Fracture Mechanics-Book PDF
Fracture Mechanics-Book PDF
Fracture Mechanics-Book PDF
R 6.12
Course objectives
Upon completion of this course you will be able to:
Use proper modeling techniques for capturing crack-tip singularities in fracture mechanics problems
Use Abaqus/CAE to create meshes appropriate for fracture studies
Calculate stress intensity factors and contour integrals around a crack tip
Simulate material damage and failure
Simulate crack growth using cohesive behavior, VCCT, and XFEM
Simulate low-cycle fatigue crack growth
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Targeted audience
Simulation Analysts
Prerequisites
This course is recommended for engineers with experience using Abaqus
3 days
1
Day 1
Day 2
Workshop 3 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 1)
Workshop 3 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 2)
2
Day 3
Workshop 7 Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
Legal Notices
The Abaqus Software described in this documentation is available only under license from Dassault
Systèmes and its subsidiary and may be used or reproduced only in accordance with the terms of such
license.
This documentation and the software described in this documentation are subject to change without
prior notice.
Dassault Systèmes and its subsidiaries shall not be responsible for the consequences of any errors or
omissions that may appear in this documentation.
No part of this documentation may be reproduced or distributed in any form without prior written
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3
Revision Status
4
Notes
5
Notes
6
L1.1
Lesson 1: Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Lesson content:
Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
90 minutes
L1.2
Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
1. Overview
2. Introduction
3. Fracture Mechanisms
4. Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
7
L1.3
Overview
It aims to introduce the necessary fracture mechanics concepts and quantities that are relevant to the Abaqus
functionality that is presented in the subsequent lectures.
If you are already familiar with these concepts, this lecture may be omitted.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L1.4
Introduction
Fracture mechanics is the field of solid mechanics that deals with the behavior of cracked bodies subjected to
stresses and strains.
These can arise from primary applied loads or secondary self-equilibrating stress fields (e.g., residual
stresses).
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The objective of fracture mechanics is to characterize the local deformation around a crack tip in terms
of the asymptotic field around the crack tip scaled by parameters that are a function of the loading and
global geometry.
8
L1.5
Fracture Mechanisms (1/4)
Brittle fracture
Ductile fracture
L1.6
Fracture Mechanisms (2/4)
This depends upon whether the grain boundaries are stronger or weaker than the grains .
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Cleavage fracture
9
L1.7
Fracture Mechanisms (3/4)
Ductile fracture surfaces have larger necking regions and an overall rougher appearance than a
brittle fracture surface.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L1.8
Fracture Mechanisms (4/4)
The fracture process zone is the region around the crack tip where dislocation motions, material
damage, etc. occur.
Different theories have been advanced to describe the fracture process in order to develop predictive
capabilities
LEFM
Cohesive zone models
EPFM
Etc.
10
L1.9
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (1/10)
Fracture modes
Mode I:
L1.10
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (2/10)
Mode II:
Mode III:
The forces are transverse to the crack.
I. This causes the material to
separate and slide along itself,
moving out of its original plane
This is referred to as the out-of-plane
shear mode.
11
L1.11
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (3/10)
For isotropic, linear elastic materials, LEFM characterizes the local crack-tip stress field in the linear
elastic (i.e., brittle) material using a single parameter called the stress intensity factor K.
K depends upon the applied stress, the size and placement of the crack, as well as the geometry
of the specimen.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
K is defined from the elastic stresses near the tip of a sharp crack under remote loading (or
residual stresses).
K is used to predict the stress state ("stress intensity") near the tip of a crack.
I. When this stress state (i.e., K) becomes critical, a small crack grows ("extends") and the
material fails.
II. This critical value is denoted KC and is known as the fracture toughness (it is a material
property; discussed further later).
L1.12
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (4/10)
The stress and strain fields in the vicinity of the crack tip are expressed in terms of asymptotic series of
solutions around the crack tip.
They are valid only is a small region near the crack tip.
I. This size of this region is quantified by small scale yielding assumptions (discussed later).
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The stress intensity factor is the parameter that relates the local crack-tip fields with the global
aspects of the problem.
12
L1.13
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (5/10)
KI K II K
ij (r ,q ) fijI (q ) fijII (q ) III fijIII (q ),
2 r 2 r 2 r
where x2 r
r is the distance from the crack tip, q
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
q = atan(x2/x1), x1
KI is the Mode I (opening) stress intensity
factor,
KII is the Mode II (in-plane shear) stress
intensity factor,
KIII is the Mode III (transverse shear) stress
intensity factor, and the
fija define the angular variation of the
stress for mode a.
L1.14
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (6/10)
Crack-tip singularity
The predicted stress state at the crack tip in a linear elastic (brittle) material possesses a square-root
singularity:
1
.
r
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
In reality, the crack tip is surrounded by the fracture process zone where plastic deformation and
material damage occur.
13
L1.15
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (7/10)
Fracture toughness
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Temperature
For many common metals it may lie within the reasonable operating temperature range for the
design, so the temperature dependence of the fracture toughness must be considered.
L1.16
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (8/10)
The plane strain value is usually the value that is determined experimentally.
However, if the application is fracture of thin sheets of material, KC values somewhere between
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
KC
Thickness →
14
L1.17
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (9/10)
Aside from temperature and thickness, the fracture toughness is also a function of the crack extension.
The fracture toughness as a function of crack extension is called the resistance curve (shown below).
ductile
Kr(0)= KC
brittle
L1.18
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (10/10)
K applied K R (Da).
K applied dK R
.
a load
d Da
15
L1.19
Small-Scale Yielding (1/5)
Small-scale yielding (SSY) means the region of inelastic deformation at the crack tip is contained well within
the zone dominated by the LEFM asymptotic solution.
For LEFM to be valid, there must be an annular region around the crack tip in which the asymptotic
solution to the linear elasticity problem gives a good approximation to the complete stress field.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Plastic zone
K-dominated zone
Transition zone
L1.20
Small-Scale Yielding (2/5)
The size of the process zone and the plastic region must be sufficiently small so that this is true. Typical
shapes of plastic zones follow:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
16
L1.21
Small-Scale Yielding (3/5)
We can estimate the plastic zone size, rp, by setting 22 = 0 in the LEFM asymptotic solution, where 0 is the
yield stress. This gives (for Mode I)
2 2
1 KI 1 KI
rp .
2
0 6 0
Since the tractions across the boundary of the plastic zone have no net force or moments (St. Venant’s
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
principle), the effect on the elastic field surrounding the plastic zone decays rapidly with distance from the
boundary, becoming negligible at ~3rp.
But we can use LEFM results if the region of inelastic deformation near the crack tip is small enough
that there is a finite zone outside this region where the LEFM asymptotic solution is accurate.
L1.22
Small-Scale Yielding (4/5)
If a is a characteristic dimension in the problem, such as remaining ligament size or thickness or crack length,
then, to have a finite zone rK in which the K-field dominates, we need
2
1 K
a / 5 rK 3rp IC
2 0
or
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
2
K ASTM Standard for validity of
a 2.5 IC . LEFM
0
This is the limit on specimen size in ASTM Standard E-399 for a valid KIC test.
The fracture toughness represents the critical value of K required to initiate crack growth.
17
L1.23
Small-Scale Yielding (5/5)
For some typical metal materials rp is calculated by matching the yield stress to the Mises stress of the K field
and the minimum characteristic length is calculated using the ASTM standard limit.
For materials with high fracture toughness the size of the specimen for a valid fracture test is very large.
Characteristic
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Material
T 0 KIC rp
dimension
(ºC) (MPa) (MN/m3/2) (mm)
(mm)
L1.24
Energy Considerations (1/4)
This is motivated by the fact that crack propagation always involves dissipation of energy. Sources of
energy dissipation include:
By considering fracture from an energetic point of view, crack growth criteria can be postulated in terms
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
This approach offers an alternative to the K-based fracture criteria discussed earlier and
reinforces the connection between global and local fields in fracture problems.
I. The energy release rate is a global parameter while the stress intensity factor is a local
crack-tip parameter.
18
L1.25
Energy Considerations (2/4)
L1.26
Energy Considerations (3/4)
1 - v2 2
G K for plane strain
E
and
K2
G for plane stress.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
In a three-dimensional body under general loading that contains a crack with a smoothly changing
crack-tip line, the energy release rate (assuming linear elasticity) per unit crack front length is
1 - v2 2 1 2
G ( K I K II2 ) K III .
E 2G
Thus, we see the stress intensity factors are directly related to the energy release rate associated with
infinitesimal crack growth in an isotropic linear elastic material.
19
L1.27
Energy Considerations (4/4)
The necessary condition for crack growth expressed in terms of the energy release rate is G GC.
GC is a material property and represents the energy per unit crack advance going into:
L1.28
The J-integral (1/3)
The J-integral is used in rate-independent quasi-static fracture analysis to characterize the energy
release associated with crack growth.
It can be related to the stress intensity factor if the material response is linear.
As will become apparent in the next section, it also has the advantage that it provides a method
for analyzing fracture in nonlinear materials.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
20
L1.29
The J-integral (2/3)
J is defined as follows:
x2
u
J Wn1 - i ij n j ds
x1
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
x1
J G
L1.30
The J-integral (3/3)
J in small-scale yielding
Choose , the contour for J, to fall entirely within the annular region in which the K fields dominate.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3rp
The integrand for J can be evaluated directly in terms of the (known) K fields. Direct calculation for
Mode I in a linear elastic material gives
1 - v2 2
J G K I for plane strain and
E
1
J G K I2 for plane stress.
E
21
L1.31
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (1/9)
LEFM applies when the nonlinear deformation of the material is confined to a small region near the
crack tip.
However, severe limitations arise when the region of the material subject to plastic deformation
before a crack propagates is not negligible.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
However, the theory is not based on an elastic-plastic material model, but rather a nonlinear
elastic material.
L1.32
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (2/9)
n
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
n
e
a ,
e0 0
where 0 is the effective yield stress, e0 = 0 / E is the associated yield strain, E is Young's modulus,
and a and n are chosen to fit the stress-strain data for the material.
22
L1.33
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (3/9)
For such a material, Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren (extended to mixed mode loading by Shih)
showed that the near-tip fields have the form
Loading parameter is J
1
J n1
ij 0 ij (q ),
a 0e 0 I n r
n
n1
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
J
e ij e 0 e ij (q ),
a e
0 0 n
I r
n
J n1
ui - uˆi ae 0 r ui (q ).
a e
0 0 n
I r
Here ui - uˆi is the displacement relative to the displacement of the crack tip, uˆi . These fields are
commonly referred to as the HRR crack-tip fields.
L1.34
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (4/9)
23
L1.35
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (5/9)
In unloading situations, the HRR fields do not describe the state around the crack tip, and hence J does
not characterize the strength of the stress state ahead of a crack tip for plastic materials. Use caution
when:
Gives the leading term in an asymptotic expansion of the deformation around the crack tip for a
power law material; and
Does not take into account finite-strain effects.
L1.36
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (6/9)
The HRR fields, thus, describe the near-tip crack fields in terms of J.
J gives the strength of the near-tip singularity in any power-law material (nonlinear elastic or plastic)
solid
Recall that in LEFM K plays this role in linear elastic materials.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
To apply the theory, must ensure conditions for J-dominance are satisfied (discussed next).
24
L1.37
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (7/9)
J-dominance
In general, J is an adequate characterization when there exists a state of high triaxial tension (high
triaxiality) ahead of the crack tip.
High triaxiality ahead of the crack tip leads to low fracture toughness.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Examples: states of small-scale and well-contained yielding (where the plastic zone is
surrounded by an elastic zone):
I. Deeply notched bend specimen
d
c«d
L1.38
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (8/9)
In some situations the crack-tip stress field does not exhibit high triaxiality.
Example: large-scale yielding (the plastic zone extends to the free boundaries of the body):
A two-parameter approach can be used to extend the fracture characterization to such cases
(discussed next).
25
L1.39
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (9/9)
The Williams’ expansion of the Mode I stress field about a sharp crack in a linear elastic body with
respect to r, the distance from the crack tip, is
KI
ij (r ,q ) fij (q ) T 1i1 j O(r1/2 ).
2 r
The magnitude of the T-stress affects the size and shape of the plastic zone and the region of
tensile triaxiality ahead of the crack tip.
For positive T-stress, J-dominance exists and a single parameter J can be used for a fracture
criterion.
For negative T-stress, a two-parameter approach (J, T) is required to characterize the stress
fields.
L1.40
Mixed-Mode Fracture (1/2)
Under general loading almost all theories for the direction of crack growth assume or predict that the
continued crack growth will be with KII = 0.
Can assume that macroscopic cracks growing with continuously turning tangents will advance
straight ahead, presumably under
Mode I conditions.
The crack curvature will evolve in such a way as to maintain this in response to the loading.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
If the loading changes such that the local crack-tip stress field experiences a large change in
local stress intensities, mixed-mode fracture will occur.
26
L1.41
Mixed-Mode Fracture (2/2)
L1.42
Interfacial Fracture (1/5)
Examples:
adhesive joints;
protective coatings;
composite materials;
etc.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
It extends LEFM to predict the behavior of cracks between two linear elastic materials.
27
L1.43
Interfacial Fracture (2/5)
L1.44
Interfacial Fracture (3/5)
If the crack kinks off the interface, the fact that there is an interface is important only in how it influences
the stress and strain fields.
If the crack grows along the interface, it grows under mixed mode conditions due to material asymmetry
and possibly (though not necessarily) under mixed remote loading conditions.
In such situations the conditions for crack growth depend on the interface properties. It is not
sufficient to define crack initiation and growth criterion based on the conventional fracture
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
toughness, KC.
Specifically KC = KC ().
I. Toughness depends strongly on the mode mixity .
28
L1.45
Interfacial Fracture (4/5)
Asymptotic fields
The asymptotic stress field for an interfacial crack between linear elastic materials is given by
K * ie
ij Re r ij (q , e )
2 r
where K* = K1 iK2 is the complex stress intensity factor (i.e., it has real and imaginary parts)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
1 1- ( - 1) - 2 (1 - 1)
e log , where 1 2 , and
2 1 1 ( 2 1) 2 (1 1)
3 -
for plane stress
1
3 - 4 for plane strain, axi, 3D
L1.46
Interfacial Fracture (5/5)
The complex exponent rie indicates that the stresses will oscillate near the crack tip:
12
22
e log(r)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Both the stresses and crack opening displacements will oscillate wildly as the crack tip is approached.
At some distance ahead of the crack tip, the fields settle down.
The fracture criterion should be measured at this point. Provided the location of this point is the
same in different specimens, a fracture criterion is valid.
29
L1.47
Creep Fracture (1/5)
High-temperature fracture
For temperatures above 0.3qM (where qM is the melting temperature on an absolute scale), metals will
typically creep.
In plastics creep can occur even at room temperature.
There are typically two mechanisms that are active in creep fracture:
Blunting of the crack tip due to a relaxing stress field.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Steady-state creep crack growth occurs when the two effects balance one another.
L1.48
Creep Fracture (2/5)
The stress state around a crack tip in a material that can creep is more complicated than for the
corresponding plasticity problem.
Because of the time-dependent effects there is no one parameter that can characterize the stress
state around the crack tip for all possibilities.
Hence, the study of creep fracture is not as well established as for elastic-plastic fracture.
30
L1.49
Creep Fracture (3/5)
Contour integrals
The contour integral for creep fracture is called the C(t)-integral.
It plays an analogous role to the J-integral in the context of time-dependent creep fracture.
Its development assumes a power law creep material:
n
e e el e cr e0
E 0
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The C(t)-integral is proportional to the rate of growth of the crack-tip creep zone for a stationary crack
under small-scale creep conditions:
n u
C (t ) ije ij n1 - ni ij j ds.
r 0 n 1 x1
Under steady-state creep conditions, when creep dominates throughout the specimen, C(t) becomes
path independent and is known as C*.
L1.50
Creep Fracture (4/5)
31
L1.51
Creep Fracture (5/5)
Extensive creep
L1.52
Fatigue (1/2)
Fatigue is a special kind of failure in which cracks gradually grow under a prolonged period of subcritical
loading.
It is the single most common cause of failure in metallic structures.
The Paris Law can be used to predict crack growth as a function of cycles (or time):
Kmax
da
da/dN I II III Kmean C (DK ) n , where
dN
Kmin DK K max - K min
t
DKI
32
L1.53
Fatigue (2/2)
Abaqus offers a direct cyclic low-cycle fatigue capability based on the Paris Law.
Models progressive damage and failure both in bulk materials and at material interfaces for a
structure subjected to a sub-critical cyclic loading.
fe-safe is a suite of fatigue analysis software that has a direct interface to Abaqus.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
33
34
Notes
35
Notes
36
L2.1
Lesson 2: Modeling Cracks
Lesson content:
Modeling Cracks
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
90 minutes
L2.2
Modeling Cracks
Dimensions
4. Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips
5. Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For
Fracture
6. Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options
37
L2.3
Crack Modeling Overview (1/4)
It typically requires the user to conform the mesh to the cracked geometry.
This is the focus of this lecture.
The method does not require the mesh to match the cracked geometry.
This method is discussed in Lecture 9.
L2.4
Crack Modeling Overview (2/4)
Sharp
Small-strain analysis
Singular behavior at the crack tip
I. Requires special attention
In Abaqus, a sharp crack is modeled
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Blunted
Finite-strain analysis
Non-singular behavior at crack tip
In Abaqus, a blunted crack is modeled
using open geometry
I. For example, a notch
38
L2.5
Crack Modeling Overview (3/4)
Mesh refinement
The J-integral is an energy measure; for LEFM, accurate J values can generally be obtained with
surprisingly coarse meshes, even though the local stress and strain fields are not very accurate.
For plasticity or rubber elasticity, the crack-tip region has to be modeled carefully to give accurate
results.
L2.6
Crack Modeling Overview (4/4)
For mesh convergence in a small-strain analysis, the singularity at the crack tip must be considered.
J values are more accurate if some singularity is included in the mesh at the crack tip than if no
singularity is included.
The stress and strain fields local to the crack tip will be modeled more accurately if singularities
are considered.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Linear elasticity r -½
Perfect plasticity r -1
Power-law hardening r -n/(n+1)
39
L2.7
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (1/15)
In two dimensions…
L2.8
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (2/15)
Seam
40
L2.9
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (3/15)
Crack tip
same as The crack extension direction (q vector)
crack defines the direction in which the crack
Select the vertex at either end as front in would extend if it were growing.
the crack front. (Repeat for the this case
other end.) It is used for contour integral calculations.
L2.10
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (4/15)
Other options for defining the crack front and crack tip
orphan mesh
41
L2.11
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (5/15)
Crack normal
Crack tip
L2.12
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (6/15)
Collapse one side (e.g., the side made up by nodes a, b, and c) so that all three nodes have the
same geometric location at the crack tip.
Move the midside nodes on the sides connected to the crack tip to the ¼ point nearest the crack
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
tip.
42
L2.13
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (7/15)
A B
as r 0
r r
I. The strains and stresses are square-root singular (suitable for linear elasticity).
If nodes a, b, and c are free to move independently and the midside nodes remain at the
midsides, B = 0 :
I. The singularity in strain is correct for the perfectly plastic case.
For materials in between linear elastic and perfectly plastic (most metals), it is better to have a stronger
singularity than necessary.
L2.14
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (8/15)
Usage:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3
The crack tip nodes are
constrained: r -½ singularity
4 2
1, 2
1,2,3,4
3 1
1,1,2,3
43
L2.15
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (9/15)
L2.16
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (10/15)
If the side of the element is not collapsed but the midside nodes on the sides of the element connected
to the crack tip are moved to the ¼ point:
The strain is square root singular along the element edges but not in the interior of the element.
This is better than no singularity but not as good as the collapsed element.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
44
L2.17
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (11/15)
Angular resolution
We need enough elements to resolve the angular dependence of the strain field around the crack tip.
Reasonable results are obtained for LEFM if typical elements around the crack tip subtend angles
in the range of 10 (accurate) to 22.5 (moderately accurate).
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L2.18
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (12/15)
Collapsing the side of a first-order quadrilateral element with independent nodes on the collapsed side
gives
A
as r 0.
r
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
45
L2.19
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (13/15)
To enable the creation of degenerate quads, you must create swept meshable regions around the crack
tips (using partitions) and specify a quad-dominated mesh.
24 elements around
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Quarter-point nodes
L2.20
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (14/15)
No degeneracy:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
46
L2.21
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (15/15)
Arbitrary mesh;
Focused mesh; deformation
deformation scale
scale factor = 100
factor = 100
L2.22
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (1/20)
In three dimensions…
47
L2.23
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (2/20)
Geometric Orphan
Geometric Orphan Instances Mesh
Instances Mesh
L2.24
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (3/20)
or the
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
48
L2.25
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (4/20)
20-node and 27-node bricks can be used with a collapsed face to create singular fields.
C3D20(RH) midplane
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
edge plane
2 nodes collapsed to
the same location
crack line
L2.26
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (5/20)
A
as r 0 A B
r as r 0 B
r r as r 0
r
Crack line
49
L2.27
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (6/20)
If the two nodes on the collapsed face at the midplane can displace independently, r -1 at the
midplane (i.e., element interior).
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. If on each plane there is only one node along the crack line, no singularity is represented
within the element.
In either case the interpolation is not the same on the midplane as on an edge plane.
I. This generally causes local oscillations in the J-integral values along the crack line.
L2.28
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (7/20)
On a midplane for 27-node bricks with all the extra nodes on the element faces:
midplane
C3D27(RH)
edge plane
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3 nodes collapsed to
same location
centroid
crack line
50
L2.29
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (8/20)
If all midface nodes and the centroid node are included and moved with the midside nodes to the ¼
points, the singularity can be made the same on the edge planes and midplane.
Abaqus does not allow the centroid node to be moved from the geometric centroid of the element.
Therefore, the behavior at the midplane will never be the same as at the edge planes.
This usually causes some small oscillation of the crack fields along the crack line.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
This creates differences in interpolation between the midplane and the edge planes and, hence,
causes further oscillation in the crack-tip fields.
These oscillations are minor in most cases.
L2.30
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (9/20)
51
L2.31
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (10/20)
a = 15
r = 10
q = 45º
L2.32
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (11/20)
52
L2.33
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (12/20)
L2.34
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (13/20)
53
L2.35
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (14/20)
L2.36
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (15/20)
After all the partitions are created for meshing purposes, the definition of the seam remains intact.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Mesh seam
54
L2.37
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (16/20)
L2.38
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (17/20)
Create a mesh part (Mesh module) To take advantage of the input file
approach, define a set that contains
or
the conical region before writing the
Write an input file and import the model input file. Then you will be able to
I. This approach has the advantage easily create a display group based
that it preserves attributes (sets, on this set when manipulating the
loads, etc). orphan mesh.
55
L2.39
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (18/20)
To redefine this
particular vector,
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
select these
nodes as the
start and end
points of the
vector.
L2.40
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (19/20)
For all elements, the singularities are modeled best if the element edges are straight.
In three dimensions the planes of the element perpendicular to the crack line should be flat.
If they are not, when the midside nodes are moved to the ¼ points, the Jacobian of the element
at some integration points may be negative.
One way to correct this is to move the midside nodes slightly away from the ¼ points toward the
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
midpoint.
56
L2.41
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (20/20)
L2.42
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (1/7)
Finite-strain analyses:
The mesh must be sufficiently refined to model the very high strain gradients around the crack tip if
details in this region are required.
Even if only the J-integral is required, the deformation around the crack tip may dominate the
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
solution and the crack-tip region will have to be modeled with sufficient detail to avoid numerical
problems.
Physically, the crack tip is not perfectly sharp, and such modeling makes it difficult to obtain results.
Instead, we model the tip as a blunted notch, with a suggested radius 10-3rp.
I. Here, rp is the size of the plastic zone (discussed in Lecture 1).
The notch must be small enough that under the applied loads, the deformed shape of the notch
no longer depends on the original geometry.
I. Typically, the notch must blunt out to more than four times its original radius for this to be
true.
57
L2.43
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (2/7)
L2.44
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (3/7)
58
L2.45
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (4/7)
The size of the elements around the notch must be about 1/10th the notch-tip radius.
SEN specimen
crack-tip mesh
rnotch
10% of rnotch
L2.46
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (5/7)
For J-integral evaluation, the region on the surface of the blunted notch should be used to define the
crack front.
Crack tip
region
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
q vector
For the J- and Ct-integrals to be path independent, the crack surfaces must be parallel to one
another (or parallel to the symmetry plane).
I. If this is not the case, Abaqus automatically generates normals on the crack surface.
If the notch radius shrinks to zero, all nodes that would be at the crack tip should be included in
the crack-tip node set.
If the mesh is so coarse that the integration points nearest the crack tip are far from the tip, most of the
details (accurate stresses and strains) of the finite-strain region around the crack tip will be lost.
However, accurate J values may still be obtained if cracks are modeled as sharp.
59
L2.47
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (6/7)
Deformed shape
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Moderate blunting
Undeformed
shape
Severe blunting
L2.48
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (7/7)
In situations involving finite rotations but small strains, such as the bending of slender structures, a small
keyhole around the crack tip should be modeled.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
crack-front
region
The region defining the crack front for the contour integral consists of the region on the keyhole.
I. The elements should not be singular.
60
L2.49
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture (1/3)
For curved regions cannot generate wedges at the center using a hex-dominated approach and then sweep
along the length of the region.
This was discussed earlier in the context of the conical crack problem.
To create a focused mesh in this case, embed a small tube within a larger concentric tube. Mesh
the smaller tube with a single layer of wedge elements; the surrounding regions are meshed with
hex elements.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Sweep direction
L2.50
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture (2/3)
Illustrates the limitation that the path for the partition must be perpendicular to its bounding surfaces;
thus, cannot properly partition along the arc of a circle as shown in this example:
Partition by sweeping
circular edge along arc
61
L2.51
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture (3/3)
The workaround is to partition the face with circular arcs, and then partition the cell using the n-sided
patch technique.
L2.52
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (1/11)
The *CONTOUR INTEGRAL option is used to define both, the crack itself and the fracture output, in an
Abaqus input (.inp) file.
These include:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
62
L2.53
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (2/11)
Crack symmetry
L2.54
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (3/11)
Crack extension
63
L2.55
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (4/11)
Crack-Front-1
L2.56
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (5/11)
If the NORMAL parameter is omitted, we must give the crack-tip node set name, and the crack
propagation direction q, at each node set defining the crack front.
Usage:
Data must start with the node set at one end and be given for each node set defining the crack
line sequentially until the other end of the crack is reached.
I. The first node in each set is the crack tip node for that set unless the CRACK TIP NODES
parameter is used.
64
L2.57
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (6/11)
Crack-Front-1
L2.58
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (7/11)
The focused mesh shown in the figure will be generated with the use of keyword options.
*NGEN
*NFILL
*ELEMENT
*ELGEN
65
L2.59
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (8/11)
Node definitions
*node 8101
12101 4101
1, 0.0125, 0.0000
16001, 0.0125, 0.0000
101, 0.0250, 0.0000
4101, 0.0250, 0.0125
12101, 0.0000, 0.0125
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L2.60
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (9/11)
Quarter-point nodes
increment
Number of intervals
between bounding 8021
nodes 4021
2021
4011 1021
11 21 31
*NFILL generate nodes for a region of a mesh by filling
in nodes between two bounds.
In this example, 10 rows of nodes are generated
between each tip node and its corresponding outer
node.
66
L2.61
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (10/11)
Element definitions
*element, type=cps8r
1, 1, 21, 2021, 2001, 11, 1021, 2011, 1001
*elgen, elset=plate
1, 5, 20, 10, 8, 2000, 1000
2021
L2.62
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (11/11)
Crack-tip nodes
If the crack-tip nodes are permitted to behave independently, the strength of the strain-field
singularity is r -1.
The crack-tip nodes can be constrained using equations, multi-point constraints, using repeated
nodes in the element definition, etc. For example, to constrain the crack-tip nodes with a multi-
point constraint:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
67
68
Notes
69
Notes
70
L3.1
Lesson 3: Fracture Analysis
Lesson content:
Fracture Analysis
Workshop Preliminaries
Workshop 1: Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen
Workshop 2: Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3 hours
L3.2
Fracture Analysis
71
L3.3
Calculation of Contour Integrals (1/11)
It typically requires the user to conform the mesh to the cracked geometry, to explicitly define the
crack front, and to specify the virtual crack extension direction.
This is the focus of this lecture.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The method does not require the mesh to match the cracked geometry.
Contour integral evaluation with XFEM is currently limited to first-order or second-order
tetrahedron and first-order brick elements.
The method is discussed in Lecture 9.
L3.4
Calculation of Contour Integrals (2/11)
Abaqus offers the evaluation of J-integral values, as well as several other parameters for fracture
mechanics studies. These include:
The KI, KII, and KIII stress intensity factors, which are used mainly in linear elastic fracture
mechanics to measure the strength of local crack tip fields;
The T-stress in linear elastic calculations;
The crack propagation direction: an angle at which a preexisting crack will propagate; and
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Output can be written to the output database (.odb), data (.dat), and results (.fil) files.
72
L3.5
Calculation of Contour Integrals (3/11)
Domain representation of J
L3.6
Calculation of Contour Integrals (4/11)
Contour 3 Contour 4
73
L3.7
Calculation of Contour Integrals (5/11)
The J-integral and the Ct-integral at steady-state creep should be path (domain) independent.
crack-front nodes
2nd 1st Crack-tip node
contour contour Crack-tip node
L3.8
Calculation of Contour Integrals (6/11)
Usage:
Note: In this lecture, we focus on the output-specific parameters of the *CONTOUR INTEGRAL option. The
crack-specific parameters SYMM and NORMAL were discussed in the previous lecture.
74
L3.9
Calculation of Contour Integrals (7/11)
Usage (cont’d):
L3.10
Calculation of Contour Integrals (8/11)
Usage (cont’d):
Use with TYPE=K FACTORS to specify the criterion to be used for estimating the crack propagation
direction in homogenous, isotropic, linear elastic materials:
75
L3.11
Calculation of Contour Integrals (9/11)
Output files
L3.12
Calculation of Contour Integrals (10/11)
Loads
Thermal loads.
Crack-face pressure and traction loads on continuum elements as well as those applied using
user subroutines DLOAD and UTRACLOAD.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Surface traction and crack-face edge loads on shell elements as well as those applied using user
subroutine UTRACLOAD.
Uniform and nonuniform body forces.
Centrifugal loads on continuum and shell elements.
Not all types of distributed loads (e.g., hydrostatic pressure and gravity loads) are included in the
contour integral calculations.
76
L3.13
Calculation of Contour Integrals (11/11)
I. If needed, modify the mesh to include a small element and apply a distributed load to the
element.
L3.14
Examples (1/28)
Model characteristics
77
L3.15
Examples (2/28)
Axisymmetric or three-dimensional
Axisymmetric model
Crack tip
L3.16
Examples (3/28)
0.08
0.0004
~0.08
78
L3.17
Examples (4/28)
Symmetry planes
Model geometry
L3.18
Examples (5/28)
79
L3.19
Examples (6/28)
Fine 3D mesh
A 90 sector is modeled because of symmetry.
Symmetry planes
Additional partition
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L3.20
Examples (7/28)
Without the additional partition, the region shown below would require irregular elements at the vertex
located on the axis of symmetry.
Irregular elements
required here
because revolving
about a point
A 7-node element is
an example of an
irregular element.
80
L3.21
Examples (8/28)
L3.22
Examples (9/28)
81
L3.23
Examples (10/28)
L3.24
Examples (11/28)
Results
J analytical J numerical
100%
Deformation scale J analytical
factor = 250
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
82
L3.25
Examples (12/28)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical C3D20R CAX8R
Loading
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
.0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
far field
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0356 .0357 .0356 .0358
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0256 .0260 .0256 .0258
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0199 .0206 .0200 .0202
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
L3.26
Examples (13/28)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 CAX8
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0577 .0572 .0578 .0580
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0355 .0352 .0356 .0358
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0255 .0253 .0255 .0258
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0198 .0197 .0199 .0201
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
83
L3.27
Examples (14/28)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20R C3D8R CAX8R CAX4R
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0574 .0580 .0563 .0574 .0581 .0562
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0350 .0357 .0336 .0350 .0358 .0337
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0250 .0260 .0234 .0250 .0258 .0236
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0193 .0206 .0177 .0193 .0202 .0179
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
L3.28
Examples (15/28)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 C3D8 CAX8 CAX4
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
far field .0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0350 .0352 .0329 .0350 .0358 .0333
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0249 .0253 .0229 .0250 .0258 .0232
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0193 .0197 .0172 .0193 .0201 .0175
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
84
L3.29
Examples (16/28)
Conclusions
3D fine meshes with second-order elements are more sensitive to the choice of integration rule when
determining J.
L3.30
Examples (17/28)
At each node set along the crack front, the crack propagation direction is different.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
85
L3.31
Examples (18/28)
Three-dimensional model
L3.32
Examples (19/28)
There is some oscillation between J values evaluated at corner nodes compared to J values
evaluated at midside nodes.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
1.338E-07
1.336E-07 3D contour 5
J-integral
1.334E-07 3D contour 4
1.332E-07 3D contour 3
1.330E-07 3D contour 2
1.328E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
86
L3.33
Examples (20/28)
L3.34
Examples (21/28)
1.380E-07 1.334E-07
1.333E-07
J -integral
J -integral
1.360E-07
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3D 1.332E-07 3D
1.340E-07
AXI 1.331E-07 AXI
1.320E-07 1.330E-07
1.300E-07 1.329E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
1.336E-07 1.338E-07
1.336E-07
J -integral
J -integral
1.334E-07
3D 1.334E-07 3D
1.332E-07
AXI 1.332E-07 AXI
1.330E-07 1.330E-07
1.328E-07 1.328E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
87
L3.35
Examples (22/28)
Since the three-dimensional mesh is quite coarse around the axis of symmetry, these results are
considered to be good—the error is less than 0.5% for all but the first contour.
3.5
3.0 Contour 1
% difference
2.5 Contour 2
2.0
Contour 3
1.5
1.0 Contour 4
0.5 Contour 5
0.0
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
L3.36
Examples (23/28)
Submodeling
88
L3.37
Examples (24/28)
J values of submodel:
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results
Inaccuracies are introduced by the
coarser mesh used in the global model. 4.5
4.0 Contour 1
% difference
3.5
3.0 Contour 2
Errors in J are less than 1%. 2.5
2.0 Contour 3
1.5 Contour 4
1.0
0.5 Contour 5
CPU time was reduced by a factor of 3.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
0.0
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J -integral
3D contour 4 1.330E-07
1.322E-07 3D
3D contour 3 1.325E-07
1.320E-07 AXI
3D contour 2 1.320E-07
1.318E-07 1.315E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
L3.38
Examples (25/28)
This is one of five standardized specimens defined by the ASTM for the characterization of fracture
initiation and crack growth.
The ASTM standardized testing apparatus uses a clevis and a pin to hold the specimen and apply a
controlled displacement.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
89
L3.39
Examples (26/28)
Prescribed load line displacement
Model details
Elastic-plastic material
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L3.40
Examples (27/28)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
90
L3.41
Examples (28/28)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L3.42
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations (1/3)
q
The normal is not used at the crack-tip Normals to bottom
node, however. crack surface nodes
91
L3.43
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations (2/3)
Contour # 1 2 3 4 5
J without normals 3.363 2.980 2.475 1.888 1.283
J with normals 3.600 3.602 3.605 3.605 3.605
L3.44
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations (3/3)
All nodes on the notch should be included in the crack-tip node set.
The J-integral results are more accurate since the q vector is parallel to the crack surface in this
case, as illustrated below.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
q q
92
L3.45
J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
L3.46
Through Cracks in Shells (1/14)
Second-order quadrilateral shell elements must be used if contour integral output is requested.
Sides of S8R elements should not be collapsed. If a focused mesh is used, the crack tip must be
modeled as a keyhole whose radius is small compared to the other dimensions measured in the plane
of the shell.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
93
L3.47
Through Cracks in Shells (2/14)
S8R5 elements can be collapsed and midside nodes moved to the 1/4 points.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L3.48
Through Cracks in Shells (3/14)
Crack half-angle q = p / 4
94
L3.49
Through Cracks in Shells (4/14)
Model details
Edge loads
symmetry
L3.50
Through Cracks in Shells (5/14)
Crack front
q vector
Crack tip
95
L3.51
Through Cracks in Shells (6/14)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
J values—axial loading
L3.52
Through Cracks in Shells (7/14)
In shell element meshes, mechanical loads which act normal to the shell surface and are applied within
the contour integral domain are not taken into account in the calculation of the contour integral.
For example, pressure loads are not considered because they act normal to the shell surface
Conversely, axial edge loads are considered because they act in the shell surface.
Run successive shell models with differing crack lengths and numerically differentiate the
potential energy
96
L3.53
Through Cracks in Shells (8/14)
( PE )
J =
a Constant Load
Potential energy:
PE a Da PE a
= . PE = ALLSE ALLWK
Da
Constant Load
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The PE values should be obtained from two separate analyses, with crack lengths differing by
Da.
The values of PE in the Abaqus data (.dat) file are generally not printed to a sufficient number of
figures to be useful for this calculation and must be read from the results (.fil) file.
L3.54
Through Cracks in Shells (9/14)
If membrane deformation is dominant, the shell can be modeled with a single layer of 20-node
bricks since these solid elements include loading contributions to contour integrals.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
97
L3.55
Through Cracks in Shells (10/14)
To obtain accurate values of J through the shell thickness with solid elements, more than one
element should be used in the thickness direction.
If only one element is used through the thickness, the values can be averaged by thinking of J as
a force per unit length:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
J A 4 J B JC
J shell
= .
6 A
B
C
L3.56
Through Cracks in Shells (11/14)
A shell mesh can easily be converted to a solid one using the ―Offset Mesh‖ tool.
98
L3.57
Through Cracks in Shells (12/14)
J values 100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
A
B
At Node A 2.0965 2.1317 2.1505 2.1557 2.1697 C
L3.58
Through Cracks in Shells (13/14)
Now we revisit the problem in which the pipe is subjected to an axial load.
Comparison of J values using one layer of C3D20R elements through the thickness:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
J values 100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
Analytical 3.7181
99
L3.59
Through Cracks in Shells (14/14)
L3.60
Mixed-Mode Fracture (1/2)
Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL,
TYPE=K FACTORS
100
L3.61
Mixed-Mode Fracture (2/2)
Element
type
22.5º CPE8 0.185 (2.9%)* 0.403 (0.2%)
22.5º CPE8R 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
K0 = p a
= 67.5
= 22.5
L3.62
Material Discontinuities (1/4)
101
L3.63
Material Discontinuities (2/4)
L3.64
Material Discontinuities (3/4)
*NORMAL
LEFT, NORM, 1.0, 0.125, 0.0
RIGHT, NORM, -1.0, -0.125, 0.0
102
L3.65
Material Discontinuities (4/4)
J (N/mm)
Contour
Without normals With normals
1 55681 55681
2 57085 57085
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3 57052 57052
4 57058 57058
5 35188 57116
6 31380 57114
7 27536 57114
8 23512 57113
9 19172 57116
10 14181 57094
The need for the normals on the interface (contours 5–10) is clear.
L3.66
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials (1/2)
The rate of total deformation becomes incompressible (constant volume) as the plastic
deformation starts to dominate the response.
All Abaqus quadrilateral and brick elements suitable for use in J-integral calculations can handle this
rate incompressibility condition except for the ―fully‖ integrated quadrilaterals and brick elements without
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Do not use CPE8, CAX8, C3D20 elements with these materials. They will ―lock‖ (become
overconstrained) as the material becomes more incompressible.
Second-order elements with reduced integration (CPE8R, C3D20R, etc.) work best for stress
concentration problems in general and for crack tips in particular.
If the displaced shape plot shows a regular pattern of deformation, this state is an indication of
mesh locking.
I. Locking can be seen in quilt contour plots of hydrostatic pressure for first-order elements—
the pressure shows a checkerboard pattern.
II. Change to reduced integration elements if you are using fully integrated elements.
III. Increase the mesh density if you already using reduced integration elements.
IV. If these steps do not help, use hybrid elements.
103
L3.67
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials (2/2)
Hybrid elements must be used for fully incompressible materials (such as hyperelasticity, linear elasticity
with n = 0.5).
Results with elastic-plastic materials (and nonlinear materials in general) are more sensitive to meshing
than for small-strain linear elasticity.
The more complex the solution, the more J values tend to be path dependent.
A lack of path dependence can be an indication of a lack of mesh convergence; however, path
independence of J does not prove mesh convergence.
L3.68
Residual Stresses (1/3)
The residual stress field is automatically taken into account when evaluating the contour integral
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
When the residual stresses are significant, the standard definition of the contour integral may lead to a
path-dependent value.
An additional term due to the residual stress field is included when evaluating the contour integral value
to ensure its path independence:
u 0
j ij
J = (W )n ds dA
ij ij x i ij X
i A i
104
L3.69
Residual Stresses (2/3)
Usage
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL,
RESIDUAL STRESS, STEP=n
L3.70
Residual Stresses (3/3)
105
L3.71
Workshop Preliminaries (1/2)
1. Objectives
a. When you complete this exercise you will be able to extract all the files necessary to complete the
demonstrations and workshops associated with this course
5 minutes
L3.72
Workshop Preliminaries (2/2)
b. Extract all the workshop files from the course tar file by typing
c. The script will install the files into the current working directory. You will be asked to verify this and to
choose which files you wish to install. Choose y for the appropriate lecture series when prompted. Once
you have selected the lecture series, type q to skip the remaining lectures and to proceed with the
installation of the chosen workshops.
5 minutes
106
L3.73
Workshop 1: Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen
1. An edge crack in a three-point bend specimen in plane strain, subjected to Mode I loading, is considered.
2. You will perform a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip using a series of different mesh
configurations:
a. Focus vs. unfocused mesh
b. Quarter-point vs. mid-side nodes
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
60 minutes
L3.74
Workshop 2: Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
60 minutes
107
108
Notes
109
Notes
110
L4.1
Lesson 4: Material Failure and Wear
Lesson content:
Material Failure and Wear
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
2 hours
L4.2
Material Failure and Wear
5. Damage in Fiber-Reinforced
Composite Materials
6. Failure in Fasteners
7. Material Wear and Ablation
111
L4.3
Progressive Damage and Failure (1/3)
Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage and failure in engineering structures
Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that results from progressive
degradation of the material stiffness.
Stiffness degradation is modeled using damage mechanics.
Ductile materials
Fiber-reinforced composites
Interface materials
L4.4
Progressive Damage and Failure (2/3)
112
L4.5
Progressive Damage and Failure (3/3)
B
Keywords
*MATERIAL
Typical material response showing progressive
*ELASTIC damage
Multiple damage definitions are allowed
*PLASTIC
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=criterion
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION=YES
L4.6
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (1/12)
criterion
Useful for evaluating the severity of
current deformation state
Output
DMICRT
Ductile Shear
113
L4.7
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (2/12)
Ductile criterion:
Pressure stress
Stress triaxiality h = - p / q
Mises stress
L4.8
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (3/12)
Usage:
Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of
I. Stress triaxiality
II. Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=DUCTILE
pl , h , pl , T , fi
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Output:
DUCTCRT (wD) The criterion for
damage initiation is
met when wD = 1.
114
L4.9
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (4/12)
Shear criterion:
L4.10
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (5/12)
Usage:
Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of
I. Shear stress ratio
II. Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=ks
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
pl , q s , pl , T , fi
Output:
SHRCRT (wS) The criterion for
damage initiation is
met when wS = 1.
115
L4.11
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (6/12)
L4.12
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (7/12)
Model details
Steel base:
I. C3D8R elements
II. Enhanced hourglass control Rigid plate
III. Elastic-plastic material with initial
downward
velocity
Aluminum chamber:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
General contact
116
L4.13
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (8/12)
3
7.00E+04, 0.33
2
*PLASTIC,HARDENING=ISOTROPIC,RATE=0
: 1
L4.14
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (9/12)
0.4
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001 0.3
: 0.2 strain rate=0.001/s
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3 0.1 strain rate=250/s
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001 0
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250 Strain rate, pl
0.3025, 1.463, 250 Shear stress ratio, q s
0.3323, 1.501, 250
:
Equivalent fracture strain at damage
initiation,
pl
117
L4.15
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (10/12)
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001
2.8377, 0.133, 0.001
:
4.4098, 0.000, 250
2.5717, 0.067, 250
1.5018, 0.133, 250
:
L4.16
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (11/12)
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001
0.2530, 1.501, 0.001
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250
0.3025, 1.463, 250
0.3323, 1.501, 250
:
118
L4.17
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (12/12)
Shear
Ductile
Quasi-static response
daño
Damage evolution defines the post damage-initiation material behavior.
That is, it describes the rate of degradation of the material stiffness once the initiation criterion is
satisfied.
The overall damage variable d captures the combined effect of all active damage mechanisms.
When damage variable d = 1, material point has completely failed.
In other words, fracture occurs when d = 1.
119
L4.19
Damage Evolution (2/10)
Elastic-plastic materials
Softening of the yield stress
Degradation of the elasticity (d = 0)
y0
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
0pl fpl
Schematic representation of elastic-plastic
material with progressive damage.
L4.20
Damage Evolution (3/10)
The fracture energy to open a unit area of crack, Gf , is assumed to be a material property.
The damage evolution law can be specified either in terms of fracture energy (per unit area) or in terms of the
equivalent plastic displacement.
Both approaches take into account the characteristic length of the element.
The formulation ensures that mesh-sensitivity is minimized.
120
L4.21
Damage Evolution (4/10)
d d d
1 1 1
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
0 0 0
u pl u fpl u pl u fpl u pl
(a) Tabular (b) Linear (c) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=DISPLACEMENT,
SOFTENING={TABULAR,LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
L4.22
Damage Evolution (5/10)
pl
Procedure for generating d vs u table from tensile
test data Undamaged
response
pl
1. Plot true stress, vs. total displacement u d = 0; u =0
measured over the gauge length L
2. For stress values in the softening branch (i.e. y0 u
pl
f
- d
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
121
L4.23
Damage Evolution (6/10)
y y
2G f
y0 u fpl = y0 NOTE: The response is linear or
y0 exponential only if the
Gf Gf undamaged response is perfectly
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
plastic
u fpl u pl u pl
(a) Linear (b) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING={LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
L4.24
Damage Evolution (7/10)
122
L4.25
Damage Evolution (8/10)
Comparison of reaction forces and moments confirms mesh insensitivity of the results.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L4.26
Damage Evolution (9/10)
*Material, name=Aluminum
:
*Damage initiation, criterion=Ductile
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,
*Damage initiation, criterion=Shear, ks=0.3
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,
123
L4.27
Damage Evolution (10/10)
With damage evolution, the simulation response is a good approximation of the physical response.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L4.28
Element Removal (1/5)
124
L4.29
Element Removal (2/5)
The material point is assumed to fail when the overall damage variable D reaches the critical value
Dmax.
You can specify the value for the maximum degradation Dmax.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The default value of Dmax is 1 if the element is to be removed from the mesh upon failure.
L4.30
Element Removal (3/5)
Usage:
125
L4.31
Element Removal (4/5)
original stiffness.
Failed elements that have not been removed from the mesh
can sustain hydrostatic compressive stresses.
L4.32
Element Removal (5/5)
Output
failed
elements
126
L4.33
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (1/8)
Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage and failure in fiber-reinforced composites.
Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that results from progressive
degradation of the material stiffness.
Elements with a plane stress formulation (plane stress, shell, continuum shell, and membrane elements)
must be used for modeling.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L4.34
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (2/8)
127
L4.35
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (3/8)
Damage Evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,
TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING=LINEAR
Gft,Gfc ,Gmt,Gmc
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Viscous Regularization
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
ηft, ηfc, ηmt, ηmc
L4.36
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (4/8)
Output
Damage Variables
DAMAGEFT – tensile fiber damage
DAMAGEFC – compressive fiber damage
DAMAGEMT – tensile matrix damage
DAMAGEMC – compressive matrix damage
Status
STATUS – element status (1 – present, 0 – removed)
Energies
Damage energy (ALLDMD,DMENER,ELDMD,EDMDDEN)
Viscous regularization (ALLCD, CENER, ELCD, ECDDEN)
128
L4.37
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (5/8)
L4.38
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (6/8)
129
L4.39
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (7/8)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L4.40
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (8/8)
130
L4.41
Damage in Fasteners (1/3)
multiple layers
attachment
points
radius of influence
L4.42
Damage in Fasteners (2/3)
Fastener failure
Stages
Rigid plasticity with Spot weld
variable hardening
F Plasticity + Damage
Damage initiation
0
Progressive damage evolution using
fracture energy 45
90
damage
initiation
Plasticity boundary
131
L4.43
Damage in Fasteners (3/3)
Example
Spot-welded hat section of three layers of sheet metals subjected to severe compressive loading
holding
Failed fasteners
L4.44
Material Wear and Ablation (1/12)
132
L4.45
Material Wear and Ablation (2/12)
Applications
Geotechnical
Well bore sand production
I. Plastic strain, fluid velocity
Aerospace
Rocket motor ablation
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Automotive
Tire wear
Disk brake wear
Manufacturing
Machining
L4.46
Material Wear and Ablation (3/12)
User interface
Wear criterion
Nodal
Material
Contact
133
L4.47
Material Wear and Ablation (4/12)
Tire wear
h =E
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L4.48
Material Wear and Ablation (5/12)
Courtesy of Exxon
134
L4.49
Material Wear and Ablation (6/12)
Analysis steps
Geostatic
Model change removal of well bore and casing (drilling operation)
Apply pore pressure; establish steady state conditions
Transient soils consolidation (during which the erosion occurs)
Ablation relation:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
V = 10 × (PEEQ - 0.028)
Erosion
velocity
L4.50
Material Wear and Ablation (7/12)
Adaptive-Zone Rock-Perf
135
L4.51
Material Wear and Ablation (8/12)
User subroutine
subroutine umeshmotion(uref,ulocal,node,nndof,lnodetype,alocal,
$ ndim,time,dtime,pnewdt,kstep,kinc,kmeshsweep,jmatyp,jgvblock,lsmooth)
c
include 'aba_param.inc'
c
parameter (zero=0.d0, ten=10.d0, peeqCrit=0.028d0)
parameter (nelemmax=100)
dimension array(1000)
dimension ulocal(*), time(2)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
dimension jgvblock(*),jmatyp(*)
dimension alocal(ndim,*)
dimension jelemlist(nelemmax),jelemtype(nelemmax)
locnum = 0
jtyp = 1
peeq = zero
nelems = nelemmax
call getNodeToElemConn(node,nelems,jelemlist,
$ jelemtype,jrcd,jgvblock)
call getVrmAvgAtNode(node, jtyp, 'PE', array, jrcd,
$ jelemlist, nelems, jmatyp, jgvblock)
peeq = array(7)
L4.52
Material Wear and Ablation (9/12)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
136
L4.53
Material Wear and Ablation (10/12)
Mesh smoothing
Two options
Volume-based smoothing
Original-configuration
smoothing
Either method can include a
geometric-based enhancement
Volumetric
smoothing
L4.54
Material Wear and Ablation (11/12)
Enables UMESHMOTION to describe normal mesh motions, while the smoothing algorithm handles
the tangential mesh motions.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
137
L4.55
Material Wear and Ablation (12/12)
Limitations
Static
Soils
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Coupled Temperature-Displacement
138
Notes
139
Notes
140
L5.1
Lesson 5: Element-based Cohesive Behavior
Lesson content:
Element-based Cohesive Behavior
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 1)
Workshop 4: Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3 hours
L5.2
Element-based Cohesive Behavior
1. Introduction
2. Element Technology
3. Constitutive Response
4. Viscous Regularization
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
5. Modeling Techniques
6. Examples
141
L5.3
Overview
Historical perspective
The concept of a cohesive zone has been around for some time:
Dugdale (1960) and Barenblatt (1962) were the first to apply the concept of a cohesive stress
zone to fracture modeling.
I. For example, Needleman (1987) recognized that cohesive elements are particularly
attractive when interface strengths are relatively weak compared to the adjoining materials.
L5.4
Introduction (1/6)
Element-based
Modeled with cohesive elements
Surface-based
Modeled with contact pairs in
Abaqus/Standard and
general contact in Abaqus/Explicit
142
L5.5
Introduction (2/6)
Adhesive joints
I. Adhesive layer with finite thickness
II. Typically the bulk material properties are known
Delamination
I. Adhesive layer of “zero” thickness
II. Typically the bulk material properties are not known
L5.6
Introduction (3/6)
143
L5.7
Introduction (4/6)
In addition, the uniaxial response of a laterally unconstrained adhesive patch can also be modeled
I. The complexity of the response in the thickness direction is not as rich as with gasket
elements available in Abaqus/Standard.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. are fully nonlinear (can be used with finite strains and rotations);
II. can have mass in a dynamic analysis; and
III. are available in both Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit.
The use of cohesive elements for modeling gaskets is not discussed further in this lecture.
L5.8
Introduction (5/6)
This is a simplified and easy way to model cohesive connections, using the traction-separation interface
behavior.
It offers capabilities that are very similar to cohesive elements modeled with the traction-
separation constitutive response.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
144
L5.9
Introduction (6/6)
A workshop exercise will allow you to compare and contrast the two cohesive modeling techniques in the
context of a simple problem.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L5.10
Element Technology (1/3)
Element types*
Top face
3D elements
COH3D8
COH3D6
2D element
Bottom face
COH2D4
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Axisymmetric element
COHAX4
145
L5.11
Element Technology (2/3)
L5.12
Element Technology (3/3)
Output variables
Scalar damage (i.e., degradation) variable
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
SDEG
Variables indicating whether damage initiation criteria met or exceeded
Discussed shortly
Element status flag
STATUS
146
L5.13
Constitutive Response (1/22)
Delamination applications T
Traction separation law N
GT C
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. Traction or separation-based 6
Shear mode
criterion 5
Damage evolution Normal mode
4
GTC
Removal of elements
3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mode Mix
L5.14
Constitutive Response (2/22)
147
L5.15
Constitutive Response (3/22)
Displacement at damage
initiation in normal (opening)
mode
L5.16
Constitutive Response (4/22)
n = n / heff K n = En / heff
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Two options:
For model A: use geometric thickness Geometric thickness (based on
nodal coordinates) of the
heff = hgeom =1e-3; En = Kn heff → En = 6.9e9 adhesive hgeom = 1e-3
For model B: specify thickness (e.g., unit thickness)
heff = 1; En = Kn heff = Kn →En = 6.9e12
148
L5.17
Constitutive Response (5/22)
En=Knheff
L5.18
Constitutive Response (6/22)
Damage initiation
Mixed mode conditions
Maximum stress (or strain)
criterion:
MAX n , t , s = 1
N max Tmax Smax
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
for n 0
n = n
0 for n 0
Output:
I. MAXSCRT
II. MAXECRT
149
L5.19
Constitutive Response (7/22)
For example, for Mode I (opening mode) the MAXS condition implies damage initiates when n = Nmax.
N
Damage initiation point
N max
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*Damage initiation,criterion=MAXS
290.0E6, 200.0E6, 200.0E6
n
Nmax Tmax Smax
L5.20
Constitutive Response (8/22)
2 2 2
n t s
=1
N max Tmax Smax
I. No damage initiation
under pure compression
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Output:
I. QUADSCRT
II. QUADECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION = { QUADS, QUADE }
150
L5.21
Constitutive Response (9/22)
L5.22
Constitutive Response (10/22)
Damage evolution
Post damage-initiation
response defined by:
= 1 - d
- d
d is the scalar damage
variable (1 - d )
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
d = 0: undamaged
d = 1: fully damaged K0
d monotonically increases (1 - d ) Κ0
K0
Typical damaged response
151
L5.23
Constitutive Response (11/22)
N max
Specify either the total fracture energy
or the post damage-initiation effective Area under the curve is the
displacement at failure fracture energy
n
Displacement at failure n
fail
L5.24
Constitutive Response (12/22)
= n s2 t2
2
Linear post-initiation
response
The post damage-initiation softening response
can be either
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Linear
Exponential
Tabular
init fail
152
L5.25
Constitutive Response (13/22)
Specify the effective displacement at complete failure fail relative to the effective displacement at
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
initiation init.
Optionally specify the effective displacement as function of mode mix in tabular form.
L5.26
Constitutive Response (14/22)
153
L5.27
Constitutive Response (15/22)
The fracture energy can be defined as a function of mode mix using either a tabular form or one of two
analytical forms:
Power law
GI GII GIII
=1
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
BK (Benzeggagh-Kenane)
G
GIC GIIC - GIC shear = GTC
T
G
where Gshear = GII GIII
GT = GI Gshear
For isotropic failure (GIC = GIIC), the response is insensitive to the value of .
L5.28
Constitutive Response (16/22)
Specify the fracture energy in pure normal and shear deformation modes and choose either the POWER
LAW or the BK mixed mode behavior
154
L5.29
Constitutive Response (17/22)
L5.30
Constitutive Response (18/22)
Example
The preceding discussion was very general in Normal (opening) mode:
the sense that the full range of options for
modeling the constitutive response of cohesive Cohesive material law:
elements was presented. N max Traction, Damage Evolution
(nominal stress)
155
L5.31
Constitutive Response (19/22)
Example (cont’d)
L5.32
Constitutive Response (20/22)
Example (cont’d)
2 GTC 2 GTC
K eff = Tult =
ratio 2fail fail
The problem now reduces to two penalty terms: fail and ratio.
Assume ratio = ½.
Choose fail as a fraction of the typical cohesive element mesh size.
I. For example, use fail = 0.050 typical cohesive element size as a starting point.
156
L5.33
Constitutive Response (21/22)
Example (cont’d)
Thus, after choosing the two penalty terms, a single (effective) traction-separation law applies to all
modes (normal + shear):
Effective properties:
*Cohesive section, thickness=SPECIFIED, ...
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L5.34
Constitutive Response (22/22)
Example (cont’d)
The density of the cohesive layer should also be considered a penalty quantity.
For Abaqus/Explicit, the effective density should be chosen so that it does not adversely affect
the stable time increment.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. The Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual provides guidelines for determining a cohesive
element density.
II. One option is to use mass scaling. Another is to adjust the cohesive properties control the
ratio of the stable time increment of the cohesive elements to that for the other elements.
157
L5.35
Viscous Regularization (1/7)
Cohesive elements have the potential to cause numerical difficulties in the following cases
Stiff cohesive behavior may lead to reduced maximum stable time increment in Abaqus/Explicit
Potentially addressed through built-in viscous regularization option specific to cohesive elements
L5.36
Viscous Regularization (2/7)
Viscous regularization
Material models with damage often lead to severe convergence difficulties in Abaqus/Standard
Viscous regularization helps in such cases
Helps make the consistent tangent stiffness of softening material positive for sufficiently small
time increments
Similar approach used in the concrete damaged plasticity model in Abaqus/Standard
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
= (1 - dv )
1
dv = (d - dv )
158
L5.37
Viscous Regularization (3/7)
d
D = (1 - d ) K 0 - f
t
Viscous regularization ensures that when
, 0 D = (1 - d ) K 0
“Offending” second term is eliminated when the analysis cuts back drastically
L5.38
Viscous Regularization (4/7)
*COHESIVE SECTION
*TRANSVERSE SHEAR STIFFNESS
Output
Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD
159
L5.39
Viscous Regularization (5/7)
Plies are initially bonded with predefined cracks, then peeled apart in a complex sequence
12 layers 2 layers
Initial cracks Interface elements
10 layers
a1 a2 a2
L5.40
Viscous Regularization (6/7)
= 5.e - 4
= 1.e - 3
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
=0
= 1.e - 4 = 2.5e - 4
160
L5.41
Viscous Regularization (7/7)
0. 375
1.0e-4 171
2.5e-4 153
1.0e-3 164
L5.42
Modeling Techniques (1/30)
Pure Mode I
Displacement control
Analyzed using 2D (CPE4I) elements
Delamination assumed to occur along a straight line
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
-u
Initial crack Cohesive layer
(set: coh_elems)
161
L5.43
Modeling Techniques (2/30)
One-dimensional model
Use tie constraints between the cohesive layer and the beams
Require distinct parts for the beam and cohesive zone geometry
Geometry
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L5.44
Modeling Techniques (3/30)
162
L5.45
Modeling Techniques (4/30)
coh-top
beam-top
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
beam-bot
coh-bot
L5.46
Modeling Techniques (5/30)
163
L5.47
Modeling Techniques (6/30)
L5.48
Modeling Techniques (7/30)
164
L5.49
Modeling Techniques (8/30)
Final mesh
L5.50
Modeling Techniques (9/30)
Two-dimensional model
All geometry is 2D and planar
Properties, attributes, etc. treated in a similar
manner to the 1D case presented earlier
Modeling options include:
Shared nodes
Tie constraints
I. Similar to the 1D model
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
165
L5.51
Modeling Techniques (10/30)
L5.52
Modeling Techniques (11/30)
166
L5.53
Modeling Techniques (12/30)
2 Create a finite thickness cohesive layer, position it appropriately in the horizontal direction, define
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
surfaces, etc.
I. After meshing, adjust the coordinates of all the nodes in the cohesive layer so that they lie
along the interface between the two beams.
L5.54
Modeling Techniques (13/30)
Three-dimensional model
All geometry is 3D
Shared nodes
Tie constraints
167
L5.55
Modeling Techniques (14/30)
L5.56
Modeling Techniques (15/30)
168
L5.57
Modeling Techniques (16/30)
L5.58
Modeling Techniques (17/30)
169
L5.59
Modeling Techniques (18/30)
L5.60
Modeling Techniques (19/30)
170
L5.61
Modeling Techniques (20/30)
Surface top-coh
Surface top-beam
L5.62
Modeling Techniques (21/30)
1.0, 0.02
:
*material, name=cohesive
*elastic, type=traction
5.7e+14, 5.7e+14, 5.7e+14
*damage initiation, criterion=quads
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*damage evolution, type=energy, mixed mode behavior=bk, power=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0
171
L5.63
Modeling Techniques (22/30)
The stack direction defines the thickness direction based on the element isoparametric
directions.
I. Set STACK DIRECTION = { 1 | 2 | 3 } to define the element thickness direction along an
isoparametric direction.
II. 2D example (extends to 3D):
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
2 1
201 202 201 202
1 2
Thickness
101 102 direction 101 102
Element connectivity: 101, 102, 202, 201 Element connectivity: 102, 202, 201, 101
L5.64
Modeling Techniques (23/30)
Setting adjust=yes will force Abaqus to move The position tolerance should be large enough to
the slave (cohesive element) nodes onto the contain the slave nodes when measured from the
master surface. By adjusting both the top and master surface. In this case the overclosure is
bottom cohesive surfaces in this way, a zero- equal to 0.0015 on either side of the interface so
thickness cohesive layer is produced. a position tolerance of 0.002 is sufficient to
capture all slave nodes.
0.0015
172
L5.65
Modeling Techniques (24/30)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L5.66
Modeling Techniques (25/30)
1.e-5 636
2.5e-5 163
5.0e-5 129
1.0e-4 90
173
L5.67
Modeling Techniques (26/30)
L5.68
Modeling Techniques (27/30)
Non-planar geometry
The technique for embedding a layer of solid elements into an orphan mesh is not restricted to planar
geometry.
matrix
Orphan mesh
fiber
174
L5.69
Modeling Techniques (28/30)
L5.70
Modeling Techniques (29/30)
1
2 the cohesive stiffness that would be
used in a full model.
n
ninit nfail
½ the fracture toughness that would be
used in a full model. 2 2
175
L5.71
Modeling Techniques (30/30)
Symmetry example
Symmetric model (top)
overlaid on full model
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Constraint on lateral
displacements
Symmetric model
Full model
L5.72
Examples (1/7)
176
L5.73
Examples (2/7)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L5.74
Examples (3/7)
177
L5.75
Examples (4/7)
L5.76
Examples (5/7)
Cohesive layers
178
L5.77
Examples (6/7)
Hydroplaning
Machining
Oil Drilling
Excavation
Effect of explosion on a building.
L5.78
Examples (7/7)
Deformation sequence
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
179
L5.79
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using element-based cohesive
behavior
a. Generate cohesive element mesh
b. Define/assign traction-separation behavior and damage properties
Layer of
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
cohesive
elements
L5.80
Workshop 4: Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements
Cohesive element
thickness shrunk to zero
180
Notes
181
Notes
182
L6.1
Lesson 6: Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Lesson content:
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 2)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
90 minutes
L6.2
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
183
L6.3
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (1/24)
Surface-based cohesive behavior provides a simplified way to model cohesive connections with negligibly
small interface thicknesses using the traction-separation constitutive model.
It can also model “sticky” contact (surfaces can bond after coming into contact).
The cohesive surface behavior can be defined for general contact in Abaqus/Explicit and contact pairs in
Abaqus/Standard (with the exception of the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation).
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L6.4
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (2/24)
User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
Abaqus/Explicit
184
L6.5
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (3/24)
Traction and separation are interpreted differently for cohesive elements and cohesive surfaces:
L6.6
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (4/24)
Relates normal and shear stresses to the normal and shear separations across the interface before the
initiation of damage.
185
L6.7
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (5/24)
The slave nodes to which cohesive behavior is applied can be controlled to define a wider range of
cohesive interactions: Can include:
Cohesive constraint forces potentially act on all nodes of the slave surface.
Slave nodes that are not initially contacting the master surface can also experience cohesive
forces if they contact the master surface during the analysis.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = CURRENT CONTACTS
L6.8
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (6/24)
Restrict cohesive behavior to only those slave nodes that are in contact with the master surface
at the start of a step.
Any new contact that occurs during the step will not experience cohesive constraint forces.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = ORIGINAL CONTACTS
186
L6.9
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (7/24)
3 Applying cohesive behavior only to an initially bonded node set (Abaqus/Standard only)
Restrict cohesive behavior to a subset of slave nodes defined using *INITIAL CONDITIONS,
TYPE=CONTACT.
All slave nodes outside of this set will experience only compressive contact forces during the
analysis.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. This method is particularly useful for modeling crack propagation along an existing fault line.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = SPECIFIED CONTACTS
L6.10
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (8/24)
Analyze debonding of the DCB model using the surface-based cohesive behavior in Abaqus/Standard.
3
III. the damage initiation criterion; and
4
IV. the damage evolution.
You may also
5
I. specify viscous regularization to facilitate solution convergence in Abaqus/Standard.
-u
Initial crack Cohesive interface
187
L6.11
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (9/24)
L6.12
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (10/24)
...
bond
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
BotSurf
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 Optional
Kn Ks Kt
188
L6.13
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (11/24)
nf , sf , and t f :
separations at failure
L6.14
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (12/24)
User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit
189
L6.15
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (13/24)
L6.16
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (14/24)
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
bond *SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
TopSurf
BotSurf *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
190
L6.17
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (15/24)
Damage evolution
For surface-based cohesive behavior, damage evolution describes the degradation of the cohesive
stiffness.
In contrast, for cohesive elements damage evolution describes the degradation of the material
stiffness.
Damage evolution can be based on energy or separation (same as for cohesive elements).
Specify either the total fracture energy (a property of the cohesive interaction) or the post
damage-initiation effective separation at failure.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
tnmax tsmax , ttmax
GTC
nmax smax , tmax
nf sf , t f
L6.18
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (16/24)
Linear
Exponential
nmax smax , tmax
nf sf , t f
Tabular
191
L6.19
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (17/24)
L6.20
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (18/24)
As with cohesive elements, the energy-based damage evolution criterion can be defined as a function of
mode mix using either a tabular form or one of two analytical forms:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
G
GI GII GIII GIC GIIC - GIC shear GTC
1 T
G
GIC GIIC GIIIC
where Gshear GII GIII
GT GI Gshear
192
L6.21
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (19/24)
L6.22
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (20/24)
...
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
193
L6.23
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (21/24)
Viscous regularization
Output:
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
L6.24
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (22/24)
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
viscosity coefficient,
194
L6.25
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (23/24)
L6.26
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (24/24)
Results
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive elements
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive surfaces
u2
195
L6.27
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (1/6)
Preprocessing:
Cohesive elements
Gives you direct control over the cohesive element mesh density and stiffness properties.
Cohesive surfaces
Integration points on an
Are easily defined using contact interactions and 8-node cohesive element
cohesive interaction properties.
I. Refining the slave surface relative to the master surface will likely lead to improved
constraint satisfaction and more accurate results.
L6.28
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (2/6)
Initial configuration:
Cohesive elements
Cohesive surfaces
You can control whether debonded surfaces will stick or not stick if contact occurs again.
196
L6.29
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (3/6)
Constitutive behavior:
Cohesive elements
Cohesive surfaces
I. Intended for bonded interfaces where the interface thickness is negligibly small.
II. Only one failure mechanism is allowed.
L6.30
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (4/6)
Le
Influence on stable time increment (Abaqus/Explicit only): t
cd
Cohesive elements
I. Consequently, they often have a stable time increment that is significantly less than that of the
other elements in the model.
Cohesive surfaces
Cohesive surface behavior with the default cohesive stiffness properties is formulated to minimally
affect the stable time increment.
Abaqus uses default contact penalties to model the cohesive stiffness behavior in this case.
197
L6.31
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (5/6)
Mass:
Cohesive elements
Cohesive surfaces
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Indented for thin adhesive interfaces; thus, neglecting adhesive mass is appropriate for most
applications.
L6.32
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (6/6)
Summary:
Cohesive elements
Additional preprocessing effort (and often increased computational cost) is compensated for by
gaining:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Cohesive surfaces
198
L6.33
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using surface-based cohesive
behavior
a. Repeat the element-based exercise using surface-based behavior
b. Use default traction-separation elastic properties
c. Compare with element-based results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
199
200
Notes
201
Notes
202
L7.1
Lesson 7: Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
Lesson content:
Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
Workshop 5: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
2 hours
L7.2
Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
1. Introduction
2. VCCT Criterion
3. LEFM Example using
Abaqus/Standard
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
203
L7.3
Introduction (1/2)
L7.4
Introduction (2/2)
Based
Basado en el onlascomputing
cálculo de the energy
tasas de liberación de energíarelease
para los Pure Mode I
modos de deformación de punta de grieta normal y cortante.
rates for normal and shear crack-tip Modified VCCT
deformation modes.
204
L7.5
VCCT Criterion (1/4)
The debond capability is used to perform the crack propagation analysis for initially bonded crack
surfaces.
The crack propagation analysis allows for five types of fracture criteria:
4 VCCT criterion
The details of cases 1, 2, and 3 are not discussed here. Please consult the Abaqus Analysis
User’s Manual for more details.
L7.6
VCCT Criterion (2/4)
205
L7.7
VCCT Criterion (3/4)
VCCT is supported in both products. The user interface is different between the two, however.
The key difference is that Abaqus/Standard requires the use of contact pairs while Abaqus/Explicit the
use of general contact.
Abaqus/Standard Abaqus/Explicit
L7.8
VCCT Criterion (4/4)
However, a VCCT plug-in is available and allows you to interactively define the debond interface(s).
The details of the VCCT plug-in will be discussed later in this lecture.
206
L7.9
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (1/16)
Define slave (TopSurf) and master (BotSurf) surfaces along the debond interface.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Define a set (bond) containing the initially bonded region (part of TopSurf in this example).
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.10
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (2/16)
Potential crack surfaces are modeled as slave and master contact surfaces.
Any contact formulation except the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation can be used.
Cannot be used with self-contact.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
207
L7.11
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (3/16)
The initially bonded contact pair is identified with the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT option.
1, 121, 1
*SURFACE, NAME=TopSurf
bond _TopBeam_S1, S1
*SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf TopSurf, BotSurf
BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
L7.12
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (4/16)
The unbonded portion of the slave surface will behave as a regular contact surface.
If the node set that includes the initially bonded slave nodes is not specified, the initial contact condition
will apply to the entire contact pair.
In this case, no crack tips can be identified, and the bonded surfaces cannot separate.
For the VCCT criterion, the initially bonded nodes are bonded in all directions.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
208
L7.13
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (5/16)
L7.14
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (6/16)
Aside: Stability
By default, the traction between the two surfaces at the crack tip is released immediately during
the increment following debonding.
Can optionally have the traction released gradually during succeeding increments after
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Usage:
209
L7.15
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (7/16)
BK law: _BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
GII GIII
GequivC GIC GIIC GIC TopSurf, BotSurf
GI GII GIII *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
TopSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
BotSurf MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
L7.16
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (8/16)
Crack propagation analysis is carried out on a nodal basis. The crack-tip node debonds when the
fracture criterion f
Gequiv
f ,
GequivC
1 ≤ f ≤ 1 ftol
where
210
L7.17
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (9/16)
For an unstable crack growth problem it is more efficient to allow multiple nodes at and ahead of
a crack tip to debond in one increment without cutting back the increment size.
Usage:
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*DEBOND
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, UNSTABLE GROWTH TOLERANCE = fUtol
If 1 ftol ≤ f ≤ 1 fUtol a corresponding crack front node will be released. New attempts will be
made with the same time increment instead of cutting back the time increment.
This process is repeated until f < 1 for all nodes ahead of the crack front.
The number of attempts made within an increment is specified using time incrementation
controls.
L7.18
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (10/16)
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
TopSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
BotSurf MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
211
L7.19
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (11/16)
In addition to the BK law model, Abaqus/Standard also provides two other commonly used mode-mix
criteria for computing GequivC: the Power law and the Reeder law models.
An appropriate model is best selected empirically.
Power law
am an ao
Gequiv G G G
I II III
GequivC GIC GIIC GIIIC
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
GIII GII GIII
GequivC GIC GIIC GIC GIIIC GIIC
GII GIII Gi
L7.20
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (12/16)
The VCCT criterion can be defined with varying energy release rates by specifying the critical energy
release rates at all nodes on the slave surface.
In this case, the critical energy release rates should be interpolated from the critical energy
release rates specified at the nodes with the *NODAL ENERGY RATE option.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
However, the exponents (e.g., ) are still read from the data lines under the *FRACTURE
CRITERION option.
212
L7.21
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (13/16)
L7.22
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (14/16)
In addition, contact and automatic stabilization that are not specific to VCCT can be also used to aid
convergence.
They are built into Abaqus/Standard and are compatible with VCCT.
Note that the crack propagation behavior may be modified by the damping forces.
Therefore, monitor the damping energy (ALLVD or ALLSD) and compare it with the total strain
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
energy in the model (ALLSE) to ensure that the results are reasonable in the presence of
damping.
II. ALLSD stores the damping energy generated from contact stabilization and automatic
stabilization.
213
L7.23
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (15/16)
Abaqus provides a linear scaling technique to quickly converge to the critical load state. This reduces
the solution time required to reach the onset of crack growth.
This technique works best for models in which the deformation is nearly linear before the onset of
crack growth.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Once the first crack-tip node releases, the linear scaling calculations will no longer be valid and the time
increment will be set to the default value.
Usage:
*CONTROLS, LINEAR SCALING
where is the coefficient of linear scaling.
For details of linear scaling to accelerate convergence for VCCT, see “Crack propagation analysis,”
Section 11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual.
L7.24
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (16/16)
Crack propagation problems using the VCCT criterion are numerically challenging.
To help you create a successful model, several tips for using the VCCT criterion are provided:
The tie MPCs should NOT be used for the slave debonding surface to avoid overconstraints.
A small clearance between the debonding surfaces can be specified to eliminate unnecessary
severe discontinuity iterations during incrementation as the crack begins to progress.
Note: More tips are provided in “Crack propagation analysis,” Section 11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis
User’s Manual.
214
L7.25
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (1/7)
For the sake of comparison, the DCB problem will be solved using Abaqus/Explicit.
Illustrates the keyword interface for Abaqus/Explicit; the Abaqus/CAE interface is illustrated in a
workshop.
Because the VCCT criterion must be defined in the context of a general contact interaction, a 3D model
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
is required
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.26
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (2/7)
search nset=bond
*Step
*Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
bond TopSurf, BotSurf
*Contact Formulation,
type=PURE MASTER-SLAVE
TopSurf, BotSurf, SLAVE
*Contact Property Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, coh
*Contact Clearance Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, clear
TopSurf
BotSurf
215
L7.27
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (3/7)
L7.28
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (4/7)
search nset=bond
Power
*Step
Reeder *Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
bond TopSurf, BotSurf
*Contact Formulation,
type=PURE MASTER-SLAVE
TopSurf, BotSurf, SLAVE
*Contact Property Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, coh
*Contact Clearance Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, clear
TopSurf
BotSurf
216
L7.29
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (5/7)
search nset=bond
*Step
*Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
bond TopSurf, BotSurf
*Contact Formulation,
type=PURE MASTER-SLAVE
TopSurf, BotSurf, SLAVE
*Contact Property Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, coh
*Contact Clearance Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, clear
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.30
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (6/7)
General observations
Quasi-static response
Dynamic effects are of utmost relevance when assessing the results from a debonding analysis
using the VCCT criterion.
You must ensure that the Abaqus/Explicit analysis generates low ratios of kinetic energy to
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Dynamic overshoot
The bond breakage at a given location is associated with a dynamic overshoot beyond the static
equilibrium position.
If the vibrations are significant (kinetic energy is clearly observable), the dynamic overshoot at
nodes behind the crack tip may lead to premature debonding of the crack tip.
217
L7.31
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (7/7)
Meshing
To maximize the accuracy of the debonding simulation, use quad meshes between the slave and
master surfaces of the debonding surfaces.
Avoid using elements with aspect ratios greater than 2.
In most cases mesh refinement will help with obtaining a realistic result.
Material data
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Highly mismatched critical energy values between modes tend to induce crack propagation in
continuously changing directions in a manner that may be unstable and unrealistic, particularly for
modes II and III.
Do not use such values unless experimental data suggest so.
Constraints
Avoid the use of other constraints involving nodes on both surfaces of the debonding interface
because the cohesive contact forces will compete with the constraint forces to achieve global
equilibrium.
Bond breakage might be hard to interpret in these cases.
L7.32
Output (1/4)
218
L7.33
Output (2/4)
The initial contact status of all of the slave nodes is printed in the data (.dat) file.
L7.34
Output (3/4)
Example: DCB
Request surface output:
bond
...
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond TopSurf
BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280, 280, 280, 2.284
...
*OUTPUT, FIELD, VAR=PRESELECT
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf field output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT, CSDMG
*OUTPUT, HISTORY
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, NSET=bond history output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT, CSDMG
*NODE OUTPUT, NSET=tip
U2, RF2
*END STEP
219
L7.35
Output (4/4)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
VCCT
L7.36
Ductile Fracture with VCCT (1/3)
The original VCCT criterion uses the principles of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM).
To account for ductile resistance, you can specify two different critical fracture energy release rates:
Usage
220
L7.37
Ductile Fracture with VCCT (2/3)
L7.38
Ductile Fracture with VCCT (3/3)
Example (cont’d)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
221
L7.39
VCCT Plug-in (1/9)
VCCT plug-in
Provides an interactive interface to define the debond interface(s).
Accessible in the Interaction module
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The plug-in can be obtained from SIMULIA Answer 3235 “VCCT plug-in utility.”
L7.40
VCCT Plug-in (2/9)
The VCCT plug-in is discussed in the context of the Keywords interface presented earlier.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf initially bonded region
master surface
slave surface
222
L7.41
VCCT Plug-in (3/9)
1.
*FRICTION
0.0
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=IntProp-1
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.42
VCCT Plug-in (4/9)
...
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
223
L7.43
VCCT Plug-in (5/9)
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.44
VCCT Plug-in (6/9)
The VCCT plug-in also supports defining spatially varying critical energy release rates.
224
L7.45
VCCT Plug-in (7/9)
L7.46
VCCT Plug-in (8/9)
The relevant keywords will be generated when Abaqus/CAE writes the input file.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
debond
fracture criterion
225
L7.47
VCCT Plug-in (9/9)
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.48
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior (1/4)
VCCT and cohesive behavior are very similar in their application and formulation.
Both theories
I. are used to model interfacial shearing and delamination crack propagation and failure,
II. use an elastic damage constitutive theory to model the material's response once damage
has initiated, and
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
III. dissipate the same amount of fracture energy between damage initiation and complete
failure.
226
L7.49
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior (2/4)
The fundamental difference between VCCT and cohesive behavior is in the way crack propagation is
predicted.
I. Damage initiation in cohesive behavior is based strictly on the predefined ultimate (normal
and/or shear) stress/strain limit.
II. Cohesive behavior can be used for both brittle and ductile crack propagation problems.
L7.50
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior (3/4)
The damage initiation and damage evolution are both based on fracture energy, whereas
cohesive behavior use the fracture energy only during damage evolution.
227
L7.51
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior (4/4)
Requires GI, GII, and GIII Requires E, σmax, GI, GII, and GIII
Crack propagates when strain energy release rate Crack initiates when cohesive traction exceeds
exceeds fracture energy critical value and releases critical strain energy
when fully open
Crack surfaces are rigidly bonded when Crack surfaces are joined elastically when
uncracked. uncracked.
L7.52
Examples (1/11)
Verification problems
DCB
SLB
ENF
Alfano-Crisfield
Alfano, G., and M. A. Crisfield, “Finite Element Interface Models for the Delamination Analysis of
Laminated Composites: Mechanical and Computational Issues,” International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, vol. 50, pp. 1701–1736, 2001.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
228
L7.53
Examples (2/11)
30000
Euler buckling
25000
20000
Load (lb)
FEA
15000
closed form
10000
5000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
L7.54
Examples (3/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
229
L7.55
Examples (4/11)
L7.56
Examples (5/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
230
L7.57
Examples (6/11)
L7.58
Examples (7/11)
Courtesy Boeing
231
L7.59
Examples (8/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Displacement imposed
at corner nodes
Contact surfaces defined for
region of fracture
L7.60
Examples (9/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Crack tip
232
L7.61
Examples (10/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L7.62
Examples (11/11)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
233
L7.63
Workshop 5: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using the virtual crack closure
technique (VCCT).
a. Repeat the cohesive-based exercises using VCCT and compare results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
60 minutes
234
Notes
235
Notes
236
L8.1
Lesson 8: Low-cycle Fatigue
Lesson content:
Low-cycle Fatigue
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
1 hour
L8.2
Low-cycle Fatigue
1. Introduction
2. Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials
3. Low-cycle Fatigue at Material
Interfaces
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
237
L8.3
Introduction (1/5)
Low-cycle fatigue analysis is a quasi-static analysis of a structure subjected to sub-critical cyclic loading.
L8.4
Introduction (2/5)
Low-cycle fatigue analysis uses the direct cyclic procedure to directly obtain the stabilized cyclic
response of the structure.
The direct cyclic procedure combines a Fourier series approximation with time integration of the
nonlinear material behavior to obtain the stabilized cyclic solution iteratively using a modified
Newton method.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. You can control the number of Fourier terms, the number of iterations, and the
incrementation during the cyclic time period to improve the accuracy.
Within each loading cycle, it assumes geometrically linear behavior and fixed contact conditions.
Geometric nonlinearity can be included only in any general step prior to a direct cyclic step
238
L8.5
Introduction (3/5)
50-60 cycles
To avoid the considerable numerical expense
associated with a transient analysis, a direct
cyclic analysis can be used to calculate the
cyclic response of the structure directly
L8.6
Introduction (4/5)
239
L8.7
Introduction (5/5)
not covered
Dtol: damage extrapolation tolerance here
L8.8
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (1/11)
Abaqus/Standard offers a general capability for modeling the progressive damage and failure of ductile
materials due to stress reversals and the accumulation of inelastic strain energy when the material is
subjected to sub-critical cyclic loadings.
Damage in low-cycle fatigue is defined within the same general framework of modeling progressive
damage and failure (continuum damage approach):
The damage initiation and evolution are characterized by the stabilized accumulated inelastic hysteresis
strain energy per stabilized cycle.
Note: Damage initiation and evolution for low-cycle fatigue analysis is currently not supported in
Abaqus/CAE.
240
L8.9
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (2/11)
Solder joint reliability analysis of automotive electronics under cyclic thermal loading.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L8.10
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (3/11)
Quarter-symmetry model:
electronic chip
printed
Low-cycle fatigue analysis run for 801 circuit
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
cycles. board
I. Each thermal cycle is 1920
seconds.
Quarter-symmetry model
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
241
L8.11
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (4/11)
The onset of damage in low-cycle fatigue is characterized by the accumulated inelastic hysteresis
energy per cycle, w, in a material point when the structure response is stabilized in the cycle.
N0 c1wc2
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Note: c1 depends on the system of units in which you are working; care is required to modify c1
when converting to a different system units.
The initiation criterion can be used in conjunction with any ductile material.
L8.12
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (5/11)
*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*ELASTIC
N0 c1wc2
31976, 0.4, 273 Quarter-symmetry model
20976, 0.4, 398
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c1 33.3, -1.52 c2
...
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100 solder joint
50, 100, 801, 1.1
bond pad
underneath
solder joint
242
L8.13
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (6/11)
Once the damage initiation criterion is satisfied at a material point, the damage state is calculated and
updated based on the inelastic hysteresis energy for the stabilized cycle.
The rate of the damage (dD/dN) at a material point per cycle is given by
dD c3wc4
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
dN L
where c3 and c4 are material constants, L is the characteristic length associated with the material point,
and D is the scalar damage variable.
Note: c3 depends on the system of units in which you are working; care is required to modify c3
when converting to a different system units.
L8.14
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (7/11)
*ELASTIC dN L
31976, 0.4, 273 Quarter-symmetry model
20976, 0.4, 398
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
33.3, -1.52
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c3 9.88E-4, 0.98 c4
...
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
243
L8.15
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (8/11)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L8.16
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (9/11)
The characteristic length implemented in the damage evolution model is based on the element geometry
and formulation:
second-order element half of the typical length of a line across the element
244
L8.17
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (10/11)
The characteristic length is used because the direction in which fracture occurs is not known in advance.
Therefore, elements with large aspect ratios will have rather different behavior depending on the
direction in which the damage occurs.
I. Some mesh sensitivity remains because of this effect, and elements that are as close to
square as possible are recommended.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
II. However, since the damage evolution law is energy based, mesh dependency of the results
may be alleviated.
L8.18
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (11/11)
When elements are removed from the model, their nodes remain in the model even if they are not
attached to any active elements.
When the solution progresses, these nodes might undergo non-physical displacements in
Abaqus/Standard.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. For example, applying a point load to a node that is not attached to an active element will
cause convergence difficulties since there is no stiffness to resist the load.
245
L8.19
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (1/15)
Delamination growth in composites due to sub-critical cyclic loadings is a widespread concern for the
aerospace industry.
The low-cycle fatigue criterion available in Abaqus models progressive delamination growth at interfaces
in laminated composites subjected to sub-critical cyclic loadings.
The interface along which the delamination (or crack) propagates must be indicated in the model.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The onset and growth of fatigue delamination at the interfaces are characterized by the relative
fracture energy release rate
I. The fracture energy release rates at the crack tips in the interface elements are calculated
based on the VCCT technique.
L8.20
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (2/15)
246
L8.21
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (3/15)
N
f 1.0,
c1G c2
where c1 and c2 are material constants.
L8.22
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (4/15)
da
c3G c4
dN
a: crack length
N: number of cycles
G: strain energy release rate
Gthresh: strain energy release rate threshold
Gpl: strain energy release rate upper limit
GequivC: critical equivalent strain
energy release rate
247
L8.23
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (5/15)
a: crack length
N: number of cycles
If Gthresh < Gmax < Gpl
N: incremental number of cycles
G = Gmax(Pmax) – Gmin(Pmin) c1, c2 , c3, c4: material constants
1 2
Calculate the relative fracture energy Crack initiation: No c1G c2
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
aN N aN Nc3G c 4
If N + N > No
N + N
3
Release the most Damage extrapolation: Calculate the
critical element incremental number of cycles, N,
for each crack tip and find minimum
cycles to fail, Nmin
Repeat the above process until the maximum number of cycles is reached or until the ultimate load
carrying capability is reached.
L8.24
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (6/15)
The syntax used to define the low-cycle fatigue criterion and the corresponding output requests is similar to
those used for the VCCT criterion except the following:
For the low-cycle fatigue criterion, set TYPE=FATIGUE on the *FRACTURE CRITERION option:
248
L8.25
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (7/15)
I. This step can be used to check whether the peak loading leads to static crack propagation.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
I. This step assesses the fatigue life of the DCB model subjected to sub-critical cyclic loading.
u2 bond
u2
=0.001
TopSurf
BotSurf
0 t
0 0.5 1
displacement loading in one cycle
u2
L8.26
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (8/15)
Partial input:
TopSurf BotSurf
249
L8.27
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (9/15)
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.28
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (10/15)
series: 25
Maximum number of terms in the
Fourier series: 25
Maximum number of iterations
allowed in the step: 5
Total number of cycles allowed in
the step: 1000
Default values are used for all other
entries.
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
250
L8.29
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (11/15)
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.30
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (12/15)
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
251
L8.31
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (13/15)
8 Request output
...
The output options for the low-cycle fatigue *STEP, INC=5000
criterion are same as those for the VCCT Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
criterion. *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
,,1000
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.32
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (14/15)
Results
N=1 N=11
N=21 N=51
252
L8.33
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (15/15)
More results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
253
254
Notes
255
Notes
256
L9.1
Lesson 9: Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)
Lesson content:
Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)
Workshop 6: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM
Workshop 7: Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
3 hours
L9.2
Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)
1. Introduction
2. Basic XFEM Concepts
3. Damage Modeling
4. Creating an XFEM Fracture Model
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
257
L9.3
Introduction (1/4)
The fracture modeling methods discussed so far only permit crack propagation along predefined element
boundaries
This lecture presents a technique for modeling bulk fracture which permits a crack to be located
in the element interior
L9.4
Introduction (2/4)
Can be used in conjunction with the cohesive zone model or the virtual crack closure technique
Applications of this technique include the modeling of bulk fracture and the modeling of failure in composites
258
L9.5
Introduction (3/4)
Crack path and the crack location do not have to be specified a priori
L9.6
Introduction (4/4)
1. Need a way to incorporate discontinuous geometry – the crack – and the discontinuous solution field
into the finite element basis functions
2. Need to quantify the magnitude of the discontinuity – the displacement jump across the crack faces
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
259
L9.7
Basic XFEM Concepts (1/7)
XFEM extends the piecewise polynomial function space of conventional finite element methods with
extra functions
Inclusion of a priori knowledge of partial differential equation behavior into finite element space
(singularities, discontinuities, ...)
L9.8
Basic XFEM Concepts (2/7)
4
u h (x) N I (x) u I H (x )a I Fa (x)baI
I N I NG
a 1
I N
260
L9.9
Basic XFEM Concepts (3/7)
The crack tip and Heaviside enrichment functions are multiplied by the conventional shape functions
The crack is located using the level set method (discussed shortly)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Heaviside function
H(x) = 1 above
n crack
s
1 if (x x* ) n 0
H ( x)
1 otherwise x*
x
H(x) = 1 below
crack
Here x is an integration point, x* is the closest point to x on the crack face and n is the unit normal at x*
L9.10
Basic XFEM Concepts (4/7)
Use displacement field basis functions for sharp cracks in an isotropic linear elastic material
q q q q
[ Fa ( x), a 1 - 4] [ r sin , r cos , r sin q sin , r sin q cos ]
2 2 2 2
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Here (r, q ) denote coordinate values from a polar coordinate system located at the crack tip
261
L9.11
Basic XFEM Concepts (5/7)
Discontinuous element with Heaviside enrichment is treated as a single element with real and phantom
nodes that gets split into two parts
Introduced by Belytschko and coworkers (2006) based on the superposed element formulation of
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.12
Basic XFEM Concepts (6/7)
A level set (also called level surface or isosurface) of a real-valued function is the set of all points at
which the function attains a specified value
Example: the zero-valued level set of f (x, y) : x2 y2 r2 is a circle of radius r centered at the
origin
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
262
L9.13
Basic XFEM Concepts (7/7)
Calculating F and Y
The nodal value of the function F is the signed distance of the node from the crack face
Positive value on one side of the crack face, negative on the other
The nodal value of the function Y is the signed distance of the node from an almost-orthogonal surface
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The function Y has zero value on this surface and is negative on the side towards the crack
F=0 Y=0
Node F Y
1 0.25 1.5
1 2
2 0.25 1.0 0.5
3 0.25 1.5
3 4
4 0.25 1.0
1.5
L9.14
Damage Modeling
Cohesive damage
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
Cohesive damage
Follows the general framework introduced earlier for element-based cohesive behavior
Damage properties are specified as part of the bulk material definition
LEFM-based damage
263
L9.15
Cohesive Damage Modeling (1/8)
Three stress-based and three strain-based damage initiation criteria are readily available
In addition, a user-defined damage initiation criterion can be specified in user subroutine UDMGINI (not
discussed here)
L9.16
Cohesive Damage Modeling (2/8)
Maximum nominal stress (MAXS) and maximum nominal strain (MAXE) criteria
Initiation occurs when the maximum nominal stress or strain reaches a critical value
for n 0
MAXS MAX n , t , s f n n
max max max
N T S
0 for n 0
for n 0
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
n t s
MAXE MAX max , max , max f n n
n t s 0 for n 0
The damage initiation criterion is satisfied when 1.0 ≤ f ≤ 1.0 + ftol where ftol is a user-specified tolerance
value (default is 0.05)
User may specify a local material direction as the crack plane normal
264
L9.17
Cohesive Damage Modeling (3/8)
Maximum nominal stress (MAXS) and maximum nominal strain (MAXE) criteria (cont’d)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.18
Cohesive Damage Modeling (4/8)
2 2 2
n t s 2 2
n s t
2
1 max max max 1
N max Tmax Smax n s t
265
L9.19
Cohesive Damage Modeling (5/8)
Maximum principal stress (MAXPS) and maximum principal strain (MAXPE) criteria
Initiation occurs when the maximum principal stress or strain reaches a critical value ( f 1)
n n
MAXPS f MAXPE f
max
0
max
0
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.20
Cohesive Damage Modeling (6/8)
Maximum principal stress (MAXPS) and maximum principal strain (MAXPE) criteria (cont’d)
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
266
L9.21
Cohesive Damage Modeling (7/8)
Damage evolution
Any of the damage evolution models for traction-separation laws discussed in the earlier lectures can be
used
L9.22
Cohesive Damage Modeling (8/8)
Damage stabilization
As discussed in the earlier lectures, using viscous regularization helps with the convergence of the
Newton method
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The stabilization value must be chosen so that the problem definition does not change
A small value regularizes the analysis, helping with convergence while having a minimal effect on
the response
Perform a parametric study to choose appropriate value for a class of problems
267
L9.23
LEFM-based Damage Modeling (1/3)
A critical strain energy release rate criterion based on the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
The maximum tangential stress (MTS) direction is used as the default normal direction for the
crack plane
Can choose local 1- or 2- directions
Although VCCT requires a crack to calculate the energy release rate, the LEFM approach can be used
when no initial crack is present
L9.24
LEFM-based Damage Modeling (2/3)
User interface
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
268
L9.25
LEFM-based Damage Modeling (3/3)
Low-cycle fatigue
The onset and fatigue crack growth are characterized by using the Paris law (discussed previously)
If you perform a fatigue analysis in a model without a pre-existing crack, you must precede the
fatigue step with a static step that nucleates a crack
The crack can then grow along an arbitrary path under cyclic fatigue loading
L9.26
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (1/5)
Steps
a. If cohesive damage is being used, define damage criteria in the material model
b. If LEFM is being used, then specify damage criteria in the interaction property definition
3. Define an initial crack, if present, and assign the appropriate interaction property
269
L9.27
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (2/5)
Cohesive damage
LEFM
L9.28
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (3/5)
*STEP 1
.
.
.
*ENRICHMENT, NAME=Crack-1, ACTIVATE=[ON|OFF]
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
270
L9.29
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (4/5)
Output quantities
PHILSM
I. The scaled signed distance function F used to represent the crack surface
II. The scale factor is chosen on a per element basis.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
STATUSXFEM
I. Indicates the status of the element with a value between 0.0 and 1.0
II. A value of 1.0 indicates that the element is completely cracked, with no traction across the
crack faces
Any other output variable available in the static stress analysis procedure
L9.30
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (5/5)
Postprocessing
The crack location is specified by the zero-valued level set of the signed distance function F
Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack isosurface displayed
Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the overlaid elements according to the
phantom nodes approach
If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower” element are plotted
(corresponding to negative values of F)
Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only from the “lower” element (on the side
with negative values of F)
271
L9.31
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (1/11)
L9.32
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (2/11)
Damage initiation
*MATERIAL
.
.
.
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, TOL=0.01
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
22e6
272
L9.33
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (3/11)
Damage evolution
L9.34
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (4/11)
Damage stabilization
273
L9.35
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (5/11)
L9.36
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (6/11)
Keyword interface
274
L9.37
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (7/11)
*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=1000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
L9.38
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (8/11)
*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
275
L9.39
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (9/11)
*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
*CONTROLS, PARAMETER=TIME INCREMENTATION
, , , , , , , 20
8th field
L9.40
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (10/11)
Output requests
Request PHILSM and STATUSXFEM in addition to the usual output for static analysis
276
L9.41
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (11/11)
Postprocessing
Field and history quantities of interest can be plotted and animated as usual
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.42
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (1/5)
277
L9.43
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (2/5)
Damage evolution and stabilization will be specified as part of the interaction property definition.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=MAXPS,TOL=0.01
22e6
L9.44
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (3/5)
278
L9.45
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (4/5)
1 Define the enrichment region and assign the interaction property using the crack editor as described earlier
2 No initial crack is required - VCCT will become active once the damage initiation criteria specified as part of
the material definition are met
L9.46
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (5/5)
Postprocessing
279
L9.47
Example 3 – Low Cycle Fatigue (1/2)
*step, nlgeom
*static
:
*cload, amp=over
tdisp, 2, 1
:
*end step
*step, inc=10000
*direct cyclic, fatigue
0.01,1,,,25,25,,30
3,6,35,1.1
*cload, amp=subcrit
tdisp, 2, 1
:
*end step
L9.48
Example 3 – Low Cycle Fatigue (2/2)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
280
L9.49
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack (1/4)
L9.50
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack (2/4)
Method 1 is preferred as it takes full advantage of the mesh-independent crack representation possible
using XFEM
281
L9.51
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack (3/4)
** Model data
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=ENRICHMENT
901, 1, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.5
901, 2, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.4
901, 3, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.4
901, 4, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.5
Element Number
Enrichment Name
F Y
Relative Node Order in Connectivity
L9.52
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack (4/4)
The other steps are as described in Example 1 and are in line with those necessary for the usual static
analysis procedure
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
282
L9.53
Example 5 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack (1/2)
Model through-thickness crack propagation using XFEM and delamination using surface-based cohesive
behavior in a double cantilever beam specimen
Through-thickness crack forms once interlaminar crack becomes long enough and the longitudinal
stress value builds up due to bending
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
The point at which the through-thickness crack forms depends upon the relative failure stress values of
the bulk material and the interface
L9.54
Example 5 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack (2/2)
This model is the same as the double cantilever beam model presented in the surface-based cohesive
behavior lecture except:
Enrichment has been added to the top and bottom beams to allow XFEM crack initiation and
propagation
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
283
L9.55
Example 6 – Contour Integrals (1/4)
XFEM is significantly easier to use compared to traditional focused mesh approaches for the purpose of
evaluating contour integrals
The data required for the contour integral are determined automatically based on the level set
signed distance functions at the nodes in an element.
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.56
Example 6 – Contour Integrals (2/4)
Stationary crack
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
284
L9.57
Example 6 – Contour Integrals (3/4)
Results
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
L9.58
Example 6 – Contour Integrals (4/4)
Some limitations:
Only the asymptotic crack tip fields in an isotropic elastic material are currently considered for a
stationary crack
285
L9.59
Modeling Tips (1/4)
General information
Averaged quantities are used in an element for determining crack initiation and the propagation direction
Within an enrichment region, a new crack initiation check is performed only after all existing cracks have
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
completely separated
L9.60
Modeling Tips (2/4)
The enrichment region must not include “hotspots” due to boundary conditions or other modeling artifacts
Damage stabilization
286
L9.61
Modeling Tips (3/4)
Limit maximum increment size and start with a good guess for the initial increment size
Analysis controls
Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack isosurface displayed
Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the overlaid elements according to the
phantom nodes approach
If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower” element are plotted (on the side with
negative values of F)
L9.62
Modeling Tips (4/4)
When defining the crack using Abaqus/CAE, extend the external crack edges beyond base geometry
This helps avoid incorrect identification of external edges as internal due to geometric tolerance issues
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Top View
287
L9.63
Limitations (1/2)
Can use only linear brick and linear/quadratic tet continuum elements
CAX4, CPE4, CPS4, C3D8 and their reduced integration/incompatible mode counterparts
C3D4, C3D10(H)
L9.64
Limitations (2/2)
If the crack lies along an element boundary, a small positive or negative value should be used
The small-sliding assumption will result in nonphysical contact behavior if the relative sliding between
the contacting surfaces is indeed large
If only a portion of the model needs to be enriched define an extra material model with no damage for
the regions not enriched
Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only from the “lower” element (corresponding to
negative values of F)
288
L9.65
Workshop 6: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM
1. In this workshop, you will continue with the analysis of a cracked beam subjected to pure bending using XFEM
a. Create and instance a part to represent the crack geometry
b. Use the crack editor to create an enriched region and specify an initial crack.
c. Request XFEM-related output
d. Specify analysis controls to aid convergence
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
45 minutes
L9.66
Workshop 7: Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
45 minutes
289
290
Notes
291
Notes
292
Workshop 1
Introduction
An edge crack in a three-point bend specimen in plane strain, subjected to Mode I
loading, is considered (see Figure W1–1). The crack length to specimen width ratio is
0.2. The length of the specimen is 55 mm, and its width is 10 mm. The material is
assumed to be linear elastic, with Young's modulus E = 2E5 MPa and Poisson's ratio
= 0.3. The loading is in the form of bending moments applied to the ends of the
specimen. Small deformation conditions are assumed.
55 mm
M b=10 mm M =1075
N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
Figure W1–1 Schematic of the three-point bend specimen.
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop:
../fracture/bending
2. Run the script ws_fracture_3pt_bend.py using the following command:
abaqus cae startup=ws_fracture_3pt_bend.py
This script creates an Abaqus database file named three-point-bend.cae in the
current directory. The geometry, material, step, and loading definitions for the specimen
are included in the model named focused. The bending moments are applied to the ends
of the specimen using kinematic coupling constraints. In this workshop, you will perform
a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip using a series of different mesh
configurations. The results will be compared with the theoretical value.
293
W1.2
Focused mesh
You will begin by considering the case of a focused mesh around the crack tip.
1. In the context bar, select focused from the Model drop-down list.
2. In the Part module, click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and sketch a
vertical line of length 2.0 mm through the center of the plate, as shown in
Figure W1–2. This line represents the crack. Also, sketch a circle of radius
0.5 mm centered at the crack tip. This operation creates a circular partition
around the crack tip which will facilitate swept meshing.
Sketch a circle using the Create Circle: Center and Perimeter tool
. Select the points indicated below (left) as the center and perimeter
points (the perimeter point should snap to the vertical line as indicated
by the small “○” at the intersection of the circle and line).
If you happen to snap the perimeter point to the midpoint of the
vertical line, you will find that an Equal distance constraint ( ) is
also created. If this happens, delete the Equal distance constraint to
avoid overconstraining the sketch.
Afterwards, dimension the radius of the circle, and edit its value so
that it is equal to 0.5, as shown below (right).
294
W1.3
center
perimeter
3. The crack-tip singularity may only be specified for independent part instances.
The part currently assumes the default dependent state. Thus, in the Model
Tree, expand the Assembly and then expand the list of instances. Click
mouse button 3 (MB3) on the instance named plate-1. In the menu that
appears, select Make Independent.
Quarter-point nodes with a single crack-tip node
To complete the model, you must define the crack and the output, generate the mesh, and
create a job.
Crack definition
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Engineering Features container underneath
the Assembly. In the list that appears, double-click Cracks.
2. In the Create Crack dialog box, select Contour integral and click Continue.
3. Select the vertex highlighted in Figure W1–3 as the crack front. Choose the q
vectors method to define the crack extension direction.
295
W1.4
4. Select the vertices highlighted in Figure W1–4 as the start and end points of
the vector.
end q
start
5. In the Singularity tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, set the midside
node parameter to 0.25 and choose Collapsed element side, single node
as the element control. This introduces a square-root singularity at the crack
tip.
6. From the main menu bar, select Special→Crack→Assign Seam to define
the crack seam. Select the entire length of the crack, as indicated in Figure
W1–5, to define the seam (use Shift+Click to select multiple entities or use
the by angle selection technique). The elements on either side of this seam
will not share nodes.
296
W1.5
3. Assign local edge seeds to the circular region surrounding the crack tip
(Seed→Edges):
a. In the Local Seeds dialog box, choose By number as the method and
specify 16 elements along the circular edge.
b. Specify 4 elements along the straight edge within the circular region. No
additional constraints are required.
4. Assign swept mesh controls to the circular region (Mesh→Controls; choose
Quad-dominated as the element shape and Sweep as the technique).
5. Assign the Quad element shape using the Medial axis algorithm to the rest of
the part.
6. Assign quadratic, reduced integration plane strain elements (CPE8R) to all
regions of the plate (Mesh→Element Type).
7. Generate the mesh (Mesh→Instance). It should appear similar to the one
shown in Figure W1–6.
Figure W1–6 Part mesh: entire part (left); close up of crack tip (right)
8. Query the elements attached to the crack tip to verify that their connectivity is
that of a collapsed quadrilateral element with a repeated node at the crack tip
(Tools→Query). For example, for the element highlighted in Figure W1–7,
the connectivity would be similar to that appearing at the bottom of the figure.
Note: The actual model connectivity may be different but with the same
pattern.
297
W1.6
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the
job cpe8r-constrain-qtr.
2. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the
progress of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file
for this job (cpe8r-constrain-qtr.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open cpe8r-constrain-qtr.odb in the
Visualization module. Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part.
The deformed model shape (Plot→Deformed Shape) and Mises stress
distribution (Plot→Contours→On Deformed Shape) are shown in Figure
W1–8 and Figure W1–9 (using a deformation scale factor of approximately
250). The stress state is highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip. Away
from the crack tip, the stress state exhibits the pattern characteristic of pure
bending (Figure W1–10 shows the longitudinal stress S11).
Tip: To change the contour plot variable, select Result→Field Output from
the main menu bar and choose the appropriate variable for contouring.
Alternatively, use the Field Output toolbar.
298
W1.7
2. Next, identify the domains for each contour. In the Results Tree, expand the
Node Sets container underneath the output database named cpe8r-
constrain-qtr.odb; double-click any set beginning with H-OUTPUT. The
five contour domains are shown in Figure W1–11. Note that each successive
contour domain contains the previous domain within its boundaries.
299
W1.8
The results appear in Figure W1–12. As is seen in the figure, the values have
converged and exhibit path independence.
Note: Double-click the Y-axis in the curves to adjust the axis limits.
Theoretical 170. 24
Element type Midside node Crack tip: Single or Singularity
parameter duplicate nodes
300
W1.9
Edit the crack definition and select Collapsed element side, duplicate nodes as the
element control to allow each crack-tip element to possess independent crack-tip nodes.
Regenerate the mesh. Create a new job named cpe8r-indep-qtr and run the job.
Evaluate the results and enter the average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Mid-point nodes with a single crack-tip node
Edit the crack definition and select Collapsed element side, single node as the element
control and set the midside node parameter to 0.5. Regenerate the mesh. Create a new
job named cpe8r-constrain-half and run the job. Evaluate the results and enter the
average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Unfocused mesh
You will now use an unfocused, rectangular mesh to analyze the problem. Begin by
copying the model named focused to one named unfocused. All subsequent
instructions apply to the unfocused model.
Edit the part features to remove the circular face partition created at the beginning of this
exercise.
Tip: In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container. In the list of features underneath the
plate, double-click Partition face-1. In the Edit Feature dialog box, click . In the
toolbox, click the Delete Entities tool and select the circle as the feature to be
deleted.
In the Interaction module, redefine the seam and the crack front (reselect the crack tip,
and set the midside node parameter equal to 0.25 using no degeneracy).
In the Mesh module, delete all edge seeds ( ) and assign a global seed size of 1.0 to
the entire part and element type CPE8R to all regions. Also assign the Quad element
shape using the Medial axis algorithm using the mesh controls ( ). Re-mesh the part
instance.
Create a new job named cpe8r-unfocused-qtr and run the job. Evaluate the results
and enter the average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Change the midside node parameter to 0.5 and create a new job named cpe8r-
unfocused-half. Run the job, evaluate the results, and enter the average value of KI
for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Save your model database file.
301
W1.10
Theoretical result
The theoretical result from Tada, Paris, and Irwin (1985) for a b 0.6 gives:
6M
b2
K I aF a b
b 1.122 1.40 a b 7.33 a b b b
2 3 4
F a 13.08 a 14.0 a
Discussion
The results of the simulations are summarized in Table W1–2 below.
Theoretical 170. 24
Element type Midside node Crack tip: Single or Singularity
parameter duplicate nodes
302
W1.11
The focused mesh results show excellent agreement with the theoretical results for K and
J. Note that the mesh with quarter-point nodes and a single crack-tip node introduces a
1/r singularity into the crack-tip elements. Since this problem is governed by LEFM and
the strength of this singularity is consistent with LEFM, a high degree of accuracy is
expected. For most practical problems, however, the exact form of the singularity cannot
always be represented. As noted in the lecture, a stronger form than necessary is
recommended in these cases. As shown in this example, when a stronger form of the
singularity is used (by permitting the crack-tip nodes to behave independently), very
accurate results are indeed obtained.
If the singularity is not explicitly modeled, mesh refinement can be used to obtain
accurate results. In this example accurate values of K and J were obtained in the absence
of a singularity when the mesh was focused (i.e., refined). When the meshes were coarse
(as in the case of the unfocused meshes), the singularity introduced by the quarter-point
nodes significantly improved the estimates of K and J. Thus, the benefit of the singularity
is most apparent for coarse meshes.
For all cases, the overall accuracy of the near-tip stress and strain fields is enhanced by
including a singularity in the mesh. Singular meshes tend to do a better job capturing the
steep gradient in the asymptotic stress and strain fields ahead of the crack tip. In addition,
the singularity is necessary to achieve mesh convergence of the stress and deformation
fields. The near-tip fields of a coarse mesh with a singularity will converge more rapidly
than those of a finer mesh without a singularity.
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named ws_fracture_3pt_bend_answer.py and is available using the
Abaqus fetch utility.
303
304
Notes
305
Notes
306
Workshop 2
Introduction
A flanged plate with a reinforced central hole is considered (see Figure W2–1). This part
is representative of many features found in helicopter fuselage frames. In practice, cracks
initiate and grow from a corner defect on the inner edge of the hole. In this workshop,
however, we do not investigate crack initiation or growth; that will be studied in a later
workshop. Instead, we apply fracture mechanics concepts to investigate the sensitivity of
J and K for two different crack lengths. In one case, the crack is in the flat plate; in the
other, the crack extends to the fillet between the plate and the flange, as indicated in
Figure W2–1. Their locations will illustrate different meshing techniques available for
modeling sharp cracks in complex three-dimensional structures. The plate is made of
aluminum, with Young's modulus E = 7E4 MPa and Poisson's ratio = 0.3. The loading
is in the form of an axial load applied to the bolt holes through kinematic coupling
constraints. In the interest of computational efficiency, a symmetric model is used. Small
deformation conditions are assumed. For reference, the stress state in the part when no
flaw exists is shown in Figure W2–2.
307
W2.2
F=80000 N
Symmetry
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop:
../fracture/damage
2. Run the script ws_fracture_damage.py using the following command:
abaqus cae startup=ws_fracture_damage.py
This script creates an Abaqus database file named damage.cae in the current directory.
The geometry, material, step, and loading definitions for the component are included in
the model named flaw-1. In this model, the overall component is broken up into two
parts: one named block (which contains everything but the flawed region) and one
named flaw-1 (which contains the region with the flaw), as shown in Figure W2–3. This
modeling approach allows you to focus on the smaller region containing the flaw
throughout the workshop. The two parts are tied together using surface-based tie
constraints.
flange
bore
flat plate
308
W2.3
In this workshop, you will perform a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip
for two different crack configurations.
2. Click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and select the top face of the flat
plate (indicated in Figure W2–4) as the face to be partitioned. In the Sketch
module, draw a circle of radius 2 centered at the vertex which was created by
the earlier partition. Place the perimeter point of the circle outside the part as
shown in Figure W2–5.
309
W2.4
Perimeter point
3. Select the Partition Cell: Extrude/Sweep Edges icon (click and hold
to access the tool) and select the flat region of the plate as the cell to be
partitioned. Extrude the semi-circular edge through the plate, as shown in
Figure W2–6.
4. Click the Assign Mesh Controls icon and select the newly partitioned
cylindrical region as the one to which mesh controls will be assigned. The
region is colored yellow, indicating it is sweep meshable (a requirement for
generating the focused crack line mesh with collapsed elements).
However, the element shape needs to be changed to allow wedge-shaped
elements along the crack line and the sweep path needs to be redefined so that
it is along the circumference of the circular region. In the Mesh Controls
dialog box, select Hex-dominated as the element shape, Medial axis as the
algorithm, and click Redefine Sweep Path. Define a new sweep path by
310
W2.5
selecting the circular edge of the region as the sweep path, as shown in Figure
W2–7.
5. For all other sweep-meshable regions, choose the Hex element shape with the
Medial axis algorithm.
6. Assign second-order, reduced-integration 3D stress elements (C3D20R) to all
regions of the part.
7. Assign a global seed size of 2.5 to the part.
8. Assign local seeds as indicated in Figure W2–8:
a. 12 elements along the circular edge (constrained to increase only).
b. 8 elements through the thickness of the flat plate and along the straight
portions of the circular partition (constrained to increase only).
c. 8 elements along the straight edges of the bore.
d. 3 elements along the radius of the fillet between the bore and the plate.
e. 8 elements at the intersection of the flat plate with the flange.
f. 8 elements along the radius of the fillet between the plate and the flange.
311
W2.6
12
8
3
312
W2.7
11. Redefine the surface named flaw to include the faces of the newly instanced
part that mate with the block. This surface is used in the tie constraint that
joins the two parts together.
Tip: Click to replace the contents of the viewport with the cells of
instance flaw-1; in the Model Tree, expand the Surfaces container underneath
the Assembly and double-click flaw to redefine it; select the appropriate
faces to redefine the surface. Afterwards, restore the visibility of the entire
model by clicking .
Crack definition
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Engineering Features container underneath
the Assembly. In the list that appears, double-click Cracks.
2. In the dialog box that appears, select Contour integral and click Continue.
3. Select the edge highlighted in Figure W2–10 as the crack front. Choose the q
vectors method to define the crack extension direction. Select the points
indicated in Figure W2–10 as the start and end points for the q vector.
Start
End
Crack front/line
4. In the General tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, toggle on the
symmetry plane option.
5. In the Singularity tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, set the midside
node parameter to 0.25 and choose Collapsed element side, single node
as the element control. This introduces a square-root singularity at the crack
tip.
6. Query the elements attached to the crack tip to verify that their connectivity is
that of a collapsed hexahedral element with a repeated node at the crack tip
(Tools→Query).
313
W2.8
Output
1. In the Model Tree, double-click History Output Requests to create a contour
integral history output request. In the Edit History Output Request dialog
box, select Crack as the domain type, and choose the crack defined earlier as
the domain. Set the number of contours to 5 and request J-integral output.
2. Repeat the above step, this time choosing Stress intensity factors as the
output type.
Boundary conditions
1. Apply symmetry boundary conditions to the regions indicated in Figure W2–
11. Name this boundary condition bonded.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open flaw-1.odb in the Visualization module.
Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part. The Mises stress
distribution is shown in Figure W2–12 (plotted on the deformed model shape
using a deformation scale factor of approximately 90). The stress state is
highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip.
314
W2.9
2. Examine the values of J and K along the crack line. At a given position along
the crack line, the values have converged across each contour domain. Some
variation through the thickness of the plate is apparent, however, as seen in
Figure W2–13 for contour 5. In particular, the values at the outer edges of the
crack line (e.g., at the two nodes at each end of the crack line) are less
accurate. Ignoring these four points for the fifth contour, the average value of
J (evaluated directly) is 11.8 MPa·mm while the average value of KI is 952
MPa·mm (or 30 MPa·m).
Note: Figure W2–13 was created by first manipulating the data outside of
Abaqus/CAE. These plots cannot be created directly within Abaqus. To examine
this data, filter the History Output container according to
Stress*K1*Contour_5; the curves are then listed in order through the
thickness starting at the bottom of the plate (an internal set with a name of the
315
W2.10
2. In the Sketch module, draw a vertical line a distance of 3.5 mm from the left
edge of the fillet, as shown in Figure W2–15. This edge represents the crack
front.
316
W2.11
3. Partition the top and bottom faces of the fillet using the sketch technique to
create a circular partition around the crack line. Select the face indicated in
Figure W2–16 as the sketch plane, Through All as the projection distance,
and the direction indicated by the arrow as the projection direction.
4. Because only entities directly connected to the sketch plane are automatically
projected onto the sketch, you will need to project additional geometry to
serve as reference geometry. In the Sketch module, click the Project
References icon (click and hold to access the tool) to project the
point indicated in Figure W2–17 onto the sketch. This point is the vertex at
the top of the edge partition created in the previous step.
317
W2.12
Tip: The sketch will be centered on the sketch plane and not the faces that will
actually be partitioned. To improve the visibility of the sketch, use the
sketcher options shown in Figure W2–18. To select the vertex, rotate the
view. To restore the original view, click the Reset View icon .
318
W2.13
5. Sketch a circle of radius 0.25 centered at projected point. Place the perimeter
point of the circle outside the part. Complete the sketch operation.
6. Create the face partitions indicated in Figure W2–19 (using ).
New edges
7. Use the Partition Cell: Use N-Sided Patch tool (click and hold to
access the tool) to partition the cell containing the crack, as shown in Figure
W2–20. Specify the patch using edges and the patch boundary using the loop
technique. Select the circular edge on the top face of the fillet.
319
W2.14
8. Use the Point & Normal method ( ) to create the cell partition shown in
Figure W2–21.
Select both
cells
Point
Normal
320
W2.15
10. Finally, use the Point & Normal method to create the partition shown in
Figure W2–23. This partition will allow better control over the final mesh.
Additional partition
11. Assign the Sweep mesh technique using the Medial axis algorithm to the
cells indicated in Figure W2–24. In addition, assign the Wedge element shape
to the two cells immediately surrounding the crack front.
12. Assign the Medial axis algorithm to all other sweep meshable cells (cells
colored yellow).
13. Assign second-order, reduced-integration 3D stress elements (C3D20R) to all
regions of the part.
14. Assign a global seed size of 2.5 to the part.
321
W2.16
3 (also on other
side of part)
1
4
10
10
322
W2.17
323
W2.18
Normal direction
Crack front
Crack faces
Bonded faces
Note: The direction of the normal vector is very important. If negative values
for J or K are obtained, then the normal vector should be reversed and the
analysis rerun.
3. In the Mesh module, regenerate the mesh for the flaw to update the position of
the crack midside nodes.
Output
No edits are required as the output requests from the previous model are still in effect.
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the
job flaw-2.
2. Save your model database file.
3. Submit the job for analysis and monitor its progress.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open flaw-2.odb in the Visualization module.
Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part. The Mises stress
distribution is shown in Figure W2–28 (plotted on the deformed model shape
using a deformation scale factor of approximately 90). The stress state is
highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip.
324
W2.19
2. Examine the values of J and K along the crack line. At a given position along
the crack line, the values have converged across each contour domain. Some
variation through the thickness of the plate is apparent, however, as seen in
Figure W2–29 for contour 5. In particular, the values at the outer edges of the
crack line (e.g., at the two nodes at each end of the crack line) are less
accurate. Ignoring these four points for the fifth contour, the average value of
J (evaluated directly) is 4.87 MPa·mm while the average value of KI is 612
MPa·mm (or 19.4 MPa·m).
Note: Figure W2–29 was created by first manipulating the data outside of
Abaqus/CAE. These plots cannot be created directly within Abaqus
325
W2.20
Optional analysis
Create a circular crack (radius = 2 mm) through the bore as indicated in Figure W2–30.
Using a partitioning scheme similar to that shown in the top-half of Figure W2–30, create
a mesh similar to the one shown in the bottom-half of Figure W2–30. Evaluate the stress
intensity factor at the crack front. (For reference, the computed value of K in this case is
approximately 10.3 MPa·m.)
326
W2.21
Parametric study
A parametric study varying the crack length gives further insight into the variation of K
with crack size. Such a study was carried out and the results are shown in Figure W2–31.
This type of study is used to evaluate the damage tolerance, fatigue and structural
integrity of the aircraft components (see e.g., Irving, Lin, and Bristow, “Damage
Tolerance in Helicopters,” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society, 59th Annual
Forum, 2003).
Note that a crack propagation analysis using cohesive elements will be performed in a
subsequent workshop to study crack growth behavior in this part.
327
328
Notes
329
Notes
330
Workshop 3
Introduction
In this workshop we consider crack growth in the three-point bend specimen studied in
Workshop1 (see Figure W3–1 for geometry and load details). Cohesive behavior (both
element- and surface-based) with damage is used to model the crack growth behavior.
Linear elastic behavior is assumed (the cohesive traction-separation law is indirectly
related to LEFM in that the area underneath the traction-separation curve is equal to the
fracture toughness, i.e., the critical energy release rate).
The cohesive element material properties must be carefully chosen in this analysis since
there is no real adhesive and the strength of the bond is effectively “infinite.” While the
stiffness of the elements can be simply regarded as a penalty parameter, the proper choice
of the maximum traction across the interface is critical. Too low a value results in a
response that is too flexible; higher values require additional mesh refinement to predict
the onset of crack growth. In this workshop, the maximum strength is chosen to ensure
accuracy with the given mesh density. A discussion on how it was chosen is given at the
end of the workshop. This issue does not affect surface-based cohesive behavior.
55 mm
Cohesive
M b=10 mm M =1075
layer
N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
Figure W3–1 Schematic of the three-point bend specimen.
331
W3.2
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/bending
2. Open the model database file created in Workshop 1 (three-point-
bend.cae).
332
W3.3
2. Click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and sketch vertical lines as indicated
in Figure W3–3 to partition the specimen further. This partition separates the
region which will be meshed with cohesive elements from the rest of the model.
3. Use the geometry edit tools (Tools→Geometry Edit) to delete redundant entities
in the center portion of the plate (indicated in the following figure). This will
clean up the geometry so that redundant geometry does not unduly influence the
mesh.
Tip: Before choosing a region, use the Selections toolbar to select only vertices
inside the drag shape as indicated below.
333
W3.4
334
W3.5
Meshing
The part will be meshed with first-order incompatible mode elements. These elements
work well in bending and are compatible with cohesive elements when using shared
nodes (as will be done here).
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Instances container underneath the Assembly.
Expand the instance named plate-1 and double-click Mesh in the list that appears.
2. Assign the Quad element shape using the Medial axis algorithm to the right and
left regions of the part instance (Mesh→Controls). Assign CPE4I elements to
these regions (Mesh→Element Type).
3. Assign a swept mesh technique using the Quad element shape to the center region
of the part instance (Mesh→Controls). Choose a sweep direction that is
horizontal (this defines the stack direction of the cohesive layer). The center
region is colored yellow, indicating it is swept meshable, as shown in Figure W3–
5.
4. Assign COH2D4 elements with Viscosity equal to 1.e-5 to the center region of
the part instance (Mesh→Element Type). Invoking viscous regularization will
aid convergence.
5. Assign a global seed size of 0.5 to the entire instance (Seed→Instance).
6. Assign local edge seeds (Seed→Edges) according to Figure W3–6.
15 24 1
15
6
335
W3.6
8. Edit the nodes attached to the cohesive elements so that the elements have zero
thickness:
a. From the main menu bar, select Mesh→Edit.
b. In the Edit Mesh dialog box, select Node as the category and Edit as the
method.
c. Select the nodes indicated in Figure W3–7 as the ones whose coordinates
will be adjusted.
Note: Only the mesh has been altered and not the underlying geometry. If
you remesh the part, e.g., you will have to reposition the cohesive element
nodes.
336
W3.7
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
coh-3pt-bend.
2. Save your model database.
3. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(coh-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
337
W3.8
Results
When the job is complete, open coh-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the
early stages can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at the increment
when the first cohesive element fails is shown in Figure W3–9 (using a
deformation scale factor of 250).
2. Contour and animate the STATUS variable (toggle off Use status variable in the
Status Variable tabbed page of the Field Output dialog box to suppress the
removal of failed elements). The final state is shown in Figure W3–10 (using a
deformation scale factor of 1). The cohesive elements have failed along the length
of the interface (i.e., the crack has extended through the thickness of the part).
338
W3.9
Does the load at which crack growth initiates agree with LEFM predictions? Does the
bend in the curve correspond to the point where the first cohesive element fails?
Discussion
In order to evaluate the results, consider the LEFM prediction. From the results obtained
in Workshop 1, the applied load (1075 N·mm) yielded a J-integral value of 0.132
MPa·mm. The fracture toughness of the material (i.e., the critical energy release rate Gc)
was specified as 0.1 MPa·mm (using damage evolution). This implies that the applied
load is greater than that required to make the crack grow. LEFM predicts crack growth
when J= Gc. Since J M 2, we have the relationship
2
Gc Mc
Gapplied M applied
or
Mc Gc 0.1
0.871.
M applied Gapplied 0.132
Thus, LEFM predicts the onset of crack growth when 87% of the load has been applied.
Figure W3–11 indicates crack growth initiates at approximately 86% of the applied load
(this is the bend in the curve). This corresponds to the instant when the first cohesive
element fails. Thus, the numerical results are in close agreement with the LEFM.
339
W3.10
The cohesive properties used in this workshop were based on a relative scaling of the
properties used by Alfano and Crisfield. The ratio of the maximum cohesive strength Tmax
to the material Young’s modulus used in their work (57/135000) was used to calculate a
starting value for Tmax in this model. Following Alfano and Crisfield, the stiffness was
assumed to be 107 Tmax (resulting in a value of 8.43e8). The value of Tmax was adjusted
further (it was effectively doubled holding the stiffness constant) to improve the
correlation with LEFM. In general applications, sensitivity studies where the value of
Tmax is varied are recommended.
STOP. Proceed to Part 2 of this workshop only after completing Lecture 6 Surface-based
cohesive behavior.
340
W3.11
In this part of the workshop, you will solve the problem using surface-based cohesive
behavior and compare the results with those obtained using cohesive elements.
The instructions that follow apply to the coh-surfs model contained in three-point-
bend.cae.
341
W3.12
Mesh
The parts will be meshed with first-order incompatible mode elements.
1. In the Model Tree, expand the part named plate-left underneath the Parts
container. Double-click Mesh in the list that appears.
2. Assign a global seed size of 0.5 to the part.
3. Assign local edge seeds according to Figure W3–14.
15 24 24 15
6 6
342
W3.13
Contact interaction
Surface-based cohesive modeling is based on contact pairs. Therefore, you will create a
contact interaction property (including the properties required for cohesive contact) and a
contact interaction. The two surfaces created earlier will serve as the master and slave
surfaces.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Interaction Properties. Choose Contact as the
type.
a. Define a frictionless contact property (Mechanical→Tangential
Behavior).
b. Define cohesive properties (Mechanical→Cohesive Behavior). Accept
all default settings (i.e., use the default elastic stiffness and allow any
slave node to be cohered).
c. Define damage properties (Mechanical→Damage).
d. In the Initiation tabbed page, choose Quadratic traction as the criterion.
Enter 175 in each of the data fields.
e. Toggle on Specify damage evolution.
f. In the Evolution tabbed page, select Energy as the type,
Benzeggagh-Kenane as the mixed mode behavior, and set the power to
2.284. Enter 0.1 in each of the data fields.
g. Toggle on Specify damage stabilization.
h. In the Stabilization tabbed page, enter 1e-5 as the viscosity coefficient.
Note that the damage stabilization option is the analog of viscous
regularization used earlier with cohesive elements.
2. In the Model Tree, double-click Interactions. Choose Surface-to-surface
contact (Standard) as the type and Initial as the step.
3. Choose the surface named right as the master surface and the one named left as
the slave surface (click Surfaces in the prompt area to choose the surfaces from
the Region Selection dialog box rather than the viewport).
4. Choose Node to surface as the discretization method.
5. Adjust the slave nodes in the set named bond. This will ensure initial contact
along the interface.
6. Accept all other default settings and click OK.
343
W3.14
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
coh-3pt-bend-surfs.
2. Save your model database.
3. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(coh-3pt-bend-surfs.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open coh-3pt-bend-surfs.odb in the Visualization
module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the
early stages can be seen more clearly).
2. Using history data, create a moment-rotation curve of the response at the
reference point located at the right-hand side of the part (set right-refPt).
Normalize the load axis with respect to the applied load. The curve is shown in
Figure W3–15 (this plot has been customized).
For a more direct comparison with the cohesive element results an additional set
of cohesive surface results are included. This additional set of results was
obtained by specifying the elastic properties previously assigned to the cohesive
elements to the cohesive interface:
344
W3.15
All three sets of results are in excellent agreement. Better agreement between
cohesive elements and cohesive surfaces is obtained when the same elastic
properties are assigned to both (as expected). The results with the default elastic
properties, however, provide an excellent approximation and eliminate the need to
specify the cohesive elastic response (which is often unknown and difficult to
determine).
This analysis will be repeated in later workshops using the VCCT and XFEM
methods.
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named ws_fracture_3pt_bend_answer.py and is available using the
Abaqus fetch utility.
345
346
Notes
347
Notes
348
Workshop 4
Introduction
In this workshop we study crack growth in the flanged plate considered in Workshop 2
(see Figure W4–1). A 2 mm flaw is assumed to exist on the inner surface of the hole.
Cohesive elements with damage are used to model the crack growth behavior originating
from the flaw. Linear elastic behavior is assumed. Cohesive properties are taken directly
from Alfano and Crisfield.
349
W4.2
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/damage
2. Open the model database file created in previously (damage.cae).
In this workshop, you will modify the part geometry to add a layer of cohesive elements
along the symmetry plane containing the flaw. The load at which the crack begins to
grow will be compared with an estimate obtained from the results of Workshop 2.
Before continuing, copy the model named flaw-1 to one named cohesive. The
instructions that follow apply to the cohesive model.
Meshing
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container and then expand the part named
flaw. In the list that appears, double-click Mesh.
2. In the Mesh module, click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and select the
face indicated in Figure W4–2 as the face to be partitioned.
350
W4.3
351
W4.4
d. In the Offset Mesh – Solid Layers dialog box, set the Total thickness to
1 (this will facilitate defining sets, etc.; afterwards, the nodal coordinates
will be edited to produce a zero-thickness layer of cohesive elements).
Also, assign the offset elements to a set named cohesive. Accept all
other default settings and click OK. The required settings are shown in
Figure W4–5.
352
W4.5
e. Assign element type COH3D8 with Viscosity equal to 1.e-5 to the set
named cohesive. Invoking viscous regularization will aid convergence.
353
W4.6
4. Define the node sets on the top and bottom faces of the cohesive elements, as
indicated in Figure W4–7. Name the sets coh-top and coh-bot, respectively.
354
W4.7
355
W4.8
356
W4.9
357
W4.10
5. In the Model Tree, double-click the Sections container to create a new section
property. In the Create Section dialog box, name the section cohesive, choose
Other as the category and Cohesive as the type. Click Continue.
6. In the Edit Section dialog box, choose adhesive as the material and Traction
Separation as the response. Accept all other default settings and click OK.
7. In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container and then expand the part named
flaw-mesh-1. In the list that appears, double-click Section Assignments to
assign the newly created section to the cohesive region.
8. Select the set cohesive as the region to which section properties will be assigned
and cohesive in the Edit Section Assignment dialog box. Click OK.
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
flaw-coh.
2. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(flaw-coh.odb) in the Visualization module.
The job will take approximately 1 hour to complete. Monitor its progress for
5-10 minutes to make sure the analysis is running smoothly and then
continue with the next lecture. After the next lecture, proceed with the
postprocessing instructions that follow.
358
W4.11
Results
When the job is complete, open flaw-coh.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the
early stages can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at different
stages of crack advance is shown in Figure W4–10.
359
W4.12
Tmax = 57 MPa
Discussion
In order to evaluate the results, consider the LEFM prediction. From the results quoted in
the optional portion of Workshop 2, the applied load (80 kN) yielded a J-integral value of
approximately 1.38 MPa·mm for the initial crack configuration considered here. The
fracture toughness of the material is 0.28 MPa·mm (specified as 0.14 MPa·mm due to
symmetry considerations). This implies that the applied load is greater than that required
to make the crack grow. LEFM predicts crack growth when J= Gc. Since J F 2, we
have the relationship
2
Gc Fc
Gapplied Fapplied
or
Fc Gc 0.28
0.45.
Fapplied Gapplied 1.38
Thus, LEFM predicts the onset of crack growth when 45% of the load has been applied.
Figure W4–11 indicates crack growth initiates at approximately 30% of the applied load
(this is the bend in the curve). The agreement can be improved by increasing the value of
the maximum traction across the interface. For example, setting it to 83.5 MPa results in
crack growth at approximately 40% of the applied load, as indicated in Figure W4–11.
360
Notes
361
Notes
362
Workshop 5
Introduction
In this workshop we consider crack growth in the three-point bend specimen studied in
Workshop3 (see Figure W5–1 for geometry and load details). VCCT is used to model the
crack growth behavior. Linear elastic behavior is assumed.
55 mm
Initially
M bonded b=10 mm M =1075
region N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
Figure W5–1 Schematic of the three-point bend specimen.
363
W5.2
Preliminaries
In this workshop, you will bond the two halves of the specimen and study the crack
growth as the applied load surpasses the critical load. The load at which the crack begins
to grow will be compared with the theoretical value. In Workshop 3, this same problem
was analyzed using both element-based and surface-based cohesive behavior; the results
between the three analysis techniques will be compared at the end of this workshop.
Open the model database file edited in Workshop 3 (three-point-bend.cae). Begin
by copying the model named coh-surfs to a model named vcct. If you did not complete
the exercises with cohesive surfaces (Part 2 of Workshop 3), follow the instructions given
there to define the surfaces and sets, step, mesh, and contact properties and interaction
before proceeding.
The instructions that follow apply to the vcct model.
Note: The replay file
../fracture/bending/ws_fracture_3pt_bend_cohsurf.py can be used to
generate the prerequisite model definitions for this workshop. In the event you were
unable to complete the previous workshop successfully, accidentally deleted your model
database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local directory, start
Abaqus/CAE, and run the script by selecting File→Run Script from the main menu bar.
Then proceed with the rest of the workshop.
Surfaces
You will begin by extending the surfaces along the common interface of each plate to
include the initial crack faces. This, together with the bonded set, introduces an initial
flaw. Before proceeding, switch to the Assembly module.
1. Replace the contents of the viewport so that only the left half of the specimen is
visible (in the toolbar, click and then click the part on the left).
2. In the Model Tree, expand the Surfaces container underneath the Assembly.
3. Edit the surface named left and select both edges on the right-hand side of the part
instance (indicated in Figure W5–2; use Shift+Click to select both segments).
364
W5.3
Because the node release due to VCCT introduces additional highly nonlinear effects into
the model, the solution controls parameters will be adjusted to allow up to 10 attempts
per increment.
Edit the general solution controls as follows:
1. From the main menu bar of the Step module, select Other→General Solution
Controls→Edit→Step-1.
2. In the dialog box that appears, select Specify to modify the default settings.
3. In the Time Incrementation tabbed page, set IA equal to 10.
You will also need to request output that allows you to track the progression of damage in
the part. Edit the default field output request to also include the variables indicated in
Figure W5–4.
Interaction properties
Edit the contact interaction properties to delete the cohesive and damage properties
inherited from the coh-surfs model.
365
W5.4
Note: To complete the model using keywords edits, complete this section. If you prefer
to complete the model using the VCCT plug-in, please skip this section and proceed to
the next one, titled Defining the bond (plug-in approach).
VCCT requires the use of the following options: *INITIAL CONDITIONS, *DEBOND,
and *FRACTURE CRITERION. These will be defined using the Keywords Editor as
indicated in Figure W5–5 (Model→Edit Keywords→vcct).
366
W5.5
Note: To complete the model using the VCCT plug-in, complete this section. If you
prefer to complete the model using keywords edits, please skip this section and return to
the previous one, titled Defining the bond (keywords approach).
VCCT requires the use of the following options: *INITIAL CONDITIONS, *DEBOND,
and *FRACTURE CRITERION. These will be defined using the VCCT plug-in as
described below.
367
W5.6
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
vcct-3pt-bend.
2. Save your model database.
3. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(vcct-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open vcct-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the
early stages can be seen more clearly).
2. Contour and animate the bond state (variable BDSTAT).
3. Using history data, create a moment-rotation curve of the response at the
reference point located at the right-hand side of the part (set right-refPt).
Normalize the load axis with respect to the applied load. The curve is shown in
Figure W5–6 (this plot has been customized). For the sake of comparison the
cohesive-based results are also included.
368
W5.7
The response is very similar up to the point of initial crack growth. Both methods predict
the onset of crack growth reasonably accurately (at 86% of the applied load for the
cohesive models and at 90% of the applied load for the VCCT model versus a theoretical
value of 87%). The post-failure responses predicted by the three methods are also in
el desplazamiento
excellent agreement; the shift between the curves is due to the slight delay in the onset of
crack growth predicted by the VCCT model.
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named ws_fracture_3pt_bend_answer.py and is available using the
Abaqus fetch utility.
369
370
Notes
371
Notes
372
Workshop 6
55 mm
Crack
path b=10 mm = 0.003
a=2 mm
43 mm
373
W6.2
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/bending
2. Open the model database file created earlier (three-point-bend.cae).
We will slightly modify the geometry of the plate and create a separate part to specify the
crack location. Then we will study the crack growth in response to an applied rotation.
The load at which the crack begins to grow will be compared with the ones obtained from
the cohesive and the VCCT models.
Before continuing, copy the model named unfocused to one named xfem. If you did not
complete the exercises with the unfocused mesh in Workshop 1, simply copy any of your
models from Workshop 1 to the new name given above. In the new model, follow the
instructions given in Workshop 1 for deleting the circular partition before proceeding.
The instructions that follow apply to the xfem model.
374
W6.3
1. In the Model Tree, open the container corresponding to the model named xfem
and double-click Parts to create a deformable 2D wire-based part named crack
with an approximate size of 20.
2. Using the Create lines: Connected tool sketch a 2 mm long vertical line
starting from the origin going upwards. Click Done to exit the sketcher.
3. Open the Assembly container in the Model Tree and double-click Instances to
create a dependent instance of the part named crack. The instance will appear
superimposed on the plate’s left vertical edge.
4. From the main menu bar in the in the Assembly module, select
Instance→Translate. Select the crack instance in the viewport and click Done.
5. Select the vertices at the bottom-left and bottom-center of the plate as the start and
the end points for the translation vector, respectively. This will move the part to
the desired location. Confirm the current location by clicking OK in the prompt
area.
4. Select the instance plate in the viewport as the crack domain. In the Edit Crack
dialog box that appears, toggle on Crack location and click (see Figure W6–
3).
5. Select the part instance crack as the crack location and click Done.
6. Toggle on Specify contact property and click . Accept the default name and
select Contact as the type.
375
W6.4
7. From the Mechanical menu select Normal Behavior as shown in Figure W6–4.
Accept the default choices and click OK.
8. Click OK in the Edit Crack dialog box. This completes the definition of the
XFEM crack.
This method of specifying the crack location and geometry is very useful in cases where
the crack geometry is complex. One can easily create a separate part and instance it in the
assembly without having to create numerous partitions in the existing part, which would
introduce difficulties in creating the mesh.
376
W6.5
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Steps container and double-click Step-1.
2. In the Basic tabbed page of the step editor, toggle on Nlgeom.
3. To aid convergence if the specimen were to break in half, use automatic
stabilization with a constant damping factor equal to 0.0001. Toggle off adaptive
stabilization.
4. Set the maximum number of increments to 250, the initial time increment size to
0.01, the minimum time increment size to 1.e-8, and the maximum time
increment size to 0.01.
5. Write history output of the variables UR3, CM3 and RM3 for the set right-refPt to
the output database file.
6. Edit the default field output request to include PHISLM (level set value phi) from
the Failure/Fracture subsection, and STATUSXFEM (status of the xfem element)
from the State/Field/User/Time subsection as shown in Figure W6–5. This will
allow you to easily evaluate when the enriched elements fail during
postprocessing.
377
W6.6
Boundary Conditions
We will apply rotations to both reference points instead of moments as done previously.
Displacement-controlled loading allows the crack to grow in a stable fashion, which is
not possible under load control. First, we begin by suppressing the two loads.
1. In the Model Tree, click mouse button 3 on the load named left and select
Suppress from the menu that appears. Repeat the procedure for the load named
right.
2. Double-click the BCs container to create a new boundary condition named left-
rotation to be applied during Step-1. Choose Displacement/Rotation as the
type and click Continue.
3. Choose the set left-refPT as the location, and set UR3 to -0.003.
4. Using the same procedure, create another boundary condition named right-
rotation applied to the set right-refPT, and specify UR3 to be 0.003.
5. Leave the previously defined boundary condition named right unchanged.
6. Edit the boundary condition named left. Uncheck the label for U1 to remove the
constraint in the X-direction, which was used earlier to prevent rigid body motion.
We will prevent it through a constraint equation in this model as discussed below.
Constraints
The constraints defined in the previous workshops are needed for this model and we will
leave them unaltered. In the cohesive and VCCT models, there was no ambiguity
regarding the crack propagation direction as it is restricted to the mid-plane a priori; but
in the XFEM model, the crack path can change during the simulation based on the
direction of the maximum principal stress. Though the loading and geometry are
perfectly symmetric, small perturbations in the solution can cause the crack to deflect if
the principal stress directions rotate slightly (they will remain parallel to the global CSYS
in the absence of perturbations). To retain the simplicity of the problem and to compare
the XFEM solution with the cohesive and the VCCT models, we enforce an additional
symmetry constraint such that the horizontal displacements of the centers of the left and
right edges are equal and opposite. This eliminates any numerical instability in the model
and facilitates Mode I crack propagation.
378
W6.7
3. Enter the same values for the Coefficient and DOF in the second row while
selecting right-refPT in the Set Name field.
4. Click OK.
Meshing
The part will be meshed with first-order reduced integration plane strain elements.
1. Switch to the Mesh module.
2. Assign CPE4R elements to the part (Mesh→Element Type).
3. Assign local edge seeds (Seed→Edges) to all the edges as shown in Figure W6–
6.
111
15 15
12 87
12
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the
job xfem-3pt-bend.
2. Save your model database.
3. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(xfem-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open xfem-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the Mises stress distribution contours on the deformed shape. Animate the
response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the early stages
can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at the increment when the
first enriched element fails is shown in Figure W6–7 (using a deformation scale
factor of 250).
379
W6.8
2. Contour and animate the STATUSXFEM variable. The final state is shown in
Figure W6–8 (using a deformation scale factor of 10). The value of this variable
ranges between 0 and 1 (blue to red), with 0 for elements that are not cracked and
1 for elements that have cracked completely. This allows us to pin-point the crack
location at any given increment.
3. Using history data create a moment-rotation curve of the response at the reference
point located at the right-hand side of the part (set right-refPt). The curve is
shown in Figure W6–9 (note that this plot has been customized).
380
W6.9
Does the load at which crack growth initiates agree with those seen in the cohesive and
VCCT models? Why does the moment-rotation curve look markedly different from those
obtained before?
Discussion
If the load remains the same, then for a given geometry KI increases monotonically with
crack length. For a given KIc, this means that the remote load required to grow a crack
decreases as the crack propagates. In a load-controlled experiment where the load is
increasing or maintained at a certain value, the difference in the applied load and the
required load increases monotonically as the crack grows. Thus, the specimen will
experience dynamic and catastrophic failure. Such a phenomenon cannot truly be
modeled in a static simulation. We employed damage stabilization in the cohesive as well
as the VCCT models in order to stabilize crack propagation artificially, and we saw that
the load increased even after crack propagation begins. The post-initiation response in
these cases is essentially artificial.
381
W6.10
from all the different techniques in displacement control without damage stabilization.
As seen in Figure W6–10, the moment-rotation curves agree with each other quite well.
To prevent rigid body motion, we imposed a constraint that forces the horizontal
displacements of the centers of the left and right edges to be equal and opposite. This
approach is different from that used in the cohesive and the VCCT models, where the
left-support was fixed in the horizontal direction and the right-support was allowed to
translate freely in this direction. Though this introduces a slight asymmetry, we do not
expect it to affect the solution in static simulations, as the choice of the location we fix in
the horizontal direction is completely arbitrary. However, in the case of XFEM, the small
amount of asymmetry created by this boundary condition perturbs the solution enough to
change the principal stress directions near the crack-tip; as the direction of crack
propagation is chosen to be normal to the maximum principal stress (we use the MAXPS
criterion), the crack deflects accordingly. Also, the direction in which the crack deflects is
sensitive to which support is constrained in the horizontal direction, as seen in Figures
W6–11 and W6–12. To avoid this problem, we replaced this boundary condition with a
constraint equation that ensures perfect symmetry in the loading and the boundary
conditions, and thereby prevented crack deflection.
382
W6.11
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named ws_fracture_3pt_bend_answer.py and is available using the
Abaqus fetch utility.
383
384
Notes
385
Notes
386
Workshop 7
Introduction
In this workshop, we will model crack propagation in a steel pressure vessel using
XFEM. The procedure is similar to that used earlier, but the ease of modeling as
compared to conventional methods will become more evident here in three dimensions.
In the postprocessing section of this workshop, we will get acquainted with tools and
features available in the Visualization module that allow one to effectively probe the
cracked geometry in a three-dimensional solid.
387
W7.2
The structure being modeled here is a 10m thick cylindrical pressure vessel with an inner
diameter of 40m at the base with a hemispherical cap. The entire structure is ~94m high
and is modeled using reduced-integration solid continuum elements (C3D8R). The
meshed model is shown in Figure W7–1. The pressure vessel is constrained at the bottom
against movement in all directions, and a uniform pressure of 210 MPa is applied on all
the interior surfaces. We will assume the material to be linear elastic; failure initiates
when the maximum principal stress reaches a critical value (the MAXPS damage
initiation criterion is used). We will use an energy-based damage evolution criterion that
accounts for mode mixing.
An initial crack is located in one of the nozzles near the bottom of the pressure vessel, as
shown in Figure W7–2. As done previously, the initial crack is defined using a part
constructed in the shape of the crack and instanced in the assembly at the desired
location. The crack geometry, i.e., the crack surface and the crack front are defined by
means of two level set functions φ and ψ which Abaqus/CAE calculates using the
geometric feature — in this case the part instance — used to define the crack. Note that
this part need not be meshed or assigned material properties; it is a dummy part present
only for the purpose of defining the initial crack.
Figure W7–2 Initial crack in the nozzle shown in (a) the unmeshed part (b) the
meshed part
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/vessel.
2. Run the script named ws_press_vessel_xfem.py.
The model created by this script contains the part geometry, model assembly, mesh and
the sets and surfaces necessary for defining the crack, boundary conditions and loads. We
will make the following additions to configure the model.
388
W7.3
389
W7.4
Three-dimensional XFEM analyses are usually time intensive and may require a large
number of increments. Here we will run the analysis just long enough to produce some
crack propagation for illustration purposes.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Steps. In the Create Step dialog box that
appears, select Static, General as the procedure type and click Continue.
390
W7.5
2. In the step editor that appears, toggle on Nlgeom and set the time period to 1.
3. Switch to the Incrementation tabbed page of the editor. Enter 0.05 as the initial
and the maximum time increment sizes. Reduce the minimum increment size to
1.0e-12. Enter 10 as the maximum number of increments and click OK.
4. From the main menu bar in the Step module, select Other → General Solution
Controls → Edit → Step-1. Abaqus/CAE displays a warning message. Review it
and click Continue.
5. In the General Solutions Controls Editor that appears, go to the Time
Incrementation tabbed page and toggle on Specify. Then, toggle on
Discontinuous Analysis.
Note: This increases I0 and IR to 8 and 10, respectively. While solving the
equations in any given increment, the automatic time integration algorithm will
check the behavior of residuals from iteration to iteration to gauge the likelihood
of convergence and decide whether or not to abandon iterations and begin again
with a smaller time increment. A check is made for quadratic convergence after I0
iterations and if quadratic convergence is not achieved, then a check is made to
maintain logarithmic convergence after IR iterations. In discontinuous analyses
convergence is generally slow and we are simply postponing these checks to
account for this by increasing I0 and IR.
6. Click the first More tab on the left to display the default values of time
incrementation parameters. Increase the value of IA, the maximum number of
attempts before abandoning an increment, from the default value of 5 to 20. This
data field is highlighted in Figure W7–5. Click OK.
391
W7.6
Output requests
The output variables required to visualize and probe an XFEM crack are not included in
the default output. Edit the default field output request to include the output variables
PHILSM, PSILSM and STATUSXFEM. The first two are found under the category
Failure/Fracture, and the latter is found under State/Field/User/Time, as shown in
Figure W7–6.
392
W7.7
box appears, click Select in viewport in the prompt area to select the instance
directly from the viewport.
6. In the crack editor that appears, toggle on Allow crack growth.
7. Toggle on Crack location and click ; then click Sets in the prompt area. In
the Region Selection dialog box that appears, select crack-1.crack and click
Continue.
8. Toggle on Specify contact property in the crack editor. If it is not already
selected, select the contact property noFric. The crack editor should appear as
shown in Figure W7–8. Click OK.
393
W7.8
2. Click Sets in the prompt area and select the set pressure_vessel-1.bottom in
the Region Selection dialog box that appears. Click Continue.
3. In the boundary condition editor, select ENCASTRE and click OK.
Apply a pressure of 210 MPa on the interior surface of the pressure vessel. Use the
predefined surface named pressure_vessel-1.interior.
1. In the Model Tree double-click Loads. In the Create Load dialog box that
appears, enter Pressure as the name. Select Step-1 as the step and Pressure as
the type, and click Continue.
2. Select the predefined surface pressure_vessel-1.interior in the Region
Selection dialog box and click Continue.
3. In the load editor, enter 2.1E8 as the magnitude and click OK.
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
vessel.
2. Save your model database.
3. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. From the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the
progress of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for
this job (vessel) in the Visualization module.
Results
Because we limited the maximum number of increments to 10, the job will exit with the
error message, Error in job vessel: Too many increments needed to
complete the step. Ignore the message and open vessel.odb in the Visualization
module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response. Figure W7–9 shows the Mises stress at the end of the 10th
increment.
When enriched elements are used and PHILSM is requested as an output variable,
Abaqus/CAE automatically creates an isosurface named Crack_PHILSM where
the value of the signed distance function is zero corresponding to the surface of
the crack. This isosurface cut is turned on by default so that the crack is visible
upon opening the output database.
2. Contour and animate the variable STATUSXFEM to visualize crack propagation.
The last frame is shown in Figure W7–10. STATUSXFEM varies between 0 and
1, with 0 for elements where a crack has not initiated and 1 for elements that have
cracked completely. This allows us to pin-point the crack location at any given
time and to assess the extent of failure in a particular region.
394
W7.9
395
W7.10
3. Change the common plot options to display only the feature edges and contour the
output variable PHILSM. This allows us to view the crack in the pressure vessel
more clearly.
a. From the toolbar click to open the Common Plot Options dialog box.
b. Select Feature edges as shown in Figure W7–11 and click OK.
c. In the field output toolbar choose PHILSM. The resulting contour plot near the
cracked region is displayed in Figure W7–12.
4. Make the assembly translucent to visualize internal crack surfaces.
a. Click the Toggle Global Translucency icon to turn this feature on.
396
W7.11
397
W7.12
5. Using the View Cut Manager, it is possible to display the model on the cut,
which in the case of an XFEM crack will show only the crack surface without the
surrounding material.
a. From the main menu bar, select Tools → View Cut → Manager.
b. In the View Cut Manager that appears, toggle off for the cut named
Crack_PHILSM as shown in Figure W7–14. The resulting crack surface is
displayed in the viewport. Figure W7–15 shows the crack surface without the
surrounding material.
398
W7.13
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named
ws_press_vessel_xfem_answer.py
399
400
Notes
401
Notes
402