Evaluating The Stress Intensity Factors of Anisotropic Bimaterials Using Boundary Element Method

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:1341–1364

Published online 3 December 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.673
Evaluating the stress intensity factors of anisotropic bimaterials

using boundary element method
Chao-Shi Chen1, ∗, † , Chien-Chung Ke2 and Chia-Huei Tu1

1 Department of Resources Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
2 Geotechnical Engineering Research Center, Sinotech Engineering Consultants, Inc., Taipei 110, Taiwan
SUMMARY
This paper presents a boundary element method (BEM) procedure for a linear elastic fracture mechanics
analysis in two-dimensional anisotropic bimaterials. In this formulation, a displacement integral equation is
only collocated on the uncracked boundary, and a traction integral equation is only collocated on one side
of the crack surface. A fundamental solution (Green’s function) for anisotropic bimaterials is also derived
and implemented into the boundary integral formulation so that except for the interfacial crack part, the
discretization along the interface can be avoided. A special crack-tip element is introduced to capture
the exact crack-tip behavior. A computer program using FORTRAN has been developed to effectively
calculate the stress intensity factors of an anisotropic bimaterial. This BEM program has been verified to
have a good accuracy with previous studies. In addition, a central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen
constituting cement and gypsum is prepared to conduct the Brazilian test under diametral loading. The
result shows that the numerical analysis can predict relatively well the direction of crack initiation and
the path of crack propagation. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 31 May 2007; Revised 18 September 2007; Accepted 17 October 2007
KEY WORDS: boundary element method; anisotropic bimaterial; stress intensity factor; initiation angle;
propagation path
1. INTRODUCTION
The problem of crack between two dissimilar materials has been widely studied over the past
several decades, stemming mainly from the desire to understand the failure modes of composites,
including structures, rocks, and concrete. The first study of the plane problem of a crack lying
between dissimilar isotropic materials was presented by Williams [1]. Williams showed that stresses
∗ Correspondence to: Chao-Shi Chen, Department of Resources Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, No. 1,
University Road, Tainan 701, Taiwan.
†
E-mail: chencs@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Contract/grant sponsor: National Science Council of Taiwan; contract/grant number: NSC93-2211-E-006-021
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1342 C.-S. CHEN, C.-C. KE AND C.-H. TU
possess the singularity of r −1/2±i , where r is the radius distance from the crack tip and is a
bimaterial constant. England [2] investigated the problem of a finite crack between dissimilar
isotropic materials. Rice and Sih [3] studied similar problems and derived the expressions of
the stress fields near the crack tip. Rice [4] reexamined the elastic fracture mechanics concepts
for the isotropic interfacial crack and introduced an intrinsic material length scale so that the
definition of the stress intensity factor (SIFs) possesses the same physical significance as those for
homogeneous cracks. Clements [5] and Willis [6] extended the problem studied by England [2]
for dissimilar anisotropic materials. They also showed that the oscillatory behavior of the stresses
and the phenomenon of interpenetration of crack faces near crack tips for anisotropic interface
cracks. The problem studied by Rice [4] was extended for anisotropic bimaterial cracks by Wu [7].
Recent studies on interfacial cracks in anisotropic materials have been conducted by many authors
[7–19] and different definitions for the SIF exist. However, the data on different crack locations,
crack lengths, and degree of material anisotropy are scarce in the literature.
In this study, a formulation of the boundary element method (BEM), based on the relative
displacements near the crack tip, is utilized to determine the mixed-mode SIFs of anisotropic
bimaterials. The new BEM formulation is such that the displacement integral equation is collocated
only on the outside boundary and the traction integral equation is collocated only on one side
of the crack surface. An extrapolation method can be used to determine the mixed-mode SIFs of
anisotropic bimaterials based on the relative displacements at the crack tip. Numerical examples
for the determination of the mixed-mode SIFs for anisotropic bimaterials with different crack
locations, crack lengths, and degree of material anisotropy are presented. The numerical results
obtained by the BEM formulation are verified with numerous previous studies [7, 20–23].
Failure of a construction frequently takes place following crack growth. Understanding the
behavior of crack initiation and propagation is important for evaluating the safety limits of cracked
structures. In recent years, the theoretical analysis and numerical calculation of elastic stress
fields and SIFs have reached a satisfactory level for a crack under mixed-mode loading. However,
the studies of the crack propagation are far from mature. Being one of the key problems in
the application of fracture theory to engineering, the simulation of crack propagation is one of the
important subjects that needs to be settled as soon as possible.
In the four decades since Erdogan and Sih [24] developed the first mixed-mode fracture theory,
numerous theories have been formulated at an increasingly rapid pace. Until now, about 11 theo-
retical criteria for crack initiation and propagation under mixed-mode (I–II) loading have been
proposed; they were enumerated by Whittaker et al. [25]. In fracture mechanics, the most widely
used and popular criteria are: (1) the maximum tensile stress criterion (-criterion) [24], (2) the
maximum energy release rate criterion (G-criterion) [26], and (3) the minimum strain energy
density criterion (S-criterion) [27]. Among these criteria, the maximum tensile stress criterion has
been more popular because of its simplicity [28]. In this study, the BEM formulation combined
with the maximum tensile stress criterion is used to predict the crack initiation angles and simu-
late the crack propagation paths. To demonstrate the proposed BEM procedure to predict crack
propagation in bimaterials, the propagation path in a central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen
constituting cement and gypsum is numerically predicted and compared with the actual laboratory
observations.
In the last decade, Hibbit et al. [29] used the finite element analysis software ABAQUS with
the virtual crack extension method to determine the SIFs of bimaterial Brazilian specimen. Matos
et al. [30] used it to determine the energy release rate with the crack surface displacement method,
and Soares and Tang [31] used finite element analysis with several different modulus combinations
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:1341–1364
DOI: 10.1002/nag
EVALUATING THE SIFS OF ANISOTROPIC BIMATERIALS 1343
and load directions. Tang also carried out an investigation on the bimaterial Brazilian specimen for
determining interfacial fracture toughness. All of the above references concur that the geometry of
the bimaterial Brazilian specimen has a number of advantages, i.e. simpler specimen preparation,
higher failure load and easier testing procedure over other available methods in fracture tests.
However, all conventional analysis methods are limited to isotropic media.
The BEM formulation combined with the maximum tensile stress criterion is developed to
numerically calculate the SIFs of cracks off or along the interface, to predict the angle of crack
initiation and to simulate the path of crack propagation in bimaterials. A central cracked bima-
terial Brazilian specimen constituting cement and gypsum is prepared to conduct the Brazilian
test to characterize the crack propagation path. A comparison of numerical predictions on crack
propagation paths with experimental observations is also presented.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Anisotropic elasticity

As shown in Lekhnitskii [32], the stress and displacement fields in a two-dimensional linear elastic,
homogeneous, and anisotropic medium can be formulated in terms of two analytical functions,
k (z k ), of the complex variables z k = x +k y (k = 1,2), where k are the roots of the following
characteristic equation
a11 4 −2a16 3 +(2a12 +a66 )2 −2a26 +a22 = 0 (1)
In Equation (1), a11 , a12 , . . . , a66 are the compliance components calculated in the x–y coordinate
system. The detailed relationship of these components with the material elasticity can be found
in Chen et al. [33]. Lekhnitskii [32] showed that the roots of Equation (1) are either complex or
purely imaginary, two of them being the conjugates of the other two. Let 1 , 2 be those roots
and 1 , 2 be their respective conjugates. If the roots 1 and 2 are also assumed to be distinct
and the imaginary parts of 1 and 2 should be larger than zero, the general expression for the
stress and displacements are [33, 34]
x = 2 Re[21 1 (z 1 )+22 2 (z 2 )]

y = 2 Re[1 (z 1 )+2 (z 2 )] (2)
x y = −2 Re[1 1 (z 1 )+2 2 (z 2 )]
and
u = 2 Re[A11 1 (z 1 )+ A12 2 (z 2 )]
(3)
v = 2 Re[A21 1 (z 1 )+ A22 2 (z 2 )]
where
A1 j = a11 2j +a12 −a16 j
a22 (4)
A2 j = a12 j + −a26 ( j = 1, 2)
j
DOI: 10.1002/nag
E
ψ1
Material #1 x
Material #2
−ψ 2
Figure 1. Definition of the coordinate systems within an anisotropic bimaterial.
The traction components in the x and y directions are

Tx = 2 Re[1 1 (z 1 )+2 2 (z 2 )]
(5)
Ty = −2 Re[1 (z 1 )+2 (z 2 )]
With the complex analytical functions i (z i ), one can, in general, express Equations (2), (3), and
(5) as follows [12, 32, 35]:

2
2
u i = 2 Re Ai j j (z j ) , Ti = −2 Re Bi j j (z j )
j=1 j=1
(6)

2
2
2i = 2 Re Bi j j (z j ) , 1i = −2 Re Bi j j j (z j ) (i = 1, 2)
j=1 j=1
where z j = x + j y, the complex number j ( j = 1, 2) and the elements of the complex matrices A
and B are functions of the elastic properties.
Assume that the medium is composed of two joined dissimilar anisotropic and elastic half-
planes. Let the interface be along the x-axis, and the upper (y>0) and lower (y<0) half-planes
be occupied by material #1 and #2, respectively (Figure 1).
Considering the concentrated force acting at the source point (x 0 , y 0 ) in material #2 (y 0 <0),
the complex vector function can be expressed as [12]
U
(z), z ∈ (1)
(z) = (7)
L (z)+0(2) (z), z ∈ (2)
where the vector function
(z) = [1 (z), 2 (z)]T (8)
with the argument having the generic form z = x +y.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
In Equation (7), 0(2) is a singular solution corresponding to a point force acting at the point
(x 0 , y 0 ) in an anisotropic infinite plane with the elastic properties of material #2 The analytic
functions (k ) with the complex variables can be expressed as [12]
−1
k (z k ) = [Dk1 f 1 ln(z k − z k0 )+ Dk2 f 2 ln(z k − z k0 )] (9)
2
where z k0 = x 0 +k y 0 and f k are the magnitudes of the point force in the k-direction, and
−1
Dkl = U −1 (V −1 + V )−1

A11 A12
U= , V = iU W −1
A21 A22 (10)

−1 −2
W=
1 1
√
where i = −1, overbar means the complex conjugate, and superscript −1 means matrix inverse.
There are two unknown vector functions to be solved in Equation (7); that is U (z) and
L
(z). While the former is analytic in the upper (material #1) half-plane, the latter is analytic
in the lower (material #2) half-plane. These expressions can be found by requiring continuity
of the resultant traction and displacement across the interface, along with the standard analytic
continuation arguments. Substituting Equation (9) into (7) is given by
−1
U (z) = B(1) (Y(1) +Y (2) )−1 (Y (2) +Y(2) )B(2) 0(2) (z), z ∈ (1)
(11)
−1
L (z) = B(2) (Y (1) +Y(2) )−1 (Y (2) −Y (1) )B (2) 0(2) (z), z ∈ (2)
Therefore, complex vector functions are as follows:

⎧ −1
⎨ B(1) (Y(1) +Y (2) )−1 (Y (2) +Y(2) )B(2) 0(2) (z), z ∈ (1)
(z) = (12)
⎩ B −1 (Y +Y )−1 (Y −Y )B 0 (z)+0 (z), z ∈ (2)
(2) (1) (2) (2) (1) (2) (2) (2)
In Equation (12), the special subscripts (1) and (2) are used exclusively to denote that the
corresponding matrix or vector is in material #1 (y>0) and material #2 (y<0), respectively.
Similarly, for a point force in material #1 (y 0 >0), these complex vector functions can be
found as
⎧
−1
⎨ B(1) (Y (2) +Y(1) )−1 (Y (1) −Y (2) )B (1) 0(1) (z)+0(1) (z), z ∈ (1)
(z) = (13)
⎩ B −1 (Y(2) +Y (1) )−1 (Y (1) +Y(1) )B(1) 0 (z), z ∈ (2)
(2) (1)
where the vector functions 0(1) is the infinite-plane solution given in Equation (9) with the elastic
properties of material #1.
With the complex vector function given in Equations (12) and (13), Green’s functions of the
displacement Ukl∗ and traction Tkl∗ can be obtained by substituting these complex functions into
Equation (6). In this study, Green’s functions have four different forms depending on the relative
DOI: 10.1002/nag
locations of the field and source points. Their complete expressions are as follows [36]:
A. For source (s) and field (z) points in material #1 (y>0)

∗ −1 2
(1) (1) (1) (1)
2
(1) (1) (1)
Ukl = Re Al j ln(z j −s j )D jk + W ji ln(z j −s i )D ik
11
(14)
j=1 i=1
(1) (1)
1 2
(1)
n x −n y (1) 2 n x −n y (1)
Tkl∗ = Re
j j
Bl j (1) (1)
D jk + W 11
ji (1) (1)
D ik (15)
j=1 z −s i=1 z −s
j j j i
where the matrix D is defined in Equation (10) with the anisotropic elastic properties of material
#1, and
−1
W 11 = B(1) (Y(1) +Y (2) )−1 (Y (1) −Y (2) )B (1) (16)
B. For source (s) and field (z) points in material #1 (y>0) and field point (z) in material #2
(y<0)

∗ −1 2
(2)
2
(2) (1) (1)
Ukl = Re Al j W ji ln(z j −si )Dik
12
(17)
j=1 i=1
(2)
1 2
(2)
2 n x −n y (1)
Tkl∗ = Re Bl j 12 j
W ji (2) (1) Dik (18)
j=1 i=1 z −s j i
with
−1
W 12 = B(2) (Y(2) +Y (1) )−1 (Y (1) +Y(1) )B(1) (19)
C. For source (s) and field (z) points in material #2 (y<0)

−1
2
(2) (2) (2) (2)
2
(2) (2) (2)
Ukl∗ = Re Al j ln(z j −s j )D jk + W 22 ji ln(z j −s i )D ik (20)
j=1 i=1
(2) (2)
1 2
(2)
j n x −n y (2) 2 n x −n y (2)
Tkl∗ = Re Bl j (2) (2)
22 j
D jk + W ji (2) (2) D ik (21)
j=1 z −s i=1 z −s
j j j i
with
−1
W 22 = B(2) (Y(2) +Y (1) )−1 (Y (2) −Y (1) )B (2) (22)
D. For source (s) and field (z) points in material #2 (y<0) and field point (z) in material #1
(y>0)

∗ −1
2
(1)
2
(1) (2) (2)
Ukl = Re Al j W ji ln(z j −si )Dik
21
(23)
j=1 i=1
(1)
∗ 1 2
(1)
2 n x −n y (2)
21 j
Tkl = Re Bl j W ji (1) (1) Dik (24)
j=1 i=1 z j −si
DOI: 10.1002/nag
with
−1
W 21 = B(1) (Y(1) +Y (2) )−1 (Y (2) +Y(2) )B(2) (25)
It is noteworthy that these Green’s functions can be used to solve both plane stress and plane
strain problems in anisotropic bimaterials.
2.2. BEM formulation

In this study, a formulation of single-domain BEM, based on the relative displacements at
the crack tip, is used to determine the mixed-mode SIFs of anisotropic bimaterials. In the
BEM formulation for bimaterials, the displacement integral equation is only collocated on the
outer boundary and the traction integral equation is only collocated on one side of the crack
surface.
0
For a point z k,B on the uncracked boundary, the displacement integral equation can be derived
(z k,B ∈ B only, Figure 2) as
0
bi j (z k,B
0
)u j (z k,B
0
)+ Ti∗j (z k,B , z k,B
0
)u j (z k,B ) d(z k,B )
B
+ Ti∗j (z k,C , z k,B

0
)[u j (z k,C+ )−u j (z k,C− )] d(z k,C )
C
= Ui∗j (z k,B , z k,B

0
)t j (z k,B ) d(z k,B ) (26)
B
where bi j are quantities that depend on the geometry of the boundary and are equal to i j /2 for a
smooth boundary; C has the same outward normal as C+ . Here, the subscripts B and C denote
the outer boundary and the crack surface, respectively.
ΓB
:Element node
:Element end point
ΓB :Displacement equation
ΓC :Traction equation Crack tip
Γc+
Γc−
Figure 2. Geometry of a two-dimensional cracked domain.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
The traction integral equation (for z k0 being a smooth point on the crack) applied to one side of
0 ∈
the crack surfaces is (z k,C C+ only)
0.5t j (z k,C
0
)+n m (z k,C
0
) Clmik Ti∗j,k (z k,C
0
, z k,B )u j (z k,B ) d(z k,B )
B
+ n m (z k,C
0
) Clmik Ti∗j,k (z k,C
0
, z k,C )[u j (z k,C+ )−u j (z k,C− )] d(z k,C )
C
= n m (z k,C
0
) Clmik Ui∗j,k (z k,C
0
, z k,B )t j (z k,B ) d(z k,B ) (27)
B
0
where n m is the outward normal at the crack surface z k,C and Clmik is the fourth-order stiffness
tensor.
Equations (26) and (27) form a pair of boundary integral equations [37] and can be used
for the calculation of SIFs in anisotropic bimaterials. The main feature of the BEM formula-
tion is that it is a single-domain formulation with the displacement integral equation (26) being
collocated only on the uncracked boundary and the traction integral equation (27) being collo-
cated only on one side of the crack surface. Furthermore, this formulation can handle half-plane,
far-field, finite as well as infinite domain problems with any kind of crack geometry. For prob-
lems without cracks, only Equation (26) is needed, with the integral on the crack surface being
discarded. Equation (26) then reduces to the well-known displacement integral on the uncracked
boundary.
2.3. Crack-tip modeling

In fracture mechanics analysis, especially in the calculation of the SIFs, one needs to know the
asymptotic behavior of the displacements and stresses near the crack tip. In our BEM analysis of
the SIFs, we propose to use the extrapolation method of the crack tip displacements. We therefore
need to know the exact asymptotic behavior of the relative crack displacement (RCD) behind the
crack tip. This asymptotic expression has different forms depending on the location of the crack
tip. In this paper, two cases will be discussed, that is, a crack tip within the homogeneous material
and an interfacial crack tip.
2.3.1. A crack tip within a homogeneous material. The mixed-mode SIFs for anisotropic media
can be determined by using the extrapolation method of the RCD, combined with a set of the
shape functions. The RCD is defined as [38]

3
u i = k u ik (28)
k=1
where the subscript i(= 1, 2) denotes the components of the RCD, and the superscript k(= 1, 2, 3)
denotes the RCD at nodes s = − 23 , 0, 23 , respectively; k are the shape functions, which can be
DOI: 10.1002/nag
expressed as follows:
√
3 3√
1 = s +1[5−8(s +1)+3(s +1)2 ]
8
√
2 = 14 s +1[−5+18(s +1)−9(s +1)2 ] (29)
√
3 3√
3 = √ s +1[1−4(s +1)+3(s +1)2 ]
8 5
For this case, the relationship of the RCDs at a distance r behind the crack tip and the SIFs can
be found as [38, 39]
2r
u 1 = 2 (H11 K I + H12 K II )

(30)
2r
u 2 = 2 (H21 K I + H22 K II )

where
2 P11 −1 P12 P11 − P12
H11 = Im , H12 = Im
1 −2 1 −2
(31)
P21 −1 P22 P21 − P22
H21 = Im 2 , H22 = Im
1 −2 1 −2
Substituting the RCDs into Equations (29) and (30), a set of algebraic equations is obtained
with which the SIFs K I and K II can be solved.
2.3.2. An interfacial crack tip. For this case, the RCDs at a distance r behind the interfacial crack
tip can be expressed in terms of the three SIFs as

3
− j 1/2+i j
u(r ) = cj DQ je r K (32)
j=1
with c j , j , Q j , and D being defined by Gao et al. [15]. Comparing this equation to Equation (28),
it can be noticed that while the RCD behaves as a square root for a crack tip within a homogeneous
medium, for an interfacial crack tip, its behavior is r 1/2+i , a square-root feature multiplied by
weak oscillatory behaviors.
Equation (28) can be recast into the following form, which is more convenient for current
numerical applications:
2r r
u(r ) = M K (33)
d
where d is the characteristic length and M is a matrix function with its expression given by

D [cos( ln x)+2 sin( ln x)]P 2 + [sin( ln x)−2 cos( ln x)]P
M(x) = 2 (P 2 + 2 I )− (34)
(1+42 ) cosh()
DOI: 10.1002/nag
where the definitions and expressions for P, , and were given in Appendix B of Pan and
Amadei [40].
Again, in order to capture the square root and the weak oscillatory behavior, a crack-tip element
is constructed with the tip at s = −1 in terms of which the RCD is expressed as
⎡ ⎤
1 u 11 2 u 21 3 u 31
r ⎢ ⎥
u(r ) = M ⎢ u 1 1 u 22 1 u 32 ⎥ (35)
d ⎣ 1 2 ⎦
1 u 13 1 u 23 1 u 33
2.4. Crack initiation and fracture propagation

In fracture mechanics, three criteria are commonly used to predict the crack initiation angle: the
maximum tensile stress criterion or -criterion [24]; the maximum energy release rate criterion
or G-criterion [26]; and the minimum strain energy density criterion or S-criterion [27]. Among
them, the -criterion has been found to predict well the directions of crack initiation compared
with the experimental results for polymethylmethacrylate [41, 42] and brittle clay [43]. Because of
its simplicity, the -criterion seems to be the most popular criterion in mixed-mode I–II fracture
studies [25]. Therefore, the -criterion is used in this paper to determine the crack initiation angle
for bimaterials.
For anisotropic bimaterials, the general form of the elastic stress field near the crack tip in the
local Cartesian coordinates x –y , as shown in Figure 3, can be expressed in terms of the two
SIFs K I and K II as follows [44]:

KI 1 2 2 1
x = √ Re −
2r 1 −2 cos +2 sin cos +1 sin

K II 1 22 21
+√ Re −

KI 1 1 2
y =√ Re −
(36)
K II 1 1 1
+√ Re −

KI 1 2 1 1
x y =√ Re −

K II 1 1 2
+√ Re −
DOI: 10.1002/nag
y''
σθ σr
σθ
τrθ
Crack Tip x''
Figure 3. Crack-tip coordinate system and stress components.
where 1 and 2 are the roots of Equation (1)
x + y x − y
= − cos 2 −x y sin 2 (37)
2 2
x − y
r = − sin 2 +x y cos 2 (38)
2
For the -criterion, the angle of crack initiation, 0, must satisfy

2
* *
= 0 (or r = 0) and <0 (39)
* * 2
A numerical procedure is applied to find the angle 0 when is a maximum for known values
of the material elastic constants, and the crack geometry.
Since the proposed BEM formulation is simple and can be used for any kind of crack geometry, it
is straightforward to extend it to analyze the crack propagation in bimaterials. The process of crack
propagation in an isotropic homogeneous bimaterial under mixed-mode I–II loading is simulated by
incremental crack extension with a piecewise linear discretization. For each incremental analysis,
the crack extension is conveniently modeled by a new boundary element. A computer program
has been developed to automatically generate new data required for sequentially analyzing the
changing boundary configuration. Based on the calculation of the SIFs and crack initiation angle
for each increment, the procedure of crack propagation can be simulated. The steps in the crack
propagation process are summarized as follows (Figure 4):
(1) Compute the SIFs using the proposed BEM formulation.
(2) Determine the angle of crack initiation based on the maximum tensile stress criterion.
(3) Extend the crack by a linear element (of length selected by the user) along the direction
determined in step 2.
(4) Automatically generate the new BEM mesh.
(5) Repeat all of the above steps until the crack is near the outer boundary.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Figure 4. Process of crack propagation by increasing the number of linear elements.
3. SIFs OF ANISOTROPIC BIMATERIALS
In this study, a computer program, which is based on the proposed BEM formulation, has been
developed to analyze the SIFs for anisotropic bimaterials with different crack angles, crack loca-
tions, crack length, and degree of material anisotropy. Furthermore, this paper is also concerned
with predicting the initial growth direction and propagation path of the crack in anisotropic bima-
terials.
In this section, the SIFs for anisotropic bimaterials are analyzed with different crack locations,
crack length, a, anisotropic orientation, , and degree of material anisotropy by the BEM program.
Four numerical examples are presented to verify the program and to show the efficiency and
versatility of the present BEM method for problems related to cracks in anisotropic bimaterials.
A generalized plane stress condition is assumed in all examples.
Example 1 (Vertical crack in material #1)

Figure 5 shows a vertical crack in material #1 under a far-field tensile stress . The crack length
is 2a and its center is at a distance d from the interface such that the d/a ratios range from 1.0 to
10.0. The Poisson ratios for both materials #1 and #2 are again assumed to be equal to 0.3, and
the shear modulus ratio is the same, i.e. G 1 /G 2 = 23.077, while the ratio of d/a varies. Only 20
quadratic elements are used to discretize the crack surface. The numerical results for this problem
were evaluated by Isida and Noguchi [21, 22] using a body force integral equation method and
were also solved by Cook and Erdogan [20] using the Wiener–Hopf technique and an asymptotic
analysis. In Table I, the normalized SIFs at crack tips A and B are given for four ratios of d/a
and compared with those obtained by Isida and Noguchi [21, 22] and documented by Cook and
Erdogan [20]. A good agreement is found among these three methods.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
A
σ1 σ1
a
a
d
B
Material #1
Material #2
σ2 σ2
Figure 5. Vertical crack in material #1 intersecting an interface under far-field stresses.
Table I. Comparison of the SIFs (vertical crack).

Isida and Cook and
d/a This study Noguchi [21, 22] Difference (%) Erdogan [20] Difference (%)
√
K I / a of tip A
1.0 0.882 0.883 0.11 0.883 0.11
2.0 0.961 0.962 0.10 0.962 0.10
5.0 0.995 0.993 0.20 0.993 0.20
10.0 0.996 0.998 0.20 0.998 0.20
√
K I / a of tip B
1.0 — — — — —
2.0 0.935 0.935 0.00 0.935 0.00
5.0 0.996 0.991 0.50 0.991 0.50
10.0 1.003 0.998 0.50 0.998 0.50
Example 2 (Vertical crack intersecting an interface)

Figure 6 shows a vertical crack intersecting an interface in an infinite domain which is subjected
to the far-field tensile stresses. The farfield tensile stresses applied in materials #1 and #2 are,
respectively, 1 and 2 (= 1 G 2 /G 1 ). The Poisson ratios 1 and 2 are assumed to be equal to 0.3
and the shear modulus ratios G 2 /G 1 range from 0.1 to 0.8. The distance of crack tips A and B
to the interface are the same, i.e. d1 = d2 = a, the half-length of the crack. In this example, only
20 discontinuous quadratic elements were used to discretize the crack surface. Table II shows the
normalized SIFs at crack tips A and B. This problem was solved previously by Isida and Noguchi
[21, 22] using a body force integral equation method. As shown in Table II the present numerical
results are in excellent agreement with those obtained by Isida and Noguchi [21, 22].
Example 3 (An interface kinked crack in infinite bimaterial)

Figure 7 shows an interface kinked crack in infinite bimaterial which is subjected to the far-field
tensile stresses. The far-field tensile stress applied in material #1 is 1 and in material #2 is
2 (= 1 G 2 /G 1 ). The kink crack length is 2a and inclined 45◦ to the interface; the main crack
length is 2c and located at the interface. The ratios of kink crack length and main crack length a/c
varies from 0.2 to 1.5. The Poisson ratios 1 and 2 are assumed to be equal to 0.3, and the shear
DOI: 10.1002/nag
A
σ1 σ1
a
Material #1
Material #2
a
σ2 σ2
B
Figure 6. Vertical crack intersecting an interface under far-field stresses.
Table II. Comparison of the SIFs (vertical crack intersecting an interface).

√ √
K I / a of tip A K I / a of tip B
Isida and Isida and
G 2 /G 1 This study Noguchi [21, 22] Difference (%) This study Noguchi [21, 22] Difference (%)
0.1 1.0629 1.062 0.08 1.1539 1.153 0.08
0.3 1.0157 1.015 0.07 1.0639 1.064 0.01
0.5 1.0007 1.000 0.07 1.0273 1.028 0.07
0.8 0.9975 0.997 0.05 1.0047 1.006 0.13
σ1 σ1
2a
45˚
Material #1
2c
Material #2
σ2 σ2
Figure 7. Interfacial kinked crack within infinite bimaterials.
modulus ratio G 1 /G 2 is equal to 0.25. Table III provides the list of normalized SIFs of crack tip
A for ratios of a/c and compared with those obtained by Isida and Noguchi [21, 22]. As indicated
in Table III, the normalized SIFs calculated by the present method are close to the accurate results
obtained by Isida and Noguchi [21, 22].
Example 4 (Interfacial horizontal crack in an infinite anisotropic bimaterial)

In order to evaluate the influence of material anisotropy on the SIFs, consider an interfacial
horizontal crack in an infinite anisotropic bimaterial (Figure 8). The crack has a length 2a and
is loaded with a uniform pressure P. In this example, only 20 discontinuous quadratic elements
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Table III. Comparison of the SIFs (interfacial kinked crack).

√ √
K I / a of tip A K II / a of tip A
Isida and Isida and
a/c This study Noguchi [21, 22] Difference (%) This study Noguchi [21, 22] Difference (%)
0.2 0.759 0.733 3.54 0.624 0.631 1.10
0.5 0.730 0.708 3.11 0.612 0.623 1.77
1.0 0.701 0.683 2.63 0.603 0.610 1.15
1.5 0.685 0.669 2.39 0.594 0.601 1.16
2a
P
2
E
E1
Material #1 ψ1
A B
Material #2
2
E1
E
ψ2
P
Figure 8. Interfacial crack within infinite bimaterials.
◦
Table IV. Comparison of the SIFs for anisotropic case 2 =0 (interfacial crack).
√ √
K I / a of tip A (or B) K II / a of tip A (or B)
1 This study Wu [7] Difference (%) This study Wu [7] Difference (%)
0 1.0053 1.0000 0.53 −0.0381 −0.0382 0.26
30 1.0006 0.9968 0.38 −0.0350 −0.0349 0.29
45 1.0001 0.9965 0.36 −0.0319 −0.0318 0.31
60 1.0010 0.9971 0.39 −0.0292 −0.0290 0.69
90 1.0054 1.0000 0.54 −0.0265 −0.0264 0.39
are used to discretize the crack surface. Material #1 is the glass epoxy with elastic properties
E 1 = 48.26 GPa, E 2 = 17.24 GPa, G 12 = 6.89 GPa, and 12 = 0.29 [39]; material #2 is a graphite
epoxy with elastic properties E 1 = 114.8 GPa, E 2 = 11.7 GPa, G 12 = 9.66 GPa, and 12 = 0.21 [45].
The angles 1 and 2 , shown in Figure 8, are the anisotropic orientation angles of materials #1
and #2 with respect to the horizontal direction, respectively. While the material axis E 1 in material
#2 is assumed to be along the horizontal direction (i.e. 2 = 0), the E 1 axis in material #1 is varied
with angle 1 from 0 to 90◦ with respect to the horizontal direction. The normalized SIFs at crack
tip B are listed in Table IV for several values of 1 and are compared with those given by Wu [7],
DOI: 10.1002/nag
who used a real form in terms of the SIFs. Again, a very good agreement is found between the
two numerical analyses.
4. CRACK INITIATION ANGLES
In this study, the proposed BEM formulation is also used to predict the initial growth of cracks in
anisotropic bimaterials. In order to examine the validity of our crack initiation prediction procedure,
the tests of Erdogan and Sih [24] and Vallejo [43] are reproduced numerically with our BEM
formulation.
Crack angle β (Degree)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0
σ
Crack initiation angle θ0 (Degree)
-10
-20 β
θ0
-30
-40
-50
σ
-60
Erdogan and Sih (1963)
-70
This study
-80
Figure 9. Variation of crack initiation angle 0 with the crack angle . Plexi-
glass plate subjected to uniaxial tension.
180
Experimental Results (Vallejo, 1987)
Crack initiation angle, θ (degree)
160
water content, w = 3 %
140 w=9%
Numerical results (this study)
0
120
100
σ
80
θ0
60 β
40
20
σ
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Crack angle, β (degree)
Figure 10. Variation of crack initiation angle 0 with the crack angle . Prismatic sample of kaolinite
clay subjected to uniaxial compression.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Erdogan and Sih [24] conducted uniaxial tension test on isotropic Plexiglass sheets 9×18×
0.188 in. (229×457×4.8 mm) in size containing a 2 in. (50.8 mm) long central crack. The crack
orientation angle between the crack plane and the tensile stress was varied. Figure 9 shows
the variation of the crack initiation angle 0 with the crack angle determined numerically and
experimentally. A good agreement is found between the experimental results of Erdogan and
Sih [24] and our numerical predictions.
Other verification is done using the experimental results of Vallejo [43]. The latter conducted
uniaxial compression tests on cracked prismatic specimens of kaolonite clay 76.2×76.2×25.4 mm
in size containing a central crack 24.9 mm in length. Several tests were carried out by varying the
crack angle between the crack plane and the compressive stress. In this example, a plane strain
condition is assumed. Figure 10 shows a comparison between the crack initiation angles measured
experimentally and those predicted numerically. Again, a good agreement is found between the
two approaches.
5. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
To validate the accuracy of the proposed BEM formulation to the crack propagation simula-
tion in the central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimens, the bimaterial Brazilian specimens
constituting cement and gypsum are prepared to conduct the Brazilian test and compared with
the numerical results. The geometry of the central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen is
shown in Figure 11.
In this paper, two materials are used in the experimental investigation: Type I Portland
cement, also known as general cement, and gypsum. The water–cement ratio, density, specific
2α
Material #1 a
Material #2 X
R
Figure 11. Geometry of the centrally cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen of

anisotropic material under diametral loading.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Table V. Engineering constants of the materials used for experimental investigation.

Material constants Cement Gypsum
Water–cement ratio 0.3 0.5
Density, (g/cm3 ) 1.818 1.268
Specific gravity, G S 3.16 2
Compressive strength, qu (MPa) 56.823 6.592
Tensile strength, t (MPa) 6.418 2.745
B
10 mm
0.8 mm
A A A-A section
D
=7
4m
m
Photograph
B
(a) B-B section

Top View
0.3mm
B
m
m
37
A-A section
R=
A A
1mm
m
1mm
m
37
R=
10 mm
0.8mm
Photograph
B-B section
B
(b) Top View
Figure 12. Two steel mold templates for: (a) Brazilian disc specimen and (b) bimaterial Brazilian specimen.
gravity, uniaxial compressive strength and tensile strength of modeling materials are listed
in Table V.
In this experiment, two different steel mold templates are used to prepare the Brazilian disc
specimens and bimaterial Brazilian specimens of cement and gypsum (Figure 12). The Brazilian
disc specimens are used to determine the elastic constants of cement and gypsum. The Brazilian
test is conducted by gluing a 45◦ strain gage rosette on the center of each disc. The details of the
procedure can be found in the paper by Chen et al. [33]. The average values of Young’s modulus
of cement and gypsum are 31.909 and 11.279 GPa, respectively, and Poisson’s ratio of cement and
gypsum are 0.289 and 0.267, respectively.
The other steel mold template is used to prepare the bimaterial Brazilian specimens.
The bimaterial specimens constituting cement and gypsum are prepared using the following
procedures.
1. Cast the cement mortar into half of the steel mold, and cast the gypsum against the half
cement specimen in the steel mold. All the specimens have a diameter D = 7.4 cm and a
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Figure 13. Cutting procedure.
thickness t = 1.0 cm. The end faces of all specimens are flat within 0.01 mm and parallel to
within 0.25◦ .
2. To assemble the bimaterial Brazilian specimens, a two-component glue A + B is used. This
glue is a heavy-duty epoxy paste that offers the advantage of being very efficient on concrete,
masonry, and rock. It is also waterproof and chemically resistant. Component A is essentially
an epoxy resin, whereas component B is a polyamide hardener. Once an appropriate amount
of the glue is prepared and thoroughly mixed, the gluing operation starts. For the bimaterial
Brazilian specimens, glue is applied over the contact zone, and both halves are gathered
and squeezed so that not more than 1 mm of glue stays between two pieces. The bimaterial
Brazilian specimen is then laid down flat in a clam, and left in this position for 24 h of
curing.
To prepare the centrally cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen, a circular diamond saw with a
diameter of 2.2 cm and a thickness of 0.25 cm is used to cut the required chevron notch (Figure 13).
The notch is made with two cuts on both sides of the disc along the designed crack orientation
direction on the same diametral cutting plane. A check is made to ensure that the cutting is done
exactly at the center of the disc surface and in a direction perpendicular to the disc surfaces.
Using a thin line saw with a thickness of 0.05 cm to cut down the V -shaped convex parts, the
central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimens are prepared. After preparation, the central cracked
bimaterial Brazilian specimen has a crack with a thickness of about 0.05 cm and a ratio between
the crack length and the disc radius a/R of about 0.3.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
Load Cell
Specimen
PC Data Logger MTS407 Controller
Figure 14. Setup of Brazilian test equipment.
All specimens are brought to failure under a line load at a slow deformation rate of 0.5 mm/min
by using a 250 kN MTS loading system (Figure 14) . The testing only requires the recording of
the maximum load.
6. COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS OF CRACK PROPAGATION PATHS

WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
To demonstrate the proposed BEM procedure predicting crack propagation in bimaterials, the
propagation path in a central cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen constituting cement and
gypsum is numerically predicted and compared with the actual laboratory observations. In
these experiments, a crack initially inclined with respect to the applied stress is allowed to
grow under concentrated diametrical loading. The Brazilian tests on initially cracked bimaterial
Brazilian specimens with a diameter of 7.4 cm, a thickness of 1 cm, and a crack length of
2.2 cm are conducted to observe the actual propagation paths and compared with the numerical
predictions.
Two of the test specimens with the material inclination angle = 0◦ , defined as the GCD-1 and
GCD-2, have crack angles = 0 and 45◦ , respectively. Figures 15(a) and 16(a) show the photographs
of specimens GCD-1 and GCD-2 after failure and the crack propagation paths, respectively. All
crack propagation paths tend to be parallel to the loading direction and approaching the loading
points. The proposed BEM procedure is also used to simulate crack propagation in the central
cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimens. The outer boundary and crack surface were discretized
with 28 continuous and 20 discontinuous quadratic elements, respectively. Figures 15(b) and 16(b)
show the observed and predicted crack propagation paths for specimens GCD-1 and GCD-2,
respectively. Good agreement is found between the two approaches. It is therefore concluded
DOI: 10.1002/nag
(a)
1
Cement
0
Gypsum
-1
-2
-3
-4 BEM simulation
Experimental result
-5
(b) -5 -3 -1 1 3 5
Figure 15. Comparison between experimental observations and numerical predictions for specimen GCD-1:
(a) photograph of specimen GCD-1 after failure ( = 0◦ and = 0◦ ) and (b) propagation of a crack at the
center of a CSTBD specimen with = 0◦ and = 0◦ .
that the proposed BEM procedure can accurately simulate the process of crack propagation for
bimaterial specimens.
7. CONCLUSIONS
This paper shows that the mixed-mode SIFs of anisotropic bimaterials under far-field stress and
diametral loading can be successfully determined by the proposed BEM formulation. Numerical
examples of the calculation of SIFs for isotropic and anisotropic materials were conducted and
good agreement with previously published results was obtained. A new BEM procedure based on
the maximum tensile stress failure criterion is developed to predict the crack initiation direction
DOI: 10.1002/nag
(a)
1
Cement
0
Gypsum
-1
-2
-3
-4 BEM simulation
Experimental result
-5
(b) -5 -3 -1 1 3 5
Figure 16. Comparison between experimental observations and numerical predictions for specimen GCD-2:
(a) photograph of specimen GCD-2 after failure ( = 0◦ and = 45◦ ) and (b) propagation of a crack at
the center of a CSTBD specimen with = 0◦ and = 45◦ .
and the crack propagation path in anisotropic bimaterial specimens under mixed-mode loading.
A good agreement is found between crack initiation angles and propagation paths predicted with the
BEM and experimental observations of the Brazilian tests on central cracked bimaterial Brazilian
specimens constituting cement and gypsum.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for the support of National Science Council of Taiwan under grant NSC93-2211-
E-006-021. They also like to thank the reviewers for the helpful comments.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
REFERENCES
1. Williams ML. The stresses around a fault or crack in dissimilar media. Bulletin of Seismological Society of
America 1959; 49(2):199–204.
2. England AH. A crack between dissimilar media. Journal of Applied Mechanics—Transactions of the ASME 1965;
32:400–402.
3. Rice JR, Sih GC. Plane problems of cracks in dissimilar media. Journal of Applied Mechanics—Transactions of
the ASME 1965; 32:418–423.
4. Rice JR. Elastic fracture mechanics concepts for interfacial crack. Journal of Applied Mechanics—Transactions
of the ASME 1988; 55:98–103.
5. Clements DL. A crack between dissimilar anisotropic media. International Journal of Engineering Science 1971;
9:257–265.
6. Willis JR. Fracture mechanics of interfacial cracks. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1971;
19:353–368.
7. Wu KC. Stress intensity factor and energy release rate for interfacial cracks between dissimilar anisotropic
materials. Journal of Applied Mechanics—Transactions of the ASME 1990; 57:882–886.
8. Ting TCT. Explicit solution invariance of the singularities at an interface crack in anisotropic composites.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 1986; 22:965–983.
9. Ting TCT. Interface cracks in anisotropic bimaterials. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 1990;
38:505–513.
10. Bassani JL, Qu J. Finite crack on bimaterial and bicrystal interfaces. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of
Solids 1989; 37(4):435–453.
11. Tewary VK, Wagoner RH, Hirth JP. Elastic Green’s function for a composite solid with a planar interface.
Journal of Materials Research 1989; 4:113–123.
12. Suo Z. Singularities, interfaces and cracks in dissimilar anisotropic media. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1990; 427(1873):331–358.
13. Wu KC. Explicit crack-tip fields of an extending interface crack in an anisotropic bimaterial. International Journal
of Solids and Structures 1991; 27(4):455–466.
14. Qu J, Li Q. Interfacial dislocation and its applications to interface cracks in anisotropic bimaterials. Journal of
Elasticity 1991; 26:169–195.
15. Gao H, Abbudi M, Barnett DM. Interfacial crack-tip field in anisotropic elastic solids. Journal of the Mechanics
and Physics of Solids 1992; 40:393–416.
16. Shi JP, Liu XH, Chen YH. A complex variable boundary element method for solving interface crack problem.
International Journal of Fracture 1999; 96:167–178.
17. Wu MS, Zhou H. Interactions of kinked interfacial cracks. International Journal of Solids and Structures 1999;
36:241–268.
18. Tian W-T, Chau K-T, Chen Y-H. J -integral analysis of the interaction between an interface crack and parallel
subinterface cracks in dissimilar anisotropic materials. International Journal of Fracture 2001; 111:305–325.
DOI: 10.1023/A:1012046302395.
19. Ou ZC, Chen YH. Near-tip stress fields and intensity factors for an interface crack in metal/piezo-
electric bimaterials. International Journal of Engineering Science 2004; 42:1407–1438. DOI: 0.1016/j.ijengsci.
2004.01.008.
20. Cook TS, Erdogan F. Stresses in bonded materials with a crack perpendicular to the interface. International
Journal of Engineering Science 1972; 10:677–697.
21. Isida M, Noguchi H. Formulae of stress intensity factors of branched cracks in plane problems. Transactions of
the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers 1983; 49(440):469–479.
22. Isida M, Noguchi H. Plane elastostatic problems of bonded dissimilar materials with an interface crack and
arbitrarily located cracks. Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers 1983; 49:137–146.
23. Yuuki R, Cho SB. Efficient boundary element analysis of stress intensity factors for interface cracks in dissimilar
materials. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 1989; 34:179–188.
24. Erdogan F, Sih GC. On the crack extension in plates under loading and transverse shear. Journal of Basic
Engineering 1963; 85:519–527.
25. Whittaker BN, Singh RN, Sun G. Rock Fracture Mechanics Principles, Design and Applications, Developments
in Geotechnical Engineering. Elsevier Publishers: The Netherlands, 1992.
26. Palaniswamy K, Knauss WG. Propagation of a crack under general, in-plane tension. International Journal of
Fracture 1972; 8:114–117.
DOI: 10.1002/nag
27. Sih GC. Strain-energy density factor applied to mixed mode crack problems. International Journal of Fracture
1974; 10(3):305–321.
28. Ayatollahi MR, Aliha MRM. On determination of mode II fracture toughness using semi-circular bend specimen.
International Journal of Solids and Structures 2006; 43:5217–5227. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.07.049.
29. Hibbitt HD, Karlsson B, Sorensen EP. ABAOUS User’s Manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson, and Sorensen, Inc.: Pawtucket,
RI, 1994.
30. Matos PPL, McMeeking RM, Charalambides PG, Drory MD. A method for calculating stress intensities in
bimaterial interfaces. International Journal of Fracture 1989; 40:235–254.
31. Soares JB, Tang T. Bimaterial Brazilian specimen for determining interfacial fracture toughness. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 1998; 59(1):57–71.
32. Lekhnitskii SG. Theory of Elasticity of an Anisotropic Elastic Body (Translated by Fern P). Holden-Day Inc.:
San Francisco, CA, 1963.
33. Chen CS, Pan E, Amadei B. Fracture mechanics analysis of cracked discs of anisotropic rock using the boundary
element method. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 1998; 35(2):195–218.
34. Sih GC, Paris PC, Irwin GR. On cracks in rectilinearly anisotropic bodies. International Journal of Fracture
1965; 3:189–203.
35. Ting TCT. Anisotropic Elasticity: Theory and Application. Oxford University Press: New York, 1996.
36. Pan E, Amadei B. Fracture mechanics analysis of cracked 2-D anisotropic media with a new formulation of the
boundary element method. International Journal of Fracture 1996; 77:161–174.
37. Chen CS. Characterization of deformability, strength, and fracturing of anisotropic rocks using Brazilian tests.
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, 1996.
38. Pan E. A general boundary element analysis of 2-D linear elastic fracture mechanics. International Journal of
Fracture 1997; 88:41–59.
39. Sollero P, Aliabadi MH. Fracture mechanics analysis of anisotropic plates by the boundary element method.
International Journal of Fracture 1993; 64:269–284.
40. Pan E, Amadei B. Boundary element analysis of fracture mechanics in anisotropic bimaterials. Engineering
Analysis with Boundary Elements 1999; 23:683–691.
41. Woo CW, Ling HL. On angle crack initiation under biaxial loading. Journal of Strain Analysis 1984; 19(B7):51–59.
42. Richard HA. Examination of brittle fractured criteria for overlapping mode I and mode II loading applied to
cracks. Application of Fracture Mechanics to Materials and Structures. Martinus Nijhoff Publication, The Hague:
Dordrecht, 1984; 309–316.
43. Vallejo LE. The brittle and ductile behavior of a material containing a crack under mixed-mode loading.
Proceedings of the 28th U.S. Symposium Rock Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, 1987.
44. Sih GC. Mechanics of Fracture Initiation and Propagation: Surface and Volume Energy Density Applied as
Failure Criterion. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 1991.
45. Dwyer JF, Pan E. Edge function analysis of stress intensity factors in cracked anisotropic plates. International
Journal of Fracture 1995; 72:327–342.
DOI: 10.1002/nag

Evaluating The Stress Intensity Factors of Anisotropic Bimaterials Using Boundary Element Method

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

Evaluating The Stress Intensity Factors of Anisotropic Bimaterials Using Boundary Element Method

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS

Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2008; 32:1341–1364

Evaluating the stress intensity factors of anisotropic bimaterials

Chao-Shi Chen1, ∗, † , Chien-Chung Ke2 and Chia-Huei Tu1

Received 31 May 2007; Revised 18 September 2007; Accepted 17 October 2007

Contract/grant sponsor: National Science Council of Taiwan; contract/grant number: NSC93-2211-E-006-021

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2.1. Anisotropic elasticity

a11 4 −2a16 3 +(2a12 +a66 )2 −2a26 +a22 = 0 (1)

x = 2 Re[21 1 (z 1 )+22 2 (z 2 )]

Figure 1. Definition of the coordinate systems within an anisotropic bimaterial.

The traction components in the x and y directions are

Therefore, complex vector functions are as follows:

2.2. BEM formulation

+ Ti∗j (z k,C , z k,B

= Ui∗j (z k,B , z k,B

Figure 2. Geometry of a two-dimensional cracked domain.

2.3. Crack-tip modeling

2.4. Crack initiation and fracture propagation

Crack Tip x''

Figure 3. Crack-tip coordinate system and stress components.

where 1 and 2 are the roots of Equation (1)

For the -criterion, the angle of crack initiation, 0, must satisfy

Figure 4. Process of crack propagation by increasing the number of linear elements.

3. SIFs OF ANISOTROPIC BIMATERIALS

Example 1 (Vertical crack in material #1)

Figure 5. Vertical crack in material #1 intersecting an interface under far-field stresses.

Table I. Comparison of the SIFs (vertical crack).

Example 2 (Vertical crack intersecting an interface)

Example 3 (An interface kinked crack in infinite bimaterial)

Figure 6. Vertical crack intersecting an interface under far-field stresses.

Table II. Comparison of the SIFs (vertical crack intersecting an interface).

Figure 7. Interfacial kinked crack within infinite bimaterials.

Example 4 (Interfacial horizontal crack in an infinite anisotropic bimaterial)

Table III. Comparison of the SIFs (interfacial kinked crack).

Figure 8. Interfacial crack within infinite bimaterials.

4. CRACK INITIATION ANGLES

Crack angle β (Degree)

Figure 11. Geometry of the centrally cracked bimaterial Brazilian specimen of

Table V. Engineering constants of the materials used for experimental investigation.

(a) B-B section

(b) Top View

Figure 13. Cutting procedure.

PC Data Logger MTS407 Controller

Figure 14. Setup of Brazilian test equipment.

6. COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS OF CRACK PROPAGATION PATHS

You might also like