Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
89 views

Crack Modelling Using Zero-Thickness Interface Elements

Crack modeling using zero-thickness interface elements is recommended when the crack path is known in advance. Interface elements are easy to implement in 2D and 3D and are available in major FE packages like ABAQUS and LS-DYNA. Alternatives include XFEM and GFEM. The cohesive crack model uses traction-separation laws and requires discretization of weak forms involving new cohesive terms. Common interface elements include solid elements like Q4/T3 and Q8/T6 in 2D and H8 in 3D. Numerical integration requires non-standard schemes for interface elements. Implementation aspects include automatic mesh generation along user-defined paths and using path-following or energy control solution methods. Numerical examples demonstrate the

Uploaded by

yong yang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views

Crack Modelling Using Zero-Thickness Interface Elements

Crack modeling using zero-thickness interface elements is recommended when the crack path is known in advance. Interface elements are easy to implement in 2D and 3D and are available in major FE packages like ABAQUS and LS-DYNA. Alternatives include XFEM and GFEM. The cohesive crack model uses traction-separation laws and requires discretization of weak forms involving new cohesive terms. Common interface elements include solid elements like Q4/T3 and Q8/T6 in 2D and H8 in 3D. Numerical integration requires non-standard schemes for interface elements. Implementation aspects include automatic mesh generation along user-defined paths and using path-following or energy control solution methods. Numerical examples demonstrate the

Uploaded by

yong yang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 33

Crack modelling using

zero-thickness interface elements

Nguyen Vinh Phu

The University of Adelaide


Introduction
There exists problems in which the
crack path is known in advance...

delaminated
composites
inter-granular cracking in
polycrystals
Introduction (cont.)
...then the use of interface elements is recommended

• easy to implement (2D, 3D)


• available in major FE packages: ABAQUS, LS-DYNA

Alternatives:
XFEM/GFEM
Cohesive crack model
Governing equations
(strong form)

Constitutive equations

deformation
separation
Cohesive crack model
Weak form

new term
where
(skipped for static problems)
Discrete equations
upper face

lower face

N1 = 0.5(1 ⇠)
N2 = 0.5(1 + ⇠)

Solid elements

Discrete equation
Discrete equations (cont.)
assembled

Static problems
ext int coh
f =f +f
Linearization (Newton-Raphson)
transformation matrix
Common interface elements
Solid elements Q4/T3 Q8/T6

2D
H8

3D
Numerical integration
It has been observed numerically that integrating the
internal force and stiffness matrix of interface elements
using the standard Gauss rule led to oscillatory response
[de Borst, IJNME, 1993].

Newton-Cotes integration scheme


for interface elements
Cohesive laws
Mode I Bilinear cohesive law (traction-separation law)
1 1 tensile strength
GIc = tc f = k c f
2 2
2GIc tc
= =
f
k c
c
k fracture energy
elastic stiffness k
t = (1 d)k
8
>
< f
 if loading
d= max
>
: f
otherwise
max ( f c) + c
crack initiation
c
= crack propagation
f c
Implementation aspects
• How to generate interface element meshes?
F
• Solution control


 cannot pass the snap-through

- load control: 
 NO
- displacement control

- path following control 

(arc-length methods)
u
cannot pass the snap-back
Mesh generation
A C++ code was written to

• read a Gmsh mesh file


• double nodes along a path defined by the user
• modify the solid elements involved and
• generate interface elements
Some application examples
Path following method
Riks 1972 ext
load factor
f = g reference load vector

Newton-Raphson (u, ) arc-length/constraint function

where

1 1
uI = K r, uII = K g
correction
Energy control
Z
✏ = Ba f int
= B T

Gutierrez 2004 ⌦ equilibrium


Z Z
1 T 1 T T 1 T int 1 T
V = ✏ = a B = a f = a g
2 ⌦ 2 ⌦ 2 2

Energy release rate V̇ T


ȧ g

G>0
predefined amount of energy
Arc-length function to be released [Nm]

forward Euler
straight line

Assumption: secant unloading!!!

E
Indirect displacement
control [de Borst 1986]
Indirect displacement control
(||uA uB || , l) local quantity!!!

SEN beam
imagine what if
there are 2 cracks???
Advantages of
energy control SEN beam
Energy control

- fast to evaluate
- global quantity

multiple cracks
FP van der Mer
EFM, 2008
Solution procedure

FP van der Mer


load energy control EFM, 2008
control
f int + f coh
Numerical examples

• Simple tests (to debug code)


• Material interface debonding
• Multi-delamination of a composite DCB
• Delamination of the DCB
Simple test (2D)

plane strain
Simple test (3D)
• As previous 2D example
• Thickness: 50
• Solved with Hex8 and Tet4
Debonding of a
material interface

interface: linear 4-node


continuum: T3 elements
Cohesive law: Xu-Needleman
Multi-delamination
Multi-delamination
Matrix kinking

interface elements everywhere


except for the hard inclusion

“Discontinuous Galerkin/extrinsic cohesive zone modeling: Implementation caveats and applications in


computational fracture mechanics”,VP Nguyen, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 2014.
Discontinuous Galerkin and
cohesive interface elements

k: sufficiently large not to reduce the compliance of solid


Weibull distribution
(two-parameter version)

(three-param. version)

Stresses smaller than sigma_m, no failure: P=0

Probability Density Function (PDF)

Account for the fact that larger samples more prone


to failure
Weibull distribution: implementation

where rand is a random number between 0 and 1.


Weibull distribution: implementation

where rand is a random number between 0 and 1.


double xrand;
double value, f2t;
0.02
std::random_device rd; m=5
std::mt19937 gen(rd()); m=15
m=40
std::uniform_real_distribution<> dis(0, 1); 0.015

int ipCount = 2;
PDF [−]
int elemCount = count / ipCount; 0.01

for ( int i = 0; i < elemCount; i++ )


{ 0.005
xrand = dis(gen);
value = pow(-log(xrand),1/m_) ;
f2t = f2t_ * value + sigmaMin_; 0
0 500 1000 1500
f2ts_.pushBack ( f2t, ipCount ); σf [MPa]
}
each IE has the same strength
Things to explore
• New cohesive laws
• New (better) interface element formulations
(current element technology does not allow
industrial applications to be realized.)
• Mesh topology such that mesh bias can be avoided.

You might also like