seite 6
Initial Compliance of TSL
• Numerical reasons (convergence) require an initial (“elastic”)

stiffness *), Kcoh, of the cohesive law.
• It should be kept as high as (numerically) possible, since
deformation is the basic business of continuum elements!
K coh hel hel = size of continuum elements

≫1
E E = YOUNG’s modulus
Needleman [1987]
1
• If this condition is ignored, this may lead to
σ / σc
numerical artefacts in the simulations. 0,5
• Some cohesive laws like the polynomial or

the exponential TSL do not allow to control 0
0 0,5 δ / δc 1
Kcoh independent of δc
Needleman [1990]
1
 ∂σ 
σ /σ c
*) stiffness = (compliance)-1 K coh =  
 ∂δ δ →0
0,5
see also ELICES et al. [2003] 0 0,5 δ /δc 1
Example Crack-Path Deviation
Simulation of cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar
Scheider [2001]
1
σ / σc
0,5
0
0 0,5 δ / δc 1
R0 E = 1.7 ⋅ 10 −3
Modelling with triangular σ nc R0 = 2.8
continuum elements hel δ nc = 0.3
Mixed-mode TSL Meshing of the
δ nc δ1 = 100
necking region
K ncoh hel σ c R h δ c
= 2  n 0 elc  n = 2 ⋅ (1.4 ⋅10−3 ) ⋅100 = 0.28
E  R0 E δ n  δ1
SCHEIDER & BROCKS [2003]
Seite 7
Effect of Initial Compliance
Polynomial cohesive law

Needleman [1987]
1
σ / σc
0,5
0
0 0,5 δ / δc 1 Necking prior to load
maximum due to
K coh hel 27  σ c R0 hel 
=   tangential separation
E 4  R0 E δ c 
27
= ⋅1.4 ⋅10−3 = 0.009
4
Additional elongation of
18% at R0 due to normal
separation
Cohesive Elements (I)
ABAQUS User Element: SCHEIDER [2001]
e2 Plane 3D FE-
FE Models Models
e1 e3 e2
e1
linear 4 nodes element, 8-18 nodes element
2 integration points
4 or 9 integration points
5
Shell models
2
e2 4
e3
1 IP 2
e1
IP 1
3
linear 5 node element
2 integration points
Seite 8
Cohesive Elements (II)
Implementation in ABAQUS/Standard via user defined elements

Input: Nodal displacements
Calculation of stresses at the integration points
Output: Nodal forces, element stiffness matrix
No area or volume in the undamaged state
Large Deformation
Rotation of local
coordinate system
Loading / Unloading
normal separation shear separation

“Brittle”: change of elastic stiffness, no permanent displacement
”Ductile”: permanent displacement, no change of elastic stiffness
Seite 9
Crack Extension in FM Specimens
cohesive elements at
symmetry line: constraint
equations
u2( − ) = −u2( + )
u1( − ) = u1( + )
Parameter Identification: Which Test Data?
50
F [kN]
side-grooved C(T) specimen

40
W = 50 mm, B = 25 mm
30
test YYB-19-3
a0/W = 0.66
FE param set (1) material: 26NiCrMoV115
20
plane strain analysis
10
0 3
VLL [mm]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

2,5
VLL [mm]
2
σc = 2130 MPa = 3.28 R0
1,5
Γc = 137 kJ/m2 2500
test YYB-19-3
σn [MPa]
FE param set (1)

δ1/δc = 0.02 2000 1
δ2/δc = 0.3 1500
0,5
SCHEIDER-Modell 1000
(1)
500 0
0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
0 0,025 0,05 0,075 0,1
δn [mm] ∆a [mm]
Seite 10
Parameter Identification
50
F [kN]
W. BROCKS, D. ARAFAH:
40
Students Project, Final report
30
January 2014
YYB-19-3
20
FE par-set (4)
10
3
0
VLL [mm]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
2,5
VLL [mm]
2
σc = 2130 MPa = 3.28 R0
1,5
Γc = 94 kJ/m2 2500 YYB-19-3
σn [MPa]
FE par-set (4)
δ1/δc = 0.02 2000
(4)
1
1500
δ2/δc = 0.8 1000 0,5

500
0
0
0 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04 0,05
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
δn [mm]
∆a[mm]
Sensitivity: Effect of σc
50
σc / R0
F [kN]
40 2.31
30
3.08
YYB-19-1
sigma_c=1500 3.23
20 sigma_c=2000
sigma_c=2100 3.28
sigma_c=2130
10 sigma_c=3000 4.62
3
VLL [mm]
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 2,5
VLL [mm]
2
δc = 0.1 mm 1,5
δ1/δc = 0.02 1
YYB-19-1
sigma_c=1500
δ2/δc = 0.3 sigma_c=2000

sigma_c=2100
0,5 sigma_c=2130
sigma_c=3000
0
results by courtesy of CAN IÇÖS 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
∆a [mm]
Seite 11
Sensitivity: Effect of δc
50
F [kN]
δc [mm] Γc [kJ/m2]
40
0.01 14.6
30 0.02 29.2
YYB-19-1 0.05 73
20 delta_c=0.01
delta_c=0.02 0.10 146
delta_c=0.05
10 delta_c=0.1
3
0
VLL [mm]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3
2,5
VLL [mm]
2
σc = 2130 MPa = 3.28 R0 1,5 YYB-19-1

delta_c=0.01
δ1/δc = 0.02 1
delta_c=0.02
delta_c=0.05
δ2/δc = 0.5 delta_c=0.1
0,5
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
∆a [mm]
Sensitivity: Effect of δ2/δc
50
F [kN]
1
σ /σc
0,8
40
0,6
30 0,2
0,4
0,3
YYB-19-1 0,5
0,2
0,7
20 d2=0.2
d2=0.3 0
d2=0.5 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
10 δ / δc
d2=0.7
0 3
VLL [mm]
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3

VLL [mm] 2,5
σc = 2130 MPa = 3.28 R0 1,5
δc = 0.1 mm 1
YYB-19-1
d2=0.2
δ1/δc = 0.02 d2=0.3
0,5 d2=0.5
d2=0.7
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
∆a [mm]
Seite 12
Plane Stress Models
Problem:
Plastic localisation in continuum
elements under plane stress
conditions instead of separation of
cohesive elements Solution:
Transfer of thickness
information from continuum
element to cohesive element
Continuum
element
t
Sheet metal Al 5083 Cohesive
element
t = 3 mm
SCHEIDER & BROCKS [2006]
C(T): W = 50 mm
Test data used for parameter identification

σc = 560 MPa = 2.3 R0
Γc = 10 kJ/m2
δc = 0.024 mm
BROCKS, SCHEIDER, SCHÖDEL [2006]
Seite 13
M(T): 2W = 300 mm
200 4
150 3
100 2
50 1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 20 40 60
V LL [mm] a [mm]
Transferability of cohesive parameters approved
CTOD R-Curves
3
δ5-Technique
C(T) + M(T) , W =50mm
C(T) test
C(T) FE pl. stress
M(T) test
2
M(T) FE pl. stress
0
0 5 10 15
a [mm]
Cohesive model captures
differences between C(T) and M(T)
Seite 14
ABAQUS
ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual (6.11): 32.5 Cohesive elements
The mechanical constitutive

behaviour of the cohesive elements
can be defined:
• with a continuum-based
constitutive model,
• with a uniaxial stress-based
constitutive model useful in
modeling gaskets and/or single
adhesive patches, or
• by using a constitutive model in
terms of traction versus
separation.
Continuum-Based Model
Modelling of adhesive joints:

• The glue has a finite thickness.
• The macroscopic properties, stiffness
and strength, can be measured
experimentally.
• The adhesive material is generally
more compliant than the surrounding
material
In 3D problems In 2D problems
• one direct (through-thickness) • one direct (through-thickness)
strain, strain,
• two transverse shear strains, • one transverse shear strain,
• six stress components. • four stress components.
Seite 15
C Model: Constitutive Response
• can be defined in terms of macroscopic material properties

such as stiffness and strength using conventional material
models;
• can be specified in terms of either a built-in material model
or a user-defined material model;
• can include the effects of material damage and failure in
Abaqus/Explicit; and
• can also include the effects of material damage and failure
in a low-cycle fatigue analysis in Abaqus/Standard.
Traction-Separation-Based Model
Modelling of bonded interfaces in

composite materials:
• Intermediate glue material is very
thin and for all practical purposes
may be considered to be of zero
thickness.
• Resort to concepts derived from
fracture mechanics
In 3D problems In 2D problems
three components of separations two components of separations and
and stresses, namely stresses, namely
• one normal and • one normal and
• two parallel • one parallel
to the interface to the interface
Seite 16
TS Model: Elastic
The traction-separation model assumes

• initially linear elastic behaviour relating the nominal stresses
to the nominal strains across the interface,
• followed by the initiation and evolution of damage.
• The nominal stresses are the force components divided by the
original area, while the nominal strains are the separations
divided by the original thickness at each integration point.
• The default value of the original constitutive thickness is 1.0,
which ensures that the nominal strain is equal to the separation.
• The constitutive thickness is usually different from the
geometric thickness (which is typically close or equal to zero).
”fully coupled behaviour“
Initial Compliance
There is no coupling between normal and K nn 0 0 

 
shear components in HOOKE’s law. Stress t= 0 K tt 0 
and strain tensor are coaxial.  0 0 K ss 

K
normal separation: σ n = K nnε n = nn δ n = K ncohδ n
h0
The initial compliance 1/Kcoh of the cohesive element depends on the

„choice“ of its “constitutive thickness” h0!
E
Requirement (see above) K ncoh ≫
hel
h0
that is K nn ≫ E
hel
Knn has no physical meaning as the “constitutive thickness” h0 has

no geometrical one. Both possess some numerical significance,
only.
Seite 17
TS Model: “Damage”
Damage:
• Once a damage initiation criterion
is met, material damage can occur
according to a user-defined
damage evolution law.
• A scalar damage variable, D,
represents the overall damage in
the material and captures the
combined effects of all the active
mechanisms.
• Unloading subsequent to damage initiation is always assumed to

occur linearly toward the origin of the traction-separation plane.
• Reloading subsequent to unloading also occurs along the same
linear path until the softening envelope is reached.
TSLs
Traction-separation laws: 1
σ / σc
TSL
• linear softening, 0,8 linear
• exponential softening 0,6
tabular
exp: alf=10
• tabular (multilinear) function
0,4
0,2
0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
δ / δc
Mixed-mode definition:
ABAQUS uses two measures of mode mix, one based on energies
and the other based on tractions.
Seite 18
”Damage“
• The “damage“ as introduced for cohesive elements in ABAQUS is a

fictitious, meaningless number, since it is defined with respect to
some fictitious uniaxial ”elastic“ behaviour, σn = Knn εn, with an elastic
modulus Knn which is, to a large extent, arbitrary and has only
numerical significance.
σ n (δ n ) σ (δ ) δ
D = 1− = 1− n n 0
K ncohδ n K nn δ n
• The traction-separation behaviour is 1
D
described by functions σ(δ) and not
by evolution equations of a damage 0,8 "damage"
linear
variable. 0,6
tabular
exp: alf=10
0,4
• The variable D is not even capable of
significantly differentiate between the 0,2
different TSLs. 0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
δ / δc
References
T. SIEGMUND, W. BROCKS: Prediction of the work of separation and

implications to modeling . Int. J. Fracture 99 (1999), 97-116.
M. ELICES, G.V. GUINEA, J.GÓMEZ, J. PLANAS: The cohesive zone model:
advantages, limitations and challenges. Engng. Fract. Mech. 69
(2002), 137-163.
I. SCHEIDER, W. BROCKS: Simulation of cupcone fracture using the
cohesive model. Engng. Fract. Mech. 70 (2003), 1943-1961.
W. BROCKS, I. SCHEIDER, M. SCHÖDEL: Simulation of crack extension in
shell structures and prediction of residual strength. Arch. Appl. Mech.
76 (2006), 655-665.
I. SCHEIDER, W. BROCKS: Cohesive elements for thin-walled structures.
Comp. Mater. Sci. 37 (2006), 101-109.
I. SCHEIDER, W. BROCKS: Residual strength prediction of a complex
structure using crack extension analyses. Engng. Fract. Mech. 75
(2008), 4001-4017.
Seite 19

Computational Fracture Mechanics: Summer School On Fracture Modelling and Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Computational Fracture Mechanics: Summer School On Fracture Modelling and Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Fracture Mechanics

Trondheim, June 2014

Part II: Determination of Fracture Parameters

Part III: The Cohesive Model

(1) Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)

Christian Albrecht University , Kiel (Germany)

• Stress intensity approach (IRWIN)

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 2

KI = stress intensity factor

General asymptotic solution

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 3

Angular Functions in LEFM

A.A. Griffith [1920]: mode I

Energy release rate

Work of separation ∂U sep

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 5

Path Independent Integrals

φ(xi) is some (scalar, vector, tensor) field quantity being

∫ (..) = − ∫ (..) und ∫ (..) = − ∫ (..) ⇒ ∫ ϕn i dS = ∫ ϕ n i dS

ESHELBY [1965]: conservation law for energy momentum tensor

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 6

Boundary value problem for quasistatic deformation of a solid body B:

• Boundary conditions: σ ij ni = t j on ∂Bσ

The components of the material force Fi = ∫  w(ε

Applied to a panel of thickness h, dS = h d s

yields the vector Ji = ∫Γ  wn − σ

as material force per thickness h.

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 7

The 1st component of this J vector is the J-integral of

• Due to its path-independence, it can be calculated in the far field but

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 8

further time independent processes

Correction terms for body forces, surface tractions, thermal

SSY: Plastic Zone at the Crack tip

IRWIN [1964]: extension of LEFM to small plastic zones

Yielding in the ligament θ =0

“Radius” of plastic zone rp ≪ a

effective crack length aeff = a + rp

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 10

DUGDALE [1960]: σ yy ( r,0) = R0 , 0 ≤ r ≤ d p

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 11

IRWIN [1957]: crack opening profile

WELLS [1961]: CTOD δ t = 2u y ( rp ,π )

DUGDALE [1960]: crack opening profile

Stress distribution σ(x) is unknown and cannot be measured

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 13

Energy Release Rate

Cohesive model: Γ c = ∫ σ (δ ) d δ Separation energy

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 14

Analytical solutions and analyses in

in the following, the superscripts “e” stands for “linear elastic”

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 15

J as Stress Intensity Factor

Power law of RAMBERG & OSGOOD [1945]

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 16

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 17

Crack Tip Opening Displacement, δt , SHIH [1981]

δ t = 2u y (rt , π ) , r − u x (rt , π ) = u y (rt , π )

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 18

ASTM E 1820: reference value

CompFractMech_01 - WB ECF20 Trondheim 2014 19

Stresses at Crack Tip

• incremental theory of plasticity HRR