Article

International Journal of Damage

Mechanics
0(0) 1–32
Creep crack simulations ! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
using continuum damage sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056789517737593
mechanics and extended journals.sagepub.com/home/ijd

finite element method

VB Pandey1, IV Singh1, BK Mishra1, S Ahmad2, AV Rao2
and Vikas Kumar2

Abstract
In the present work, elasto-plastic creep crack growth simulations are performed using continuum
damage mechanics and extended finite element method. Liu–Murakami creep damage model and explicit
time integration scheme are used to evaluate the creep strain and damage variable for various materials at
different temperatures. Compact tension and C-shaped tension specimens are selected for the simulation
of crack growth analysis. For damage evaluation, both local and nonlocal approaches are employed.
The accuracy of the extended finite element method solutions is checked by comparing with experimental
results and finite element solutions. These results show that the extended finite element method requires
a much coarser mesh to effectively model crack propagation. It is also shown that mesh independent
results can be achieved by using nonlocal implementation.

Keywords
Creep crack growth, damage mechanics, extended finite element method, elasto-plastic, local and
nonlocal approaches

Introduction
Various components of aero engines, power plant, chemical plant, and nuclear reactors are subjected
to high temperature. The temperature in these components is high enough to promote creep deform-
ation. Cracks at micro level may be present in these components, which may grow and form macro

1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
2
Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, DRDO, Hyderabad, India
Corresponding author:
IV Singh, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand
247667, India.
Email: indrafme@iitr.ac.in
2 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

cracks under creep environment. To estimate the remaining life of component at high temperatures,
creep crack growth analysis must be performed.
Over the years, numerous studies on creep behavior have been performed. Norton (1929)
presented a power law equation for the secondary stage of creep phenomenon. Graham and
Walles (1955) extended this equation to capture all the three stages of creep, i.e. primary, secondary,
and tertiary. A theta projection model for creep behavior was established by Evans and Wilshire
(1985). Further, Kumar et al. (2016) modified the theta projection method to improve the accuracy
of modeling.
Many attempts based on fracture mechanics as well as continuum damage mechanics have been
made for the analysis of creep crack growth. Continuum damage mechanics has the capability to
predict crack nucleation as well as crack growth, whereas fracture mechanics can only be used to
predict crack growth from an initial crack. Damage mechanics approach has been adopted to
simulate the crack growth behavior in the present work. Creep damage models are divided into
two groups: stress-based creep damage model and strain-based creep damage model. Kachanov
(1958) used Norton’s creep law and introduced the concept of effective stress to solve creep problem
in a brittle material. Rabotnov (1969) modified it by introducing a damage variable, and the
proposed model is known as Kachanov–Rabotnov model. This modified model was widely used
for the creep modeling of uncracked structures. In this model, damage variable depends on the
effective stress. However, this model was found to be highly mesh dependent for creep crack growth
problems. Later, Liu and Murakami (1998) proposed another creep damage model based on stress,
which is relatively mesh independent.
Strain-based damage models assume that the damage variable becomes unity when strain attains
a critical value. Cocks-Ashby (1980) and Nikbin et al. (1984) modified the existing strain-based creep
damage models. Later, Wen et al. (2013) proposed a strain-based creep damage model where rele-
vant micromechanics data were incorporated in the creep equation to express the creep behavior.
In recent years, various researchers also performed damage-based creep simulations which can be
found in Berton et al. (2016), Roy et al. (2015), Shahsavari et al. (2016), and Wang et al. (2015).
Murakami et al. (1988, 1995, 2000) demonstrated the effect of local and nonlocal formulation on
creep crack growth simulations. Finite element method was used to obtain the results. Hyde et al.
(2010a, 2013, 2014, 2010d, 2010b, 2010c) simulated creep crack growth by finite element method in
compact tension (CT) and thumbnail specimens prepared from 316 stainless steel (SS), P91 steel, and
P92 steel at 600, 650, and 675 C, respectively. They used Liu–Murakami creep damage model for the
evaluation of damage variable and creep strain. Oh et al. (2011) and Yatomi et al. (2003) used strain-
based damage model and simulated creep crack growth in 316 SS CT specimen at 550 C. Later, Kim
et al. (2013) extended Oh et al.’s (2011) work and numerically analyzed creep crack growth in
various specimens. Wen et al. (2013, 2014) and Wen and Tu (2014) computed creep crack growth
in CT, thumbnail, and C-shaped tension (CST) specimens. All these aforementioned simulations
were studied using local approach with finite element method on ABAQUS software platform.
Hosseini et al. (2013) presented the effect of stress regime on creep deformation and creep crack
growth. Duddu and Waisman (2013) applied nonlocal damage model to demonstrate the creep crack
fracture in ice sheets.
When the components are subjected to high temperatures, some characteristic region is affected
because of the creep damage. Experimentally it has been observed that a macro crack is displayed only
when the distributed damage at micro level reaches its critical point (Duddu and Waisman, 2013). It
has been reported in the literature that the crack growth simulations using FEM with local creep
damage models produce pathological mesh dependence. These results are unrealistic and unreliable
(Murakami and Liu, 1995). Therefore, to deal with this problem, nonlocal integral formulations and
Pandey et al. 3
gradient formulations were used which reduces the mesh sensitivity and provides realistic and more
reliable results. Interested readers can refer the following references (Abu Al-Rub, 2010; Bazant and
Pijaudier-Cabot, 1988; Challamel et al., 2015; Murakami et al., 2000) for further study.
Accurate modeling of crack growth has always been a very challenging task. To resolve this,
various numerical methods have been proposed in last two decades. Some of the popular approaches
are extended finite element method (XFEM), meshfree method (Amiri et al., 2014), cracking particle
meshfree method (Rabczuk and Belytschko, 2004, 2007; Rabczuk et al., 2010; Zhuang et al., 2012),
phantom node method (Chau-Dinh et al., 2012), extended isogeometric analysis (XIGA) (Bhardwaj
et al., 2016; Ghorashi et al., 2015), edge base cutting method (Areias and Rabczuk, 2013; Areias et
al., 2014, 2016a; Areias and Rabczuk, 2017), phase field method (Areias et al., 2016b), and peridy-
namics (Ren et al., 2016, 2017). For the simulation of stationary crack and crack growth, the XFEM
provides an advantage over other methods such as the use of lower order shape functions as
compared to meshfree/XIGA. It avoids the use of fine mesh as required in the finite element and
phase field methods. The numerical implementation of XFEM is quite simple as compared to other
approaches like phase field and peridynamics. In the present work, XFEM is used to simulate creep
crack growth in CT and CST specimens which are relatively simple from the geometry and imple-
mentation point of view. However, in case of crack nucleation and growth along an arbitrary path,
the methods like phase field may produce better results as compared to XFEM.
In the last decade, XFEM has been used by several researchers to study crack growth. Cracks or
discontinuities in the domain can be easily modeled in XFEM using partition of unity enrichment
functions. In XFEM, a coarse mesh is sufficient to perform crack growth analysis without any need
of remeshing (Belytschko and Black, 1999; Cheng and Zhou, 2015; Moes et al., 1999; Mohammadi,
2008; Sukumar et al., 2001). XFEM is commonly used in conjunction with fracture mechanics and
damage mechanics to analyze elastic, plastic, and fatigue crack growth problems (Bansal et al., 2017;
Larsson and Fagerstrom, 2005; Roth et al., 2015; Seabra et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2012; Xu and Yuan,
2009). Meng and Wang (2014) simulated fracture mechanics-based creep crack growth using XFEM.
However, the creep crack growth using XFEM and continuum damage mechanics has not been reported
in the literature. Therefore, in the present work, elasto-plastic creep crack growth analysis is performed
using continuum damage mechanics and XFEM. The main objective of the present study is to reduce the
computational cost of elasto-plastic creep crack growth analysis using XFEM. For damage evaluation,
both local and nonlocal approaches are employed. Liu–Murakami creep damage model is used to
evaluate creep strain and damage variable for various materials at different temperatures.
The structure of the paper may be given as follows: The next section describes the mathematical
background for solving elasto-plastic creep crack growth problems. An algorithm for creep crack
growth is presented in ‘‘Numerical implementation’’ section. In ‘‘Numerical results and discussion’’
section, several numerical studies are illustrated for evaluating the life of cracked specimens under
creep conditions. Finally, main conclusions are listed in the final section.

Mathematical formulation
In this section, analytical and numerical formulation for modeling the elasto-plastic creep crack
growth are provided.

Elastic–plastic creep analysis

In the present paper, elastic–plastic and creep analyses are performed independently (Hsu and Zhai,
1984). The creep analysis is performed after the completion of elasto-plastic analysis. The evolution
4 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

equation of plastic strains and creep strains is presented separately. It is assumed that the time-
independent plasticity does not affect the damage variable and the evolution of damage variable
completely depends on the time-dependent creep deformation. For small strain problem, total strain
field etotal can be divided into elastic ee , plastic ep , and creep strain ec components

etotal ¼ ee þ ep þ ec ð1Þ

Elastic–plastic stress–strain relations. In the present work, the material is assumed isotropic and
homogeneous. Von Mises yield criterion and isotropic hardening are used to model plastic behavior.
For small strain problems, the incremental change in strain can be written as the summation of
increment in elastic and plastic strain, i.e.

de ¼ dee þ dep ð2Þ

By using the constitutive law, the incremental part of elastic strain is given as

dee ¼ C 1 dr ð3Þ

where C is the elastic tangent matrix.

For associated theory of plasticity, the increment in plastic strain component is given as

@F
depij ¼  ð4Þ
@rij

where  represents a scalar multiplier and F is the yield function. For von Mises yield criteria, the
yield condition may be expressed as
 
F rij , k ¼ 0 ð5Þ

where k represents the hardening variables.

Creep strain relations. Creep strain rate in an isotropic material may be expressed by
Liu–Murakami creep constitutive model in its multiaxial form as given by Hyde et al. (2010a)

 2 !
3 n Sij 2ðn þ 1Þ 1
e_ cij ¼ Aeq exp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi !3=2
ð6Þ
2 eq  1 þ 3=n eq

where A and n are material constants. e_ cij , eq , Sij , 1 symbolize creep strain rate, von Mises stress,
deviatoric stress, and maximum principal stress, respectively.
Damage variable ð!Þ is evaluated by the damage evaluation model as

ð1  eq Þ p q!
!_ ¼ D r e ð7Þ
q
Pandey et al. 5
where D, p, and q are material constants. These constants are obtained from uniaxial creep test data.
In the local approach, crack growth is assumed when the value of ! reaches a critical value !C . r is
the rupture stress which is given as
r ¼ 1 þ ð1  Þeq ð8Þ
where  is a multiaxiality parameter. For uniaxial condition  becomes zero. The value of  can be
predicted either by notched specimen or by CT specimen.

Governing equations
A continuum domain ðÞ bounded by boundary ðÞ is partitioned into boundary ðt Þ with pre-
scribed traction, traction free boundaries ðs Þ, and boundary ðu Þ with prescribed displacement as
shown in Figure 1. The equilibrium equations along with boundary conditions are given as (Kumar
et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017)

r:r þ b ¼ 0 in  ð9aÞ
_
r: n ¼ t on t ð9bÞ
_
r: n ¼ 0 on s ð9cÞ
_
where r is the stress tensor, n is the unit normal vector, b represents the body force per unit volume,
u is the displacement field vector, and t represents the traction vector.
Kinematic relation for small displacement problem is given as

e ¼ eðuÞ ¼ rsym u ð10Þ

where rsym is the symmetric gradient operator.

Prescribed displacement boundary condition is defined as

u ¼ u on u ð11Þ

Figure 1. Two-dimensional homogeneous body.

6 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

During plastic deformation, the state of stress must remain on the new yield surface defined in
equation (5), and hence the following consistency condition is obtained

@F @F
dF ¼ dr þ dk ¼ 0 ð12Þ
@r @k

The aforementioned equation can also be presented as

aT dr  Ad¼ 0 ð13Þ

By using equations (3) and (4), equation (2) becomes

@F
de ¼ C1 dr þ d ð14Þ
@r

After per-multiplying by aT C on both sides of equation (14) and eliminating aT dr, the plastic
multiplier d can be obtained as (Kim, 2014)

aT C de F
d ¼ ¼ ð15Þ
½A þ aT C a 2G þ 23 H

where G and H are modulus of rigidity and plastic modulus, respectively.

By substituting equations (13) and (15) into equation (14), the incremental stress–strain relation is
given as
  !
aT C de 4G2
dr ¼ C  de ¼ C  N  N de ð16aÞ
½ A þ aT C a 2G þ 23 H

dr ¼ Cep de ð16bÞ

where Cep is defined as elasto-plastic constitutive matrix. Equation (16) represents the elasto-plastic
constitutive relation in its incremental form. N is the unit deviatoric vector.

Weak formulation
The weak form of governing equation is given as (Bansal et al., 2017)
Z Z Z
r :" d ¼ b:u d þ t:u d ð17Þ
  t

Using finite element procedure, the above equation can be written in discrete form as (Bansal
et al., 2017)

Z Z Z
T
B r d ¼ T
N b d þ NT t d ð18Þ
  t
Pandey et al. 7
The above equation can also be written as
½Kfdg¼ffg ¼ ffext g  ffint g ð19Þ
where K is the global stiffness matrix; d is the incremental displacement vector of nodal unknowns;
and f, fext , fint represent incremental, external, and internal force vectors, respectively.

Formulation for plane strain and axisymmetric problems. Stress–strain relation, elemental stiff-
ness matrix, and force vector for plane strain and axisymmetric cases are presented here. Quadratic
four node (Q4) element is used in the present work for the simulation.
For the plane strain problem, the stress–strain relations are
8 9 2 38 9
< xx >
> = E
1v v v >
< "xx >
=
yy ¼ 6 7
4 v 1v v 5 "yy ð20Þ
>
: >
; ð1 þ vÞð1  2vÞ >
: >
;
xy v v 0:5  v xy
 
zz ¼ v xx þ yy ð21Þ

The stiffness matrix and force vector become

Z
Ke ¼ t BT Cep B dA ð22aÞ
Z Z Z
feext ¼t T
N b dA þ t N t dS and feint ¼ t
T
BT r dA ð22bÞ

where N is the matrix of shape function, B is the shape function derivatives, and t represents the
thickness.
For axisymmetric case, the stress–strain relations are
8 9 2 38 9
> r > 1v v v 0 > "r >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
< = 6 1v 0 7 " =
7 <
 E 6 v v
¼ 6 7 ð23Þ
>
> z >> ð1 þ vÞð1  2vÞ 4 v v 1v 0 5> > "z >>
>
: >
; : >
> ;
r 0 0 0 0:5  v r

The stiffness matrix and force vector become

Z
Ke ¼ 2 BT Cep B r dA ð24aÞ
Z Z
feext ¼ 2 T
N b rdA þ 2 NT t rdS and
Z ð24bÞ
feint ¼ 2 BT r rdA

where r is the distance from the line of symmetry.

8 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

XFEM
Extrinsic partition of unity enriched scheme is used in the present work. The discontinuities are
captured by adding appropriate functions (enrichment functions) in the standard FE approximation
(Belytschko and Black, 1999; Mohammadi, 2008; Sukumar et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2016). The
displacement vector at any point can be approximated as
X
n X
p
  X
4
uðxÞ ¼ Ni ðxÞui þ Nj ðxÞ HðxÞ  Hðxj Þ aj þ Nk ðxÞ½  ðxÞ   ðxk Þbk ð25Þ
i¼1 jsplit ¼1 ktip ¼1

where NðxÞ is the standard shape function, ui is the standard nodal displacement, HðxÞ is the
Heaviside jump function, aj are the nodal DOFs corresponding to Heaviside jump function (the
value of Heaviside jump function is taken as þ1 on the one side of discontinuity and 1 on the other
side of discontinuity), ðxÞ is the branch function, and bk are the nodal DOFs corresponding to the
branch function.
To ensure plastic behavior around the crack tip, Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren singular enrich-
ment functions are employed as branch functions (Meng and Wang, 2014; Shedbale et al., 2013)
 

1    
 ðxÞ ¼ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ¼ r =1þm cos , sin , cos sin , sin sin  ð26Þ
2 2 2 2

where ðr, Þ is a polar coordinate system with its origin at the crack tip and m is the power law
hardening exponent which depends on the material.  
The elemental stiffness matrix ðKe Þand force matrix fh are obtained by substituting the approxi-
mation function given in equation (25) into equation (19)
2 3
Kuu
ij Kua
ij Kub
ij
e 6 Kau Kaa Kab 7
Kij ¼ 4 ij ij ij 5 ð27aÞ
Kbu
ij Kba
ij Kbb
ij

b2 b3 b4 T
fh ¼ fui fai fb1
i fi fi fi ð27bÞ

The submatrices and vectors that appear in the preceding equations can be written as
Z
 r T ep s
Krs
ij ¼ Bi C Bi h d, where; r; s ¼ u, a, b ð28Þ
e
Z Z
fui ¼ Ni b d þ Ni t d ð29Þ
e i

Z Z
fai ¼ Ni ðHðxÞ  Hðxi ÞÞb d þ Ni ðHðxÞ  Hðxi ÞÞt d ð30Þ
e i

Z Z
fb
i ¼ Ni  ððxÞ  ðxi ÞÞb d þ Ni  ððxÞ  ðxi ÞÞt d where  ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4 ð31Þ
e i
Pandey et al. 9
where Ni are the finite element shape functions and Bui , Bai , Bbi , Bb
i are the matrices of shape
function derivatives. The matrices of shape function derivatives for plane strain problem are
given as
2 3
@N
0
6 @x 7
6 7
6 @N 7
Bui ¼ 6
6 0 7,
6 @y 7
7
4 @N @N 5
@y @x
2 3
@½Ni ðHðxÞ  Hðxi ÞÞ
0
6 @x 7
6 7
6 @ ½N i ðHðxÞ  Hðx i Þ Þ 7
a
Bi ¼ 66 0 7
@y 7
6 7
4 @½Ni ðHðxÞ  Hðxi ÞÞ @½Ni ðHðxÞ  Hðxi ÞÞ 5 ð32Þ
@y @x
b
 b1 b2 b3 b4 
Bi ¼ Bi Bi Bi Bi
2 3
@½Ni ð  ðxÞ   ðxi ÞÞ
0
6 @x 7
6 7
6 @½Ni ð  ðxÞ   ðxi ÞÞ 7
Bb ¼ 6 0 7
i 6 @y 7
6 7
4 @½Ni ð  ðxÞ   ðxi ÞÞ @½Ni ð  ðxÞ   ðxi ÞÞ 5
@y @x
where,  ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4

The matrix of shape function derivatives for axisymmetric problem is given as

2 3
@Ni
0
6 @r 7
6 Ni 7
6 0 7
6 7
Bi ¼ 6
u r 7 ð33Þ
6 @Ni 7
6 0 7
6 @z 7
4 @N @N 5
i i
@z @r
In the present work, the crack problems are solved using topological enrichment under plane
strain condition. With the help of above-mentioned formulation, the unknown displacement values
are obtained in the entire domain.

Crack propagation strategy

In XFEM, with the advancement of the crack tip, the normal element may get converted into tip
element and tip element may get converted into split element as shown in Figure 2. Therefore, the
element type may change as crack grows. Application of Gauss quadrature in enriched element
subtriangularization technique is quite popular. While performing subtriangularization the number
10 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

Split Element Tip Element

Crack

Normal Element
Sub triangle

Figure 2. Triangularization and Gauss points distribution in XFEM.

XFEM: extended finite element method.

of Gauss points and their location changes in an element (Kumar et al., 2016). As per equation (7),
the damage is calculated at the Gauss points and if the position and number of these Gauss points
change with crack advancement, it will be cumbersome to evaluate the damage variable properly.
In the present work, CT and CST specimens are considered for the crack growth analysis and the
crack path for these specimens is known a priori. So, to avoid the issue of the change in position of
Gauss points, some elements ahead of the crack tip are subtriangularized in advance and the number
Pandey et al. 11
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * ** * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
*
*
*
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
*
Dcp
* *
* *
*
* *
* *
*
*
×*

* * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Crack tip
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * Gauss
* * point
* * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *

Figure 3. Illustration of neighboring Gauss points (blue color) for the calculation of Dcp.

and position of Gauss points is kept unchanged in an element for the entire simulation. A typical
distribution of Gauss points in a CT specimen is shown in Figure 2.

Mesh regularization
To reduce the mesh dependency in damage mechanics approach, Murakami and Liu (1995) proposed
three mesh regularization schemes, i.e. nonlocal damage model, stress limitation method, and reduc-
tion in critical value of damage parameter. All the three methods are implemented in the present work.

Nonlocal damage model. To implement the nonlocal approach, a circular region is selected ahead
of the crack tip. This circular region is drawn such that it touches the crack tip and the center of the
circle is located at a distance lc from the crack tip as shown in Figure 3. A new damage parameter
Dcp is introduced at the center of this circular region. The value of Dcp is calculated by taking the
weighted average of damage variable ! for Gauss points which are inside the circular region
P !
! i a i 1 x  y 2
Dcp ¼ Pi and aðx, yÞ ¼ exp  ð34Þ
i ai ð2Þ1:5 l3c l2c

where x represents coordinates of the Gauss points and y is the coordinates of the center of the
circular region. The crack growth occurs when Dcp becomes greater than its critical valueðDC cp Þ.
Similar to damage variable !, Dcp varies from 0 5 Dcp 5 1. lc is commonly known as the charac-
teristic length of the material. However, it has been observed in the literature (Duddu and Waisman,
2013) that the value of characteristic length is taken approximately equal to the element size. So in
the present work, lc is taken as 1.25 mm.
The motivation of using nonlocal formulation derives from the experimental observations.
The evolution of damage at a particular point is not governed only by the state variables at that
12 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

point but also by their neighbor points as well. While solving for crack propagation, the value of
stresses at Gauss points near the crack tip is very high because of the singularity. Since damage
directly depends on the stress values. So, damage at the Gauss point near the crack tip suddenly
reaches its critical value while damage at other nearby Gauss points is still quite small. This is in
contradiction to the actual observation. Hence, to mimic the actual condition, small region ahead of
crack tip is selected and assumed that when most of the region is damaged then only the crack will
grow. The characteristic length provides a mesh band in which the results remain mesh insensitive.
This characteristic length works as a numerical tool whose value provides the band of mesh insensi-
tivity (Duddu and Waisman, 2013; Murakami and Liu, 1995).

Stress limitation method. The stress limitation criterion is applied to reduce mesh sensitivity in both
local and nonlocal approaches. This criterion states that the rupture stress ðr Þ used in equation (8) cannot
be more than the ultimate value of strength ðUTS Þ of that material at that temperature. If the value of r
at any Gauss point exceeds the UTS then at that Gauss point r ¼ UTS should be considered.

Reduction in critical value of damage parameter. The fracture of a component is considered when
the value of damage parameter reaches its critical value. Theoretically, the critical value of damage
parameter is unity. It is found that by decreasing the critical value of damage variables, i.e. !C and
DCcp , the stress sensitivity is reduced.
By employing above methods, one can control the damage evolution rate of the material and
hence the mesh sensitivity reduces dramatically.
In local fracture approach, to predict crack growth curve, mesh and critical value of damage
variable !C are chosen to predict the experimental results. Thereafter, this mesh and critical value of
!C is kept same for other geometries and load conditions. Hence, mesh size and !C works as
numerical parameter to predict the crack growth curve. These two parameters depend on the mater-
ial conditions.
In the nonlocal approach, critical value of damage variables, i.e. !C and DC cp along with charac-
teristic length (lc ) works as the numerical parameters. Therefore, the values of these parameters are
chosen to calculate the crack growth curve. These values remain same for other geometries and other
loading conditions but vary with material conditions. The numerical simulation becomes less mesh
sensitive (Duddu and Waisman, 2013; Seabra, 2012; Wang and Waisman, 2016).

Numerical implementation
In this section, a procedure for the evaluation of the creep crack analysis has been explained. As per
literature, plane stress analysis gives over estimated values and plane strain analysis provides good
agreement with the experimental data (Oh et al., 2011; Yatomi et al., 2003). Therefore, in the present
work, creep crack growth simulations have been carried out under plane strain conditions. Newton–
Raphson iterative scheme is implemented to maintain the equilibrium (Kim, 2014) for time-inde-
pendent plasticity analysis. Forward Euler time integration scheme is applied for the evolution of
creep strain and damage variable. Both local and nonlocal approaches are used. The iterative
scheme for creep crack growth simulation is as follows (Hsu and Zhai, 1984; Kumar et al., 2016;
Levy, 1981)

(i) For a given mesh and crack position, at time t ¼ 0, initialize damage variable ! ¼ 0and change
in stress r ¼ 0 at each Gauss point.
(ii) Elasto-plastic analysis,
Pandey et al. 13
a. Perform elasto-plastic analysis by assuming that at a material point, the state of stress at
step i is known. So the known quantities are i d, i e, i r, i Ce .
b. Apply the incremental external force vector fext and calculate the total external force for
the current load step ði þ 1Þ as
iþ1
fext ¼ i fext þ iþ1 fext

iþ1 ep iþ1 ep
c. Initialize the variables iþ1 iþ1 iþ1
j1 d, j1 e, j1 r, j1 C , j1 K and iþ1
j1 fint for jth iteration no.
For first equilibrium iteration, put j ¼ 1 in the abovementioned variables. These variables
become

iþ1 ep
iþ1
0d ¼ i d, iþ1
0e ¼ i e, iþ1
0r ¼ i r, 0C ¼ i Cep , iþ1 ep
0K ¼ i Kep and iþ1
0 fint ¼ i fint

d. Apply Newton–Raphson scheme at all integration points to evaluate the stress state after
hardening,

ep
1. Compute modified stiffness matrix using iþ1
j1 C
2. Apply equilibrium equation to evaluate the nodal displacements as
iþ1 ep
j1 K j d ¼ iþ1 fext  iþ1
j1 fint
iþ1
jd ¼ iþ1
j1 d þj d

3. Update the incremental strain and trial stresses

iþ1
j e ¼B j d
iþ1
je ¼ j1 e þiþ1j e
iþ1

trial
r ¼iþ1j r ¼ Ceiþ1j e

4. Substitute this trial stress state in von Mises yield criterion which is given as

F ¼ trial   i Y

If F  0, then material remains in the elastic state. Update variables as iþ1j Cep ¼ Ce , ee ¼ iþ1j e,
iþ1
jr¼ trial r and iþ1j Y ¼ i Y
If F 4 0, then material yields. Again, apply Newton–Raphson iteration to compute .
Then, update stress state and variables as

F iþ1
 ¼ , jr ¼ trial r  2GN
2G þ 23 H
iþ1 e
je ¼ ðCe Þ1 iþ1j  and iþ1j ep ¼ ij ep þ  N
!
iþ1 ep e 4G2 4G2  T 4G2  Idev ITdev
jC ¼C   NN þ
2G þ 23 H ktrail s k ktrail s k 3
14 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)
trial
where s is the deviatoric part of the trial stress. Idev is given as
2 2 1 3
 0
6 3 3 7
6 7
6 1 2 7
Idev ¼ 6  07
6 3 3 7
4 5
1
0 0
2
Effective plastic strain is evaluated as
rffiffiffi
iþ1 p i p 2
j " ¼ j " þ 
3

Updated yield function becomes

iþ1
j Y ¼ initial Y þ Hiþ1j e p

5. Evaluate ðiþiÞ fint from this stress state.

6. If convergence criterion is satisfied then go to step (b). Else go to (1) and repeat the procedure
again.

(iii) After elasto-plastic analysis, r, ee , ep , Cep at each Gauss point and global Kep are obtained.
4ð1þvÞ
(iv) For creep analysis, time increment  t is calculated as  t 5 3E n A eqn
eq
(v) Creep analysis,

a. Evaluate 1 , eq at each Gauss point and then calculate r by using equation (8).
b. Calculate damaged tangent matrix Cdep ¼ ð1  !ÞCep
c. Compute the damage rate !_ from equation (7), calculate incremental damage variable and
update as

t
ð!Þ ¼  t:t ð!_ Þ
tþt
ð!Þ ¼ t ð!Þ þ t ð!Þ
If nonlocal approach is applicable then compute Dcp from equation (34).
d. Similar to step (c), compute creep strain rate from equation (6), calculate incremental creep
strain and update as
t
ðec Þ ¼  t:t ðe_ c Þ
tþt
ðec Þ ¼ t ðec Þ þ t ðec Þ

e. From the following relations, evaluate force vector due to incremental creep strain and force
vector due to change in stresses
Z Z
T c
Fcreep ¼ B C dep
e d and Fstress ¼ BT rd
 
Pandey et al. 15
f. Compute modified stiffness matrix tþt Kdep using damaged elasto-plastic tangent matrix
tþt dep
C .
g. Use equilibrium equation to evaluate the nodal displacements

tþt
K u ¼ tþt Fcreep þ tþt Fstress

h. Evaluate incremental strains and incremental stresses at each Gauss point as

tþt
e ¼ Btþt u
 
tþt
r ¼ tþt Cdep tþt e  tþt ec

i. Update stresses and time

tþt
r ¼ t r þ tþt r
t ¼ t þ t

j. Check damage variable !  !C or Dcp  DC cp .

If ‘‘NO’’ then go to step (a) and repeat the same procedure again.
Else, update the crack length. In the present work, CT and CST specimens are used for
studying crack growth and the components are subjected to mode-I loading only. Hence,
the crack path for these specimens is a straight line, which is known a priori. Therefore,
crack growth direction is not calculated here to keep the simulation simple and a small seg-
ment of straight crack (a ¼ 0:25 mm) is added ahead of the previous crack. This strategy is
employed for all the simulations, i.e. local and nonlocal.
k. Unloading is done in a way similar to unloading in usual time-independent problems. The
stresses of the previous load step at the Gauss points of tip element are accounted first, then
the nodal force can be computed as
Z
ftip ¼ BT r d
 tip

These computed forces are applied on the new tip element in the reverse direction.

(vi) Go to step (ii). Again, perform elasto-plastic analysis with updated force vector
Fupdated ¼ P  ftip and updated crack length. Follow the procedure until the desired final
crack length is achieved. A schematic representation of the above algorithm is given in the
form of a flow chart in Figure 4.

Numerical results and discussion

To demonstrate the performance of the above presented algorithm, three creep studies are per-
formed on 316 SS and P91 steel. Each study is further subdivided into creep curve analysis and
16 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

Initialize mesh, crack, and

Apply incremental load Apply

Elasto-plastic analysis and Elastic solution

update stress and strain

Check if

Variables and are known. Calculate

Evaluate

Compute

Compute
If nonlocal approach is applicable, calculate
Compute modified stiffness matrix and solve

Evaluate incremental strain and stress and

then update stresses and time

No Check if
or

Yes

No Compute
Update crack length
If

Yes
End

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of XFEM solution procedure.

XFEM: extended finite element method.

creep crack growth analysis. Studies are performed for 316 SS at 550 and 600 C temperature
whereas for P91 steel, 650 C temperature is selected. For both materials, tensile properties are
presented in Table 1 and creep constants are given in Table 2.
To perform the creep analysis, uniaxial tensile specimen is simulated as an axisymmetric model.
For the crack growth analysis, CT and CST specimens are chosen. Specimen dimensions (in mm) are
Pandey et al. 17
Table 1. Tensile properties for various materials.

Material E (GPa) n sy (MPa) su (MPa) m

316 SS at 600 C (Hyde et al., 2010a) 148 0.3 100 381 2.8
P91 at 650 C (Saber, 2011) 132 0.3 262 281 18.558
316 SS at 550 C (Oh et al., 2011) 140 0.3 170 588 3.1295

Table 2. Creep constants for different materials.

Material A n D p q

316 SS at 600 C (Hyde et al., 2010a) 1.47  1029 10.147 2.73  1030 10.949 6.35
P91 at 650 C (Hyde et al., 2010c) 1.092  1020 8.462 2.952  1016 6.789 3.2
316 SS at 550 C 2.4099  1033 11.131 1.2823  1030 10.594 9.2
SS: stainless steel.

Table 3. Specimen geometry and dimensions.

Specimen Material W (mm) B (mm) ainitial (mm) afinal (mm) r1 (mm) r2 (mm)

CT 316 SS at 600 C (Hyde et al., 2010a) 32 16 17.056 19.25
CT P91 at 650 C (Hyde et al., 2010c) 32 16 15.5 –
CT 316 SS at 550 C (Oh et al., 2011) 50 25 26.43 27.82
CST 316 SS at 550 C (Davies et al., 2006) 25 5.75 7.5 25 50
CST: C-shaped tension; CT: compact tension; SS: stainless steel.

given in Table 3. Figure 5(a) shows the geometric specifications for tensile specimen whereas
Figure 5(b) shows the geometric dimensions for CT specimen.

Creep deformation and crack growth in 316 SS at 600 C

Hyde et al. (2010a) studied creep deformation and creep crack growth of 316 SS at 600 C. True
stress–strain curve for 316 SS at 600 C is given in Figure 6.

Uniaxial creep test. An axisymmetric finite element creep analysis is performed on a tensile spe-
cimen (as shown in Figure 5(a)) under various loads. The creep strains predicted by FE analysis are
plotted in Figure 7. Finite element results show an excellent agreement with the experiment results
(Hyde et al., 2010a).

Creep crack growth in CT specimen. The creep crack growth analysis of a CT specimen made of
316 SS subjected to 8323 N at 600 C has been studied by Wen et al. (2013) using finite element
method with 200 mm mesh size. A local approach is adopted similar to the approach of Wen et al.
(2013). In XFEM, a relatively coarse mesh (1.48 mm  1.54 mm) is employed to perform the crack
growth analysis. The critical value of damage variable !C ¼ 0:75 is taken as a crack growth
18 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

(a)

2L L

F 2R

Lines of
symmetry R

(b)

0.275W

1.2 W
a

0.25W
P
W B
1.25W

Figure 5. (a) Tensile specimen (b) compact tension specimen along with dimensions, loading, and boundary
conditions.
Pandey et al. 19
400

350

300

True Stress (MPa)

250

200
ο
316 SS at 600 C
150

100

50

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
True Strain

Figure 6. True stress–strain curve for 316 SS at 600 C (Hyde et al., 2010a).
SS: stainless steel.

300 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010a)

0.20 280 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010a)
260 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010a)
240 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010a)
FEM (Present simulation)
0.16
Creep Strain

0.12

0.08

0.04

0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (hours)

Figure 7. Creep curves for 316 SS at 600 C.

SS: stainless steel.

criterion. When damage variable reaches its critical value, 0.25 mm incremental crack segment is
added in the crack to simulate crack extension. To perform the crack growth analysis the value of
multiaxiality parameter ðÞ, as defined in equation (8), is taken equal to 0.48. The crack length
obtained by XFEM, experimental results, and FE results available in the literature is shown in
Figure 8 for a CT specimen. From Figure 8, it is observed that the XFEM results are very close
to the experimental data. Crack growth results show that, in the externally loaded specimen, creep
crack growth rate increases gradually with time. Stress distribution in CT specimen for different
crack length is shown in Figure 9.
20 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

19.5
Exp. (Hyde, 1988)
FEM (Wen et al., 2013)
XFEM
19.0 XFEM (Curve fit)

18.5
Crack length (mm)

18.0

17.5

17.0

1 10 100 1000
Time (hours)

Figure 8. A comparison of experimental, FE, and XFEM creep crack growth results for 316 SS CT specimen at 600 C.
CT: compact tension; FE: finite element; SS: stainless steel; XFEM: extended finite element method.

Figure 9. Stress distribution in CT specimen with increase in crack length.

CT: compact tension.

Effect of multiaxiality parameter. The effect of multiaxiality parameter is studied in this subsec-
tion. Five different values of multiaxiality parameter ð ¼ 0:46, 0:47, 0:48, 0:49, 0:50Þ are used in the
CT specimen subjected to 8320 N load. All the material and numerical parameters (mesh and
damage variable) are kept same as in ‘‘Creep crack growth in CT specimen’’ section. The crack
growth results obtained by XFEM are plotted in Figure 10. This figure shows that crack growth
results are sensitive to the value of .

Creep deformation and crack growth in P91 at 650 C

Hyde et al. (2010c) performed experimental and numerical creep study of P91 steel at 650 C. The
true stress–strain curve for P91 steel at 650 C is plotted in Figure 11.
Pandey et al. 21
19.5
α = 0.46
α = 0.47
α = 0.48
19.0 α = 0.49
α = 0.50

Crack length (mm)

18.5

18.0

17.5

17.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (hours)

Figure 10. Effect of multiaxiality parameter on creep crack growth.

300

250

200
Stress (MPa)

150

ο
P91 at 650 C
100

50

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain (%)

Figure 11. Stress–strain curve for P91 steel at 650 C (Saber, 2011).

Uniaxial creep test. Similar to the previous case, an axisymmetric finite element creep analysis is
performed on a tensile specimen made of P91 steel subjected to various load levels as shown in
Figure 12. The FE results show an excellent agreement with the experimental results.

Creep crack growth in CT specimen. Experimental result for creep crack growth analysis of a CT
specimen made of P91 steel subjected to an applied load of 3600 N at 650 C has been provided by
Hyde et al. (2010c). In the present analysis, this problem is solved using nonlocal damage approach.
22 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

0.6
70 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010c)
82 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010c)
0.5 87 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010c)
93 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010c)
100 MPa (Exp., Hyde et al., 2010c)
FEM (Present simulation)
0.4

Creep Strain
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (hours)

Figure 12. Creep curves of P91 steel at 650 C.

Exp. (Hyde et al., 2010c)

21
XFEM
XFEM (Curve fit)

20

19
Crack length (mm)

18

17

16

15
1 10 100 1000
Time (hours)

Figure 13. A comparison between experimental and XFEM crack growth results for P91 CT specimen at 650 C.
CT: compact tension; XFEM: extended finite element method.

A mesh size of 1.48 mm  1.54 mm is taken for analysis. The critical value of damage variables
!C and DC cp are taken as 0.9 and 0.84, respectively, to ease the computation. To perform the
crack growth analysis the value of multiaxiality parameter ðÞ is taken equal to 0.48. The crack
growth results obtained by XFEM and experimental study are presented in Figure 13 for a CT
specimen. The XFEM results agree very well with the experimental results.
Pandey et al. 23
(a) 1.4
25x25 mesh
27x25 mesh
1.2 29x29 mesh
33x33 mesh
39x39 mesh

Load point displacement (mm)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (hours)
(b)
25x25 mesh
21 27x25 mesh
29x29 mesh
33x33 mesh
20 39x39 mesh
Crack length (mm)

19

18

17

16

15
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (hours)

Figure 14. Mesh sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the effect of nonlocal approach. (a) Load point displacement
versus time (b) crack growth curve.

Mesh sensitivity analysis. A mesh sensitivity analysis has been carried out to demonstrate the
significance of nonlocal approach. For this, a load of 3600 N is applied on the CT specimen. The
results of crack length versus time and load point displacement versus time are plotted in Figure 14
for five different meshes. It is observed from these results that the final simulation time is approxi-
mately same for each mesh and the mesh sensitivity has been reduced remarkably.

Effect of crack length increment. The effect of crack length increment is studied for CT specimen
using six different values (a ¼ 0.15, 0.20, 0.225, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35 mm) subjected to 3600 N load. All
material and numerical parameters are kept same as in ‘‘Creep crack growth in CT specimen’’
section. The crack growth results obtained by XFEM are plotted in Figure 15. Figure 15 shows
24 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

22
Δa = 0.15 mm
Δa = 0.2 mm
21 Δa = 0.225 mm
Δa = 0.25 mm
Δa = 0.3 mm
20 Δa = 0.35 mm

Crack length (mm) 19

18

17

16

15
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (hours)

Figure 15. Effect of crack increment on creep crack growth.

21 m=14.00
m=17.50
m=18.00
m=18.56
20 m=19.00
Crack length (mm)

19

18

17

16

15
0 50 100 150 200
Time (hours)

Figure 16. Effect of power law hardening exponent (m) on creep crack growth.

that the crack growth results are affected for small values of a. However, the dependency of a on
crack growth curve vanishes for large values of crack length increment. Since, a large increment in
the crack length cannot be justified. Hence, a ¼ 0:25 mm is a good estimate to simulate the crack
growth.

Effect of power law hardening exponent (m) on creep crack growth. The effect of power law
hardening exponent (m) is demonstrated by performing simulations on a CT specimen subjected to
Pandey et al. 25
Table 4. Creep crack growth results of P91 CT specimen subjected to different load levels at
650 C.

Failure time (h)

Experimental
Specimen Load (N) (Hyde et al., 2010c) XFEM

CT1 5000 98.3 63.8

CT2 4000 184.5 172.2
CT3 3600 210 193.5
CT4 3000 410 512
CT: compact tension; XFEM: extended finite element method.

800

700

600
True Stress (MPa)

500

400

300 ο
316 SS at 550 C

200

100

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
True Strain

Figure 17. True stress–strain curve for 316 SS at 550 C (Oh et al., 2011).
SS: stainless steel.

3600 N at 650 C. The material and numerical parameters are kept same as discussed in ‘‘Creep crack
growth in CT specimen’’ section. The results obtained for the five values of m are presented in Figure
16. It is observed that the crack growth results are not much affected by the variation in m.

Creep crack growth for different load levels. In this section, creep crack growth in CT specimen
subjected to four different load levels is presented. Experimental results for this study are given in
Hyde et al. (2010c). Hyde et al. (2010c) reported that multiaxiality parameter ðÞ can be obtained by
using either notched bar or CT specimen. In the present study, the value of  obtained from CT
specimen subjected to 3600 N is applied to other CT specimens subjected to different load levels. The
failure time of CT specimens subjected to different load levels is summarized in Table 4. It can be
seen that the simulated result agrees well at a load level closer to 3600 N but deviate for other load
level (CT1 and CT4). Therefore, to determine a proper value of multiaxiality parameter, an average
value obtained from different load levels should be taken for the simulations.
26 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

Creep deformation and crack growth in 316 SS at 550 C

Creep simulation of 316 SS at 550 C was presented by Oh et al. (2011). True stress–strain curve for
this material at 550 C is given in Figure 17.

Uniaxial creep test. In this case, the creep constants for Liu–Murakami model are evaluated by
fitting the creep curves for uniaxial stresses. Creep curves obtained by FEM using axisymmetric

0.12
290 MPa (Exp., Oh et al., 2011)
308 MPa (Exp., Oh et al., 2011)
0.10 349 MPa (Exp., Oh et al., 2011)
359 MPa (Exp., Oh et al., 2011)
366 MPa (Exp., Oh et al., 2011)
FEM (Present simulation)
0.08
Creep Strain

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Time (hours)

Figure 18. Creep curves for 316 SS at 550 C.

SS: stainless steel.

28.0 Exp. (Oh et al., 2011)

FEM (Oh et al., 2011)
XFEM
XFEM (Curve fit)

27.6
Crack length (mm)

27.2

26.8

26.4

1 10 100 1000 10000

Time (hours)

Figure 19. A comparison of experimental, FE, and XFEM creep crack growth results for 316 SS CT specimen at 550 C.
CT: compact tension; FE: finite element; SS: stainless steel; XFEM: extended finite element method.
Pandey et al. 27
model are shown in Figure 18 for a tensile specimen made of 316 SS at 550 C. The FE results are in
excellent agreement with the experimental data.

Creep crack growth in CT specimen. Oh et al. (2011) studied creep crack growth by finite element
method using 100 mm mesh size for a CT specimen subjected to 20 kN at 550 C. In the present work,

Figure 20. (a) C-shaped tension specimen along with boundary conditions and (b) finite element mesh.

7.6
Exp (Davies et al., 2006)
XFEM (Curve fit)

7.2
Crack length (mm)

6.8

6.4

6.0

5.6
1 10 100 1000 10000
Time (hours)

Figure 21. A comparison of experimental and XFEM creep crack growth results for 316 SS CST specimen at 550 C.
CST: C-shaped tension; SS: stainless steel; XFEM: extended finite element method.
28 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

creep crack growth analysis is performed by XFEM using a coarse mesh of size 1.60 mm  1.54 mm.
Damage evolution is computed using local approach to compare the crack growth results. The critical
value of damage variable is taken as !C ¼ 0:75. The value of multiaxiality parameter ðÞ is taken as 0.6.
The crack growth results from experiment, FEM (Oh et al., 2011) and XFEM are compared in Figure 19
for the CT specimen. These plots show that the XFEM results agree very well with the experimental data.

Creep crack growth in CST specimen. A constant load of 16.5 kN is applied on a CST specimen.
Various dimensions and parameters of CST specimen are given in Figure 20(a) and Table 3.
The mesh size is taken approximately same as that of CT specimen as shown in Figure 20(b).
The critical value of damage variable !C is taken 0.75 as crack growth criterion. The value of 
obtained from CT specimen is used for C-shaped specimen also. The Gauss point distribution ahead
of crack tip is taken same as that of CT specimen as discussed in ‘‘Crack propagation strategy’’
section. The crack length obtained by XFEM solution and experimental result is plotted in
Figure 21. Stress distribution in the CST specimen with increase in crack length is also shown
in Figure 22. The results are found to be in good agreement with each other. It is seen from this
case that multiaxiality parameter ðÞ depends primarily on the temperature and applied load.

Figure 22. Stress distribution in CST specimen for different crack length.
CST: C-shaped tension.
Pandey et al. 29
Conclusions
In the present work, the elasto-plastic creep crack growth simulations are performed by XFEM and
continuum damage mechanics. Liu–Murakami creep damage model is used to evaluate the creep
strain and damage variable. Simulations are performed at high temperatures (550, 600, and 650 C)
in CT and CST specimens for two materials (P91 steel and 316 SS). A plane strain condition is
assumed for all crack growth simulations. Explicit time integration scheme is employed to evaluate
creep strain and damage variable. Both local and nonlocal approaches are employed for damage
evolution. The effect of various parameters is studied on crack growth simulations. The present
study concludes that a coarse mesh can be used in XFEM to simulate the creep crack growth.
The results obtained from the present analysis are found in good agreement with those available
in the literature. It is also shown that with the help of nonlocal approach, mesh independent results
can be achieved.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This work is financially supported by Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL),
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Hyderabad, through grant no. DGNSM/04/4019/
DMR305/CARS/XFEM dated November 24, 2014.

References
Abu Al-Rub RK, Darabi MK and Masad EA (2010) A straightforward numerical technique for finite element
implementation of non-local gradient-dependent continuum damage mechanics theories. International
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Multiscale Mechanics 1(4): 352–385.
Amiri F, Anitescu C, Arroyo M, et al. (2014) XLME interpolants, a seamless bridge between XFEM and
enriched meshless methods. Computational Mechanics 53(1): 45–57.
Areias P, Msekh MA and Rabczuk T (2016a) Damage and fracture algorithm using the screened Poisson
equation and local remeshing. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 158: 116–143.
Areias P and Rabczuk T (2017) Steiner-point free edge cutting of tetrahedral meshes with applications in
fracture. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 132: 27–41.
Areias P, Rabczuk T and Camanho PP (2014) Finite strain fracture of 2D problems with injected anisotropic
softening elements. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 72: 50–63.
Areias P, Rabczuk T and Dias-da-Costa D (2013) Element-wise fracture algorithm based on rotation of edges.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 110: 113–137.
Areias P, Rabczuk T and Msekh MA (2016b) Phase-field analysis of finite-strain plates and shells including
element subdivision. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 312: 322–350.
Bansal M, Singh IV, Mishra BK, et al. (2017) A stochastic XFEM model for the tensile strength prediction of
heterogeneous graphite based on microstructural observations. Journal of Nuclear Materials 487: 143–157.
Bazant ZP and Pijaudier-Cabot G (1988) Nonlocal continuum damage, localization instability and conver-
gence. Journal of Applied Mechanics 55(2): 287–293.
Belytschko T and Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal remeshing. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 45(5): 601–620.
Berton T, Montesano J and Singh CV (2016) Development of a synergistic damage mechanics model to predict
evolution of ply cracking and stiffness changes in multidirectional composite laminates under creep.
International Journal of Damage Mechanics 25(7): 1060–1078.
30 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

Bhardwaj G, Singh SK, Singh IV, et al. (2016) Fatigue crack growth analysis of an interfacial crack in het-
erogeneous materials using homogenized XIGA. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 85: 294–319.
Challamel N, Picandet V and Pijaudier-Cabot G (2015) From discrete to nonlocal continuum damage mech-
anics: Analysis of a lattice system in bending using a continualized approach. International Journal of
Damage Mechanics 24(7): 983–1012.
Chau-Dinh T, Zi G, Lee PS, et al. (2012) Phantom-node method for shell models with arbitrary cracks.
Computers and Structures 92: 242–256.
Cheng H and Zhou X (2015) A multi-dimensional space method for dynamic cracks problems using implicit
time scheme in the framework of the extended finite element method. International Journal of Damage
Mechanics 24(6): 859–890.
Cocks ACF and Ashby MF (1980) Intergranular fracture during power-law creep under multiaxial stresses.
Metal Science 14(8–9): 395–402.
Davies C, Mueller F, Nikbin K, et al. (2006) Analysis of creep initiation and growth in different geometries for
316H and carbon manganese steels. Journal of ASTM International 3(2): JAI 13220.
Duddu R and Waisman H (2013) A nonlocal continuum damage mechanics approach to simulation of creep
fracture in ice sheets. Computational Mechanics 51(6): 961–974.
Evans RW and Wilshire B (1985) Creep of Metals and Alloys. Institute of Metals, London, UK: CRC Press.
Ghorashi SS, Valizadeh N, Mohammadi S, et al. (2015) T-spline based XIGA for fracture analysis of ortho-
tropic media. Computers and Structures 147: 138–146.
Graham A and Walles KFA (1955) Relationships between long and short time creep and tensile properties of a
commercial alloy. Journal of Iron Steel Institute, London 179: 105–120.
Hosseini E, Holdsworth SR and Mazza E (2013) Stress regime-dependent creep constitutive model consider-
ations in finite element continuum damage mechanics. International Journal of Damage Mechanics 22(8):
1186–1205.
Hsu TR and Zhai ZH (1984) A finite element algorithm for creep crack growth. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 20(3): 521–533.
Hyde CJ, Hyde TH, Sun W, et al. (2010a) Damage mechanics based predictions of creep crack growth in 316
stainless steel. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77(12): 2385–2402.
Hyde TH, Ali BS and Sun W (2013) Analysis and design of a small, two-bar creep test specimen. Journal of
Engineering Materials and Technology 135(4): 041006.
Hyde TH, Ali BS and Sun W (2014) On the determination of material creep constants using miniature creep test
specimens. Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology 136(2): 021006.
Hyde TH, Li R, Sun W, et al. (2010d) A simplified method for predicting the creep crack growth in P91 welds at
650 C. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials Design and
Applications 224(4): 208–219.
Hyde TH, Saber M and Sun W (2010b) Testing and modelling of creep crack growth in compact tension
specimens from a P91 weld at 650 C. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 77(15): 2946–2957.
Hyde TH, Saber M and Sun W (2010c) Creep crack growth data and prediction for a P91 weld at 650 C.
International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 87(12): 721–729.
Kachanov LM (1958) On rupture time under condition of creep. Izvestia Akademi Nauk SSSR Otd Tekhn Nauk
8: 26–31.
Kim NH (2014) Introduction to Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis. New York, USA: Springer Science &
Business Media.
Kim NH, Oh CS, Kim YJ, et al. (2013) Creep failure simulations of 316H at 550 C: Part II – Effects of specimen
geometry and loading mode. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 105: 169–181.
Kumar M, Singh IV, Mishra BK, et al. (2016) A modified theta projection model for creep behavior of metals
and alloys. Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance 25(9): 3985–3992.
Kumar S, Singh IV, Mishra BK, et al. (2016) A homogenized multigrid XFEM to predict the crack growth
behavior of ductile material in the presence of microstructural defects. Engineering Fracture Mechanics.
Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2016.03.051.
Pandey et al. 31
Larsson R and Fagerstrom M (2005) A framework for fracture modelling based on the material forces concept
with XFEM kinematics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 62(13): 1763–1788.
Levy A (1981) Finite element three-dimensional elastic-plastic creep analysis. Engineering Structures 3(1): 9–16.
Liu Y and Murakami S (1998) Damage localization of conventional creep damage models and proposition of a
new model for creep damage analysis. JSME International Journal Series A 41(1): 57–65.
Meng Q and Wang Z (2014) Extended finite element method for power-law creep crack growth. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 127: 148–160.
Moes N, Dolbow J and Belytschko T (1999) A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 46(1): 131–150.
Mohammadi S (2008) Extended Finite Element Method: For Fracture Analysis of Structures. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Murakami S, Kawai M and Rong H (1988) Finite element analysis of creep crack growth by a local approach.
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 30(7): 491–502.
Murakami S and Liu Y (1995) Mesh-dependence in local approach to creep fracture. International Journal of
Damage Mechanics 4(3): 230–250.
Murakami S, Liu Y and Mizuno M (2000) Computational methods for creep fracture analysis by damage
mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 183(1): 15–33.
Nikbin KM, Smith DJ and Webster GA (1984) Prediction of creep crack growth from uniaxial creep data.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 396(1810):
183–197.
Norton FH (1929) The Creep of Steel at High Temperatures. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.
Oh CS, Kim NH, Kim YJ, et al. (2011) Creep failure simulations of 316H at 550 C: Part I – A method and
validation. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 78(17): 2966–2977.
Rabczuk T and Belytschko T (2004) Cracking particles: A simplified meshfree method for arbitrary evolving
cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 61(13): 2316–2343.
Rabczuk T and Belytschko T (2007) A three-dimensional large deformation meshfree method for arbitrary
evolving cracks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196(29): 2777–2799.
Rabczuk T, Zi G, Bordas S, et al. (2010) A simple and robust three-dimensional cracking-particle method
without enrichment. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 199(37): 2437–2455.
Rabotnov YN (1969) Creep Problems in Structural Members. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, et al. (2016) Dual-horizon peridynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering 108(12): 1451–1476.
Ren H, Zhuang X and Rabczuk T (2017) Dual-horizon peridynamics: A stable solution to varying horizons.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 318: 762–782.
Roth SN, Léger P and Soulaı̈mani A (2015) A combined XFEM–damage mechanics approach for concrete
crack propagation. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 283: 923–955.
Roy N, Das A and Ray AK (2015) Simulation and quantification of creep damage. International Journal of
Damage Mechanics 24(7): 1086–1106.
Saber M (2011) Experimental and finite element studies of creep and creep crack growth in P91 and P92 weld-
ments. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham.
Seabra MRR (2012) Continuous-discontinuous approach for the modelling of ductile fracture. Doctoral disser-
tation, Universidade do Porto, Portugal.
Seabra MR, Šuštarič P, Cesar de Sa JM, et al. (2013) Damage driven crack initiation and propagation in ductile
metals using XFEM. Computational Mechanics 52: 161–179.
Shahsavari H, Naghdabadi R, Baghani M, et al. (2016) A viscoelastic–viscoplastic constitutive model consider-
ing damage evolution for time dependent materials: Application to asphalt mixes. International Journal of
Damage Mechanics 25(7): 921–942.
Shedbale AS, Singh IV and Mishra BK (2013) Nonlinear simulation of an embedded crack in the presence of
holes and inclusions by XFEM. Procedia Engineering 64: 642–651.
Singh IV, Mishra BK, Bhattacharya S, et al. (2012) The numerical simulation of fatigue crack growth using
extended finite element method. International Journal of Fatigue 36(1): 109–119.
32 International Journal of Damage Mechanics 0(0)

Singh SK, Singh IV, Mishra BK, et al. (2017) A simple, efficient and accurate Bézier extraction based T-spline
XIGA for crack simulations. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 88: 74–96.
Sukumar N, Chopp DL, Moës N, et al. (2001) Modeling holes and inclusions by level sets in the extended finite-
element method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 190(46): 6183–6200.
Wang H, Liu Z, Xu D, et al. (2016) Extended finite element method analysis for shielding and amplification
effect of a main crack interacted with a group of nearby parallel microcracks. International Journal of
Damage Mechanics 25(1): 4–25.
Wang W, Shao JF, Zhu QZ, et al. (2015) A discrete viscoplastic damage model for time-dependent behaviour of
quasi-brittle rocks. International Journal of Damage Mechanics 24(1): 21–40.
Wang Y and Waisman H (2016) From diffuse damage to sharp cohesive cracks: A coupled XFEM framework
for failure analysis of quasi-brittle materials. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 299:
57–89.
Wen JF, Tu ST, Gao XL, et al. (2013) Simulations of creep crack growth in 316 stainless steel using a novel
creep-damage model. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 98: 169–184.
Wen JF, Tu ST, Gao XL, et al. (2014a) New model for creep damage analysis and its application to creep crack
growth simulations. Materials Science and Technology 30(1): 32–37.
Wen JF and Tu ST (2014b) A multiaxial creep-damage model for creep crack growth considering cavity growth
and microcrack interaction. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 123: 197–210.
Xu Y and Yuan H (2009) On damage accumulations in the cyclic cohesive zone model for XFEM analysis of
mixed-mode fatigue crack growth. Computational Materials Science 46(3): 579–585.
Yatomi M, Nikbin KM and O’Dowd NP (2003) Creep crack growth prediction using a damage based
approach. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 80(7): 573–583.
Zhuang X, Augarde CE and Mathisen KM (2012) Fracture modeling using meshless methods and level sets in
3D: Framework and modeling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 92(11): 969–998.