3D FDEM Fracture
3D FDEM Fracture
3D FDEM Fracture
INTRODUCTION
The combined finite-discrete element method, which merges the finite ele-
ment-based analysis of continua with discrete element-based transient dynamics,
contact detection, and contact interaction solutions, has already proven its effi-
ciency and reliability as a computational tool to solve the problems involving
transient dynamics of systems in which deformation and contact play an important
Accordingly, the traction vector p in the strain-softening stage are divided into
two components in the direction of n and t,
p = σn + τt (2)
where, σ and τ are the normal and tangential stresses, and can be calculated by
zf t (3)
zfs (4)
here, ft and fs are the tensile and shear strength of material. z is a heuristic
parameter depended both on the material and the seperation components [1-3],
z 1
ab
e
a b 1 D ( a cb /(( a b )(1 a b )))
a(1 D) b(1 D) c (5)
where a, b, c are material parameters chosen to fit a particular experimental curve,
and D is therefore parameter calculated through the separation components
2 2
D n t (6)
cn ct
here, δcn and δct are the normalized crack opening and sliding displacements
determined by the energy release rate Gf and the strengths. In the above equation,
D ≥ 1 means that the material is failure and no resistance exists; to represent such
a truth, D is thereof set to 1 as long as D ≥ 1, thus z as well as σ and τ are zero.
In actual implementation, the cracks are assumed to coincide with the finite
element boundary (surfaces in 3D); the separation of adjacent element surfaces is
assumed in advance through the topology of the finite elements. A so-called joint
element in the context of the combined finite-discrete element method is inserted
in advance between two adjacent elements to connect those two originally adja-
cent elements. Thus no two original finite elements share any nodes at the begin-
ning of calculation-the continuity between elements is enforced through the pen-
alty function method [1-3].
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
In this section, a relatively simple example is shown to demonstrate the imple-
mented fracture model.
As shown in Fig 1, a beam is supported by 3 supports moving in opposite di-
rections (in direction y) with constant velocity of 0.1 m/s. The material properties
of the beam are: Young’s modulus E = 26 GPa, Position’s ratio v = 0.18, density ρ
= 2340 kg/m3, tensile strength ft = 3.15 MPa, and strain energy release rate Gf =
10 N/m. To constrain the cracks to be the mode I type, the shear strength of beam
is set large enough.
The displacements of the nodes, the initional positions of which are at points A
and B in Fig 1, are taken into consideration. In Fig 2(a), the displacement of all 8
nodes at point A are the same, which represents that the continuity between finite
elements is enforced through the penalty function method; while Fig 2(b) shows
that the material at point B undergoes both the strain-hardening stage (before 0.62
ms) and strain-softening stage (from 0.62 ms until to failure). Through the post-
processer, the total progressive collapse of the beam is observed. It presents that
the first crack appears at the bottom midspan point and propagates towards the top
until the beam eventually breaks into two. The process satisfies well with that
simulated by the 2D combined finite-discrete element code Y2D [2], and the frac-
ture pattern at some moment is shown in Fig 3.
Fig 1. Diagram and initial finite element mesh of the simply supported beam.
CONCLUSION
The combined single and smeared crack model is extended into three-
dimension and implemented into a general purpose 3D combined finite-discrete
element code Y3D. The extension enables both single and multiple cracks to be
modelled in 3D by using Y3D. Thus it is promising to use the 3D model to ana-
lyze progressive fracturing and fragmentation involving a large number of cracks.
However, the numerical examples with more complex load conditions should
be tested, and the influence of the parameters such as the penalty factor on the
analysis results should be studied in our future work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Zhou Lei would like to acknowledge the support from the State Scholarship
Fund of China (File No. 2009615030), with the help of which, he has the oppor-
tunity to pursue his study under the supervision of Professor A. Munjiza in Great
Britain as a joint PhD student. Zhou Lei is on leave from the School of Mechani-
cal & Automotive Engineering, South China University of Technology.
REFERENCES
1. A. Munjiza, The combined finite-discrete element method, Wiley, 2004.
2. A. Munjiza, K.R.F. Andrews, J.K. White, ‘Combined single and smeared
crack model in combined finite-discrete element analysis’, International jour-
nal for numerical methods in engineering, Volume 44, No.1, 41-57, 1999.
3. A. Munjiza, N.W.M. John, ‘Mesh size sensitivity of the combined FEM/DEM
fracture and fragmentation algorithms’, Engineering fracture mechanics, Vol-
ume 69, No.2, 281-295, 2002.
Abstract
I
This work was supported by the State Scholarship Fund of China (File No.
2009615030), the International Cooperation Project of the Ministry of Science and Tech-
nology of China (No. 2008DFA51740) and the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No. 10972079).
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-505-667-1733; Fax.: 1-505-667-8487.
Email addresses: [email protected] (Zhou Lei), [email protected]
(Antonio Munjiza), [email protected] (Mengyan Zang)
1
Current address: Solid Earth Geophysics (EES-17), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA 87545
Nomenclature
2
~δ separation vector at any point on the surfaces of a crack
1. Introduction
3
Currently, experiment is still the main method for studying the impact
fracture behaviors of automobile glass[4]. In experimental process, impact
fracture behaviors of many glass samples with different factors are observed
and compared to reveal the relationships between those factors and safety
performances. Experimental study has made important contribution to re-
veal the mechanical mechanism of impact fracture behaviors for automobile
glass. However, because of the complexity of the fracture process, any varia-
tion in the manufacturing process and materials can cause significant effects
on the safety of the automobile glass. Particularly, those safety factors re-
lated to glass failure during impact processes can neither be gained nor be
trusted from only a limited number of experimental investigations. Recently,
with the rapid development of computer technology and continuous innova-
tion and improvement of computational mechanics, many scholars have tried
to solve these problems by using numerical methods[4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
So far, the traditional Finite Element Method (FEM) is adpoted as the
main numerical method to analyze the mechanical properties of glass under
dynamic/impact load[5, 6, 7]. However, the analyses based on FEM were
limited to a certain range, due to the fact that the essence of the dynamic
damage and failure processes of glass lies in the transferring of materials from
continuum to non-continuum, which is difficult to catch by FEM based on
the continuum theory[4, 8]. In this case, other numerical methods, especially
the methods based on non-continuum theory, might be the good choices. In
this paper, the combined Finite-Discrete Element method is used[9, 10, 11].
The combined finite-discrete element method, which merges the finite
element-based analysis of continua with discrete element-based transient dy-
4
namics, contact detection, and contact interaction solutions, has already
proven its efficiency and reliability as a computational tool to solve the prob-
lems involving transient dynamics of systems in which deformation and con-
tact play important roles[10, 11]. Now, this approach is a fast developing
area of computational mechanics of discontinua involving researchers and
engineers from various disciplines[11].
One of the key advantages of the combined finite-discrete element method
(FEM-DEM or FDEM) is that it is capable of simulating large-scale multi-
fracture problems. The robust fracture algorithm called combined single and
smeared crack model was proposed for such problems by Munjiza[12, 13].
However, the combined single and smeared crack model was aimed at mode
I loaded cracks only in its original form and it has been implemented in 2D.
In this work, the combined single and smeared crack model is extended to
three dimension (3D) and is used to simulate the impact fracture process of
glass. After briefly introducing the combined finite-discrete elemet method,
algorithmic issues concerning the combined single and smeared crack model
in the context of the 3D combined finite-discrete element method are pre-
sented. Upon that, the extended Y-code is used to simulate the impact
fracture of glass, and the simulation results are compared with that of cor-
responding experiments.
The basic idea of the FDEM is that the non-continuum mechanical be-
haviours of the materials are solved by using the discrete element method,
while the continuum mechanical behaviours are solved by using the finite
5
element method[10]. In actual implementation, the research objects are dis-
cretized to the assembling of discrete elements, then each discrete element
is further divided into one or several finite elements; and the physical quan-
tities of the discrete elements, such as the contact detection and contact
interaction, motion and displacement, are solved by using the discrete ele-
ment method, while the deformations of each discrete element is calculated
by using the finite element method. As a result, after using the proper frac-
ture models, the FDEM is an important method in computational mechanics
of discontinua, which is suitable for the solving of highly nonlinear mechanics
containing large displacement, multi-contact and multi-fracture[10].
From an algorithmic point of view, FDEM includes: deformability of ma-
terial, explicit solvers, contact detection and interaction, and crack model[14].
Since the first two aspects are similar to that of any standard FEM, the last
two aspects will be briefly introduced in the coming sections.
In the context of FDEM, there are two steps for contact enforcement, says
contact detection and contact interaction[10]. The goal of contact detection
is to confirm the statuses of all the adjacent elements of each target element
to make preparations for the contact interaction. For the reason that the
number of discrete elements in the simulation system is always very large
and relative position between discrete elements change along with the time
processes, the contact detection algorithms are required not only to be good
robustness but also to be high efficiency and low memory occupancy. To
meet those requirements, the contact detection algorithm NBS [15] is used in
the present work. Since NBS algorithm is based on the space decomposition
6
approach, it has the calculation efficiency of O(N ); moreover, the Linked-list
memory technology was used, which guarantee that the RAM for the NBS
algorithm is almos direct proportional to the number of elements in system.
So, NBS algorithm is linear in both CPU time and RAM[15].
Once elements in contact are detected, contact interaction algorithm is
employed to evaluate contact forces between discrete bodies. There are many
algorithms for such a task, in which the algorithm based on the penalty
function method along with potential function proposed by Munjiza is a dis-
tributed contact force algorithm which preserves energy balance[16]. This
method assumes that a penetration numerically exists between two bodies
which generates the distributed contact forces by means of penalty mecha-
nism with a potential function, and the penetration will gradually reduce to
zero by the action of contact forces. One kind of contact force belonging to
the contactor at any elemental area dA in the penetration region is defined
where ϕc and ϕt are potential functions defined for the contactor and tar-
get elements, respectively. And df~ is the infinitesimal contact force due to
infinitesimal overlap dA defined by overlapping points Pc belonging to the
contactor and Pt belonging to the target, as shown in Fig. 1.
Through integrating Eq. (1) over the whole penetration domain, the total
contact force between the two contact objects is obtained
I
f~c = ~nΓ (ϕc − ϕt ) dA (2)
Γβt T βc
7
where, Γβt T βc is the boundary of the overlapping area, and ~nΓ is the outward
unit normal to Γβt T βc .
It is obvious that the contact force as given by Eq. (2) preserves the
energy balance regardless of the geometry or shape of contactor and target
discrete elements, the size of the penalty term or the size of overlap during
in contact, when the values of potential functions on the boundary of both
the contactor and target are constant[16].
8
originally adjacent elements. Thus no two original finite elements share any
nodes at the beginning of calculation-the continuity between elements is en-
forced through the penalty function method[12, 13].
In the coming section, the detailed description of the implementation of
combined single and smeared crack model in 3D will be introduced.
3. Fracture in 3D
where ~n and ~t are the unit vectors in the normal and tangential direction of
the surface at such a point, δn and δt are the magnitudes of the components
of ~δ, respectively.
p~ = σ~n + τ ~t (4)
where, σ and τ are the normal and tangential stresses, and can be calculated
by
σ = zft (5)
τ = zfs (6)
9
here, ft and fs are the tensile and shear strengths of material. z is a heuristic
parameter depended on both the material and the seperation components[12],
a + b − 1 d(a+cb/((a+b)(1−a−b)))
z = 1− e × [a(1 − d) + b(1 − d)c ] (7)
a+b
here, GI and GII are the energy release rates of mode I and mode II loaded
cracks; α is a material parameter determined by the shape of stress-displacement
curve shown in Fig. 2b.
It should be noted that d obtained through Eq. (8) should less than
1.0; d ≥ 1.0 means that the material is failure and no resistance exists; to
represent such a truth, d is therefore set to 1.0 as long as d ≥ 1.0, thus z as
well as σ and τ are zero (see Eqs. (5)-(7)).
10
3.2. Numerical implementation
and the coordinate vector ~xl of any point on the lower surface is
12
X
l
~x = Ni~xi (12)
i=7
11
each node
N1 = (1 − 2ζ − 2η)(1 − ζ − η)
N2 = (2ζ − 1)ζ
N3 = (2η − 1)η
(13)
N4 = 4ζ(1 − ζ − η)
N5 = 4ζη
N6 = 4η(1 − ζ − η)
To calculate the seperation vector, another surface named the base surface
is defined
6
1 1X
~x = (~xu + ~xl ) =
b
Ni (~xi + ~xi+6 ) (14)
2 2 i=1
the unit vector normal to the base surface at any point is
~v1 × ~v2
~n = (15)
|~v1 × ~v2 |
where,
6
∂~xb 1 X ∂Ni
~v1 = = (~xi + ~x(i+6) ) (16)
∂ζ 2 i=1 ∂ζ
6
∂~xb 1 X ∂Ni
~v2 = = (~xi + ~x(i+6) ) (17)
∂η 2 i=1 ∂η
12
and the magnitudes of the normal and tangential components are
δn = ~δ · ~n (19)
then, the bonding stresses and tractions can be calculated through Eqs. (4)-
(6).
The equivalent nodal forces in the joint element are
Z
~
fi = − p~Ni |~v1 × ~v2 |ds (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) (21)
Z s
~
fj = p~Nj |~v1 × ~v2 |ds (7 ≤ j ≤ 12) (22)
s
and can be achieved through the Gauss rule. In Y-code, 3- and 7-point
integral rules have been implemented.
13
[Figure 6 about here.]
The displacements of the nodes, the initial positions of which are at points
A and B in Fig. 6, are taken into consideration. In Fig. 7a, the displacements
of all 8 nodes at point A are the same, which represents that the continuity
between finite elements is enforced through the penalty function method;
while Fig. 7b shows that the material at point B undergoes both the strain-
hardening stage (before 0.62 ms) and strain-softening stage (from 0.62 ms
until to failure).
14
the fracture process, a custom made glass specimen, whose thickness is four
times bigger than that of the general automotive glass (Fig. 10), was used.
The glass specimen was impacted by a impactor at the mid-side. And the
fracture occurrence and propagation phenomenon near by the impact point
was recorded by a device for photoelastic test.
Those photos implicate that the fracture phenomena are the same al-
though there are some differences at the time of fracture process. That is to
say, at the early stage, only the upper glass stands the load and then bends
until the fracture occurs, when the stress in the lower glass is tiny. The lower
glass starts to bend and then fracture only when the PVB is fully compressed
and the impact load reaches to the lower glass. This phenomenon will be
used to qualitatively verify the numerical results.
15
5.2. Simulation work
On account of the low impact velocity, all the materials used in the model
are assumed to be linear elastic materials. The parameters of each material
are shown in Table 1.
The impact fracture process of automotive glass is shown in Fig. 13: all
the pictures are front views, which are in accordance with the observation
angle in the experimental work; a perspective technology is used in the post
processor to present the transparency of glass materials, which enables to
observe the fracture states in the interior of glass: the black lines in the pic-
tures indicate the cracks observed directly from the surface of glass through
the observation angle, and the shading areas show the fracture surfaces in
the interior of glass.
The simulation results show that the first crack that can be clearly ob-
served occurs at the time of 23 µs, and the crack occurs on the interface of
upper glass and PVB vertically below the impactor (as shown in Fig. 13a).
Afterwards, the cracks expand towards the upper surface in a very short time
16
(about 12 µs); at 35 µs, the cracks have already penetrated the whole upper
glass (see Fig. 13b), however, the lower glass has no obvious cracks at this
time and also a relatively long time after that (until 200 µs, in Fig. 13c).
This is because that the velocity of the stress wave in the PVB is relatively
slow, which takes a longer time to reach the lower glass. The cracks occur on
the free surface of lower glass until the tension exceeds the fracture strength.
Once there are cracks occurring on the lower glass, the cracks will penetrate
the whole glass at a very fast speed, which is the same as that on the upper
glass (as shown in Figs. 13d-13e).
After comparing the test results shown in Fig. 11, we can find that the
positions and sequencing of cracks occurring obtained by numerical simula-
tion are all in accordance with the test results, which implicates that the
combined finite-disrete element method can be used to study the fracture
mechanism of automotive glass.
It should be noted that the main purpose of this example is to qual-
itatively verify the numerical method, thus the parameter identification of
materials and the related application researchs are outside of the scope of this
work. In order to guarantee the objectivity of the simulation results, large
amounts of simulation analyses are done to investigate the influence of the
fracture parameters of glass and elastic parameters of PVB within a certain
range on the simulation results. The numerical tests show that although the
material parameters have an influence on the occurring time of cracks, the
sequences of propagation of cracks and the relevant positions in the majority
of simulation results are in accordance with that in the test results, which
17
proves the validity of the numerical method further.
18
[Figure 16 about here.]
The fracture processes of glass plate is shown in Fig. 17. Here, the
perspective technology is used again to present the transparency of glass
materials, which enables to observe the fracture states in the interior of glass.
It is shown that both the radial and circular cracks can be observed clearly,
in which the radial cracks occur mainly on the free surface, while the circular
cracks are observed on the impact side (Fig. 17d). The above phenomenon
agrees well with the experimental observation reported by Bennett[19] and
Bertino[20] et al.
7. Conclusios
(1) The combined single and smeared crack model is implemented in 3D,
which enables both single and multiple cracks to be modelled in 3D by
using Y-code. Thus it is promising to use the 3D model to analyze
progressive fracturing and fragmentation involving a large number of
cracks.
(2) The impact fracture processes of laminated glass and monolithic glass
plates are simulated by using Y-code. The positions and sequencing of
cracks occurring in the laminated glass plate and the fracture pattern
in the monolithic one obtained by numerical simulation are all in accor-
dance with the corresponding experiment results; hence, the validation
of the present method is preliminarily verified.
19
However, The influence of mesh on the simulation results in 3D will be com-
prehensively studied next stage. Moreover, the fracture parameters of glass
with more precise need to be obtained through experiments, thus a more
adequate FDEM model of automotive glass could be established.
References
[1] Traffic management bureau of Police Ministry. Road traffic accident an-
nual census report of China. Beijing; 2001-2009.
[4] Zang MY, Lei Z, Wang SF. Investigation of impact fracture behavior
of automobile laminated glass by 3D discrete element method. Comput
Mech 2007;41(1):73-83.
20
[7] Pyttel T, Liebertz H, Cai J. Failure criterion for laminated glass under
impact loading and its application in finite element simulation. Int J
Impact Engng 2011;38(4):252-263.
[8] Xu J, Li YB, Chen X, Yan Y, Ge DY, Zhu MY, Liu BH. Characteris-
tics of windshield cracking upon low-speed impact: Numerical simula-
tion based on the extended finite element method. Comput Mater Sci
2010;48(3):582-588.
[12] Munjiza A, Andrews KRF, White JK. Combined single and smeared
crack model in combined finite-discrete element analysis. Int J Numer
Methods Engng 1999;44(1):41-57.
21
[15] Munjiza A, Andrews KRF. NBS contact detection algorithm for bodies
of similar size. Int J Numer Methods Engng 1998;43(1):131-149.
[16] Munjiza A, Andrews KRF. Penalty function method for combined finite-
discrete element systems comprising large number of separate bodies. Int
J Numer Methods Engng 2000;49(11):1377-1396.
[17] Xiang JS, Munjiza A, Latham JP. Finite strain, finite rotation quadratic
tetrahedral element for the combined finite-discrete element method. Int
J Numer Methods Engng 2009;79(8):946-978.
[18] Zang MY, Lei Z, Oda J. Study on static characteristic and impact frac-
ture behavior of automobile glass. Chin J Mech Engng 2009; 45(2):268-
272. (in Chinese)
[19] Bennett WW, Hess KM. Criminal investigation. 8th ed. Thomson Learn-
ing Inc; 2007.
[20] Bertino AJ, Bertino PN. Forensic science: fundamentals and investiga-
tions. South-Western Pub; 2008.
22
List of Figures
1 Contact force due to an infinitesimal overlap around points Pc
and Pt [16]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2 (a) stress-strain curve divided into the hardening and softening
parts, (b) strain softening defined in terms of displacements[10]. 25
3 Separation and traction at a point on the surfaces of a crack;
(a) separation vector divided into two components, (b) trac-
tion vector divided into two components. . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4 The joint elements are inserted to connect the original adja-
cent elements; (a) with linear tetrahedron element, (b) with
nonlinear tetrahedron element. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5 Arrangement of the nodes, the upper surface, lower surface
and the base surface of the joint element. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6 Diagram and initial finite element mesh of the simply sup-
ported beam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7 Displacements of the nodes: (a) at point A, (b) at point B. . . 30
8 Progressive collapse of the beam: (a) t=2.5 ms, (b) t=3.0 ms,
(c) t=3.5 ms, (d) t=4.0 ms, (e) t=4.5 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9 Fracture pattern at t =30 ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
10 Diagrammatic drawing for the section of the laminated glass
specimen (dimensions are in mm)[18]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
11 Cracks occurrence and propagation of laminated glass[18]; (a)
interval for taking photos is 20 µs, (b) interval for taking pho-
tos is 100 µs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
12 FDEM model for the impact fracture test. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
13 Impact fracture process of laminated glass: (a) t=23 µs, (b)
t=35 µs, (c) t=200 µs, (d) t=203 µs, (e) t=208 µs. . . . . . . 36
14 Key fracture patterns: concentric fracture and raidial fracture,
after [19]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
15 How radial and concentric circle fractures form when glass is
hit[20]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
16 Model of the impact fracture simulation (dimensions are in mm). 39
17 Impact fracture process of glass plate: (a) t=10 µs, (b) t=20
µs, (c) t=30 µs, (d) top view at t=30 µs (left: perspective,
centre: fracture pattern on the surface of impact side and
right: fracture pattern on the surface of free side.) . . . . . . . 40
23
Target
Contactor
Γβ t ∩ β c Pt, Pc
dA
βt ∩ βc df Γc
Γt
Figure 1: Contact force due to an infinitesimal overlap around points Pc and Pt [16].
24
(a) s (b) s
ft Strain hardening ft
A B
et e δ t =0 δ
Figure 2: (a) stress-strain curve divided into the hardening and softening parts, (b) strain
softening defined in terms of displacements[10].
25
(a) (b)
δt t τt
δ p
δn n σn
Figure 3: Separation and traction at a point on the surfaces of a crack; (a) separation
vector divided into two components, (b) traction vector divided into two components.
26
(a) Tetrahedron element (b) Tetrahedron element
Figure 4: The joint elements are inserted to connect the original adjacent elements; (a)
with linear tetrahedron element, (b) with nonlinear tetrahedron element.
27
Joint element 6
n 3 Upper surface
v2
1 4 5
v1 Base surface
12 2 9
Lower surface
7 11
10
8
Figure 5: Arrangement of the nodes, the upper surface, lower surface and the base surface
of the joint element.
28
v=0.1 m/s
70 mm 30 mm
v=0.1 m/s
A B
v=0.1 m/s 560 mm
580 mm z
y x
Figure 6: Diagram and initial finite element mesh of the simply supported beam.
29
(a) 0
N7705
N8855
−0.5 N9349
N9738
X−Displacement/mm
N10519
−1 N10569
N11558
N11662
−1.5
−2
−2.5
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Time/ms
(b) 2.5
2 N8349
1.5 N9029
N10052
X−Displacement/mm
1 N10192
0.5 N10798
N11370
0
N14972
−0.5 N16225
N16818
−1
N16867
−1.5 N16870
N17358
−2
−2.5
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Time/ms
30
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 8: Progressive collapse of the beam: (a) t=2.5 ms, (b) t=3.0 ms, (c) t=3.5 ms, (d)
t=4.0 ms, (e) t=4.5 ms.
31
Figure 9: Fracture pattern at t =30 ms.
32
Impactor
Glass PVB Width: 10
10
24
10
200
Figure 10: Diagrammatic drawing for the section of the laminated glass specimen (dimen-
sions are in mm)[18].
33
(a)
(b)
Figure 11: Cracks occurrence and propagation of laminated glass[18]; (a) interval for
taking photos is 20 µs, (b) interval for taking photos is 100 µs.
34
Impactor
10mm 10mm Support Glass PVB
24mm
200 mm
10mm
35
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 13: Impact fracture process of laminated glass: (a) t=23 µs, (b) t=35 µs, (c) t=200
µs, (d) t=203 µs, (e) t=208 µs.
36
Radial
Radial
n tric
Po Conce
int
of Im
pac
Concentric
t
ce ntric
Con Radial
Figure 14: Key fracture patterns: concentric fracture and raidial fracture, after [19].
37
Tension Concentric
fracture
Tension Concentric
fracture
Unbroken glass
Figure 15: How radial and concentric circle fractures form when glass is hit[20].
38
m=50 g
b t=4.76 ; b=5
t
8
300
8
50
Figure 16: Model of the impact fracture simulation (dimensions are in mm).
39
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 17: Impact fracture process of glass plate: (a) t=10 µs, (b) t=20 µs, (c) t=30
µs, (d) top view at t=30 µs (left: perspective, centre: fracture pattern on the surface of
impact side and right: fracture pattern on the surface of free side.)
40
List of Tables
1 Material parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
41
Table 1: Material parameters
Parameter Glass PVB Support Impactor
Density ρ(kg/m3 ) 2456.0 100.0 2400.0 -
Young’s modulus E(GPa) 75.0 0.5 5.0 200.0
Poisson’s ratio ν 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.27
Tensile strength σt (MPa) 100.0 - - -
Energy release rate Gf (N/m) 10.0 - - -
42