Finite Element Analysis For Fracture Behavior of Cracked Beam-Columns

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40 (2004) 17731789
www.elsevier.com/locate/nel
Finite element analysis for fracture behavior of cracked
beam-columns
J.M. Chandra Kishen
a,
, Avinash Kumar
a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
Received 12 June 2003; accepted 4 January 2004
Abstract
The fracture behavior of cracked beam-columns with dierent load eccentricities is studied. A cracked
beam-column element, developed previously by Tharp (Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 24 (1987) 1941) is
implemented into a nite element code to study the behavior of cracked beam-columns subjected to axial and
lateral loads. Assuming that failure occurs due to crack propagation when the mode I stress intensity factor
reaches the fracture toughness of the material, the failure load of cracked columns are determined for dierent
crack depths and slenderness ratios. It is observed that the presence of crack decreases the critical load of
columns and this decrease is small for short cracks and long columns. The presence of crack has no eect
on the critical load for columns with slenderness ratios 180 and above. In addition, the presence of crack
makes the relation between lateral load and lateral deection bi-linear in a beam-column subjected to axial
compressive load.
? 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Critical load; Beam-column; Cracked columns
1. Introduction
One of the old engineering problems is the determination of the maximum carrying capacity of
a structure. In the case of long and slender columns, the buckling load appears to be the limiting
load under which axial compression in an unbent conguration is possible [1]. The study of stability
behavior of a slender column with crack is a problem of practical interest and nds applications
in aerospace, mechanical and civil engineering. The cracks may develop from aws due to applied
cyclic loads, mechanical vibrations, aerodynamic loads, rocket fuel exhaust or acoustical fatigue [2].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-80-2293-3117; fax: +91-80-2360-0404.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Chandra Kishen).
0168-874X/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nel.2004.01.003
1774 J.M. Chandra Kishen, A. Kumar / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40 (2004) 17731789
Members that are subjected to both bending and axial compression are beam-columns. The bending
may be caused either by moments applied to the ends of the member or it may be due to transverse
loads acting directly on the member. Thus, vertical members in rigid frames that are both bent
and compressed are beam columns. Extensive studies [3] have been done on the elastic stability of
uncracked columns. However, stability and fracture of cracked column have been studied only by a
few researchers. Liebowitz et al. [2] have conducted experimental studies on notched and unnotched
columns subjected to axial compressive loading. Their results indicated that the maximum load
carrying capacity of eccentrically loaded columns having slenderness ratios less than 250 may be
reduced signicantly, particularly when these columns contain fatigue cracks or notches. Liebowitz
and Claus [4] gave a theoretical basis for their earlier experimental results. A failure criterion based
on the stress intensity factor and fracture toughness was proposed for notched columns. Okamura
et al. [5] used the relationship between the compliance and stress intensity factor of a cracked
beam to study the eects of reduced rigidity on the load carrying capacity and fracture load of
a slender column with single-edge crack. Their studies indicated that a crack reduces the load
carrying capacity and increases the lateral deection of a column under eccentric compressive load.
The increased lateral deection increases the bending moment at the cracked section. Ibrahim [6]
investigated the behavior of cracked columns with dierent end conditions using the transfer matrix
theory. He determined the critical buckling load of single- and double-sided cracked columns of
dierent crack lengths. In his study, the shear deformations in the crack were neglected.
In most of the work reported above, closed form solutions have been obtained to study the
behavior of notched/cracked columns. This is convenient for regular geometries and simple loading
and boundary conditions. For complicated geometries and loadings, the nite element method is a
well-known tool for analyzing structures. Furthermore, not much work is reported on the behavior
of cracked beam-columns subjected to lateral loads, wherein bending is predominantly a primary
eect.
In this paper, the fracture behavior of cracked columns with dierent load eccentricities is studied
using a cracked beam element, developed previously by Tharp [7]. Assuming that failure occurs
due to crack propagation when the mode I stress intensity factor reaches the fracture toughness
of the material (assuming brittle), the failure load of cracked columns are determined for dierent
crack depths and slenderness ratios. In addition, cracked beam-columns subjected to lateral loads are
analyzed to study the eect of crack size and axial compressive load on the lateral load carrying
capacity.
2. Finite element formulation
Most of the studies reported in the literature regarding the behavior of cracked columns are
based on the formulation making use of the governing dierential equation and obtaining the exact
solution. However, in many instances exact solutions are either dicult or impossible to obtain.
With the availability of high speed digital computers the nite element method is being used as a
popular computational tool to virtually analyze any type of structural problem. In this section, the
procedures for analyzing cracked beam-columns using the nite element method is described. The
cracked beam nite element developed by Tharp [7] using compliance coecients is used together
with a regular beam-column element for the analysis.
J.M. Chandra Kishen, A. Kumar / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40 (2004) 17731789 1775
Fig. 1. Degrees of freedom for plane beam element.
2.1. Stiness matrix for an uncracked beam-column element
The stiness matrix for an uncracked (regular) beam-column element shown in Fig. 1 can be
written as [1]
[k
e
] = [k] + [k
o
], (1)
where, [k] is the stiness matrix of a regular beam element and [k
o
] is the initial stress stiness
matrix which accounts for the stiening or weakening eects of axial load on the bending stiness.
These matrices can be derived using the strain energy concepts and are given by Chajes [1]
[k] =
EI
L
3
AL
2
}I 0 0 AL
2
}I 0 0
0 12 6L 0 12 6L
0 6L 4L
2
0 6L 2L
2
AL
2
}I 0 0 AL
2
}I 0 0
0 12 6L 0 12 6L
0 6L 2L
2
0 6L 4L
2
(2)
and
[k
o
] =
P
30L
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 36 3L 0 36 3L
0 3L 4L
2
0 3L L
2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 36 3L 0 36 3L
0 3L L
2
0 3L 4L
2
. (3)
In the above matrices, E, I , A and L are the modulus of elasticity, moment of inertia, area of
cross-section and length of the beam-column element, P is the axial force, positive if tensile and
negative if compressive. The above matrices operate on the degrees of freedom given by (Fig. 1)
{d} = {u
1
w
1
0
1
u
2
w
2
0
2
}
t
. (4)
Fig. 2. Cracked beam element.
2.2. Stiness matrix for an edge-cracked beam element
A beam element of rectangular cross-section with edge-crack is developed by Tharp [7] based on
compliance coecients. This element allows representation of individual cracks and direct calculation
of stress intensity factors. The element has zero length with two nodes and a single edge crack. The
two nodes have same coordinates and the element includes the three degrees of freedom commonly
associated with regular beam elements. Fig. 2 shows the dimensions and sign conventions for cracked
beam element.
The stiness matrix of the cracked beam element is obtained using the compliance coecients by
partial dierentiating the total strain energy. The terms of the element stiness relation {F}=[K
b
]{z}
are dened by (Fig. 2) [7].
{F} = {P
1
J
1
M
1
P
2
J
2
M
2
}
t
, (5)
{o} = {u
1
w
1
0
1
u
2
w
2
0
2
}
t
, (6)
[K
b
] =
z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D
0 1}z
tt
0 0 1}z
tt
0
z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D
z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D
0 1}z
tt
0 0 1}z
tt
0
z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D
, (7)
where [K
b
] is the element stiness matrix for a bottom-cracked element. The stiness matrix [K
t
]
for the top cracked element is
[K
t
] =
z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D
0 1}z
tt
0 0 1}z
tt
0
z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D
z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D z
mm
}D 0 z
mp
}D
0 1}z
tt
0 0 1}z
tt
0
z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D z
mp
}D 0 z
pp
}D
. (8)
In the above matrices, z
i)
are the compliances for extension, bending and shear and dened by
z
pp
= o}P, z
mm
= 0}M, z
tt
= w}J, respectively, where o is axial extension, P is axial load, 0 is
rotation, M is moment, w is deection and J the shear force. D is dened by D = z
pp
z
mm
z
2
m
.
The compliance coecients used in the derivation of the cracked beam stiness matrix by Tharp
[7] along with the expressions for the stress intensity factors are presented in Appendix A. The
cracked beam column element accurately represents the change in beam compliance caused by the
presence of a crack, but the change in compliance is localized in the zero-length element. It causes
displacements u, 0 and t to be discontinuous across the element rather than being continuously
distributed in the neighborhood of the crack. Close to the crack these quantities and also exact
distribution of stresses are unknown and cannot be resolved by mesh renement. Since the beam
column element cannot represent crack interaction, it is restricted to modeling cracks of sucient
spacing such that the crack interactions are negligible.
2.3. Computational procedure
2.3.1. Failure criteria
When a column is subjected to compressive axial loads, the lateral deection at the mid-section
increases slowly with the load at rst, then rapidly after the applied compressive load passes a
certain value. As both the deection and compression increases, the applied bending moment at
cracked section increases rapidly. This bending induces opening mode (mode I), crack tip stress
eld. The moment M, at the cracked section of the column is given by
M = P(e + o), (9)
where e and o are the eccentricity of axial load and lateral deection at the mid-section of the
column respectively and P is the axial compressive load. However, the net stress intensity factor at
the crack tip is reduced by compression. The net stress intensity factor becomes
K = K
Im
K
I
, (10)
where K
Im
and K
I
are stress intensity factors due to bending moment and axial force respectively
and are given in Appendix A.
According to linear elastic fracture mechanics, failure by crack propagation takes place when the
stress intensity factor at the crack tip reaches the fracture toughness of a brittle material which can
be written as
K
I
K
Ic
. (11)
2.3.2. Critical load
The bending stiness in a beam-column is aected by membrane forces. The initial stress stiness
matrix discussed in the previous section, [K
o
] accounts for this eect and can be applied to nd
the critical load of columns. The critical condition reaches when compressive membrane forces are
large enough to reduce the bending stiness to zero for some physically possible deformation mode.
Critical load is the load for which a reference conguration of the structure and an innitesimally
close (buckled) position are both possible equilibrium congurations. As the buckling displacement
{dD} takes place from a reference conguration {D}, the load does not change. Hence, at critical
condition:
[K + K
o
]{dD} = 0. (12)
Here, K
o
is a function of the axial load P. Eq. (12) represents a standard eigenvalue problem and
for a non-trivial solution to exist the determinant of the matrix [K +P
cr
K
G
] must be equal to zero,
through which the critical load is computed.
3. Analysis of cracked beam-columns subjected to axial loads
The cracked beam-column element is implemented within the framework of nite element method
to study the behavior of cracked beam-columns [8]. One cracked beam element is used at the location
of crack while standard beam elements are used at other locations. The two nodes of cracked element
share the same coordinates and are connected to the standard beam element on either side. The
geometrical and material properties of the specimen used in this numerical study are same as those
used in the experimental studies of Liebowitz et al. [2]. The specimen is half-inch square bars made
of aluminum with Youngs modulus of 10
7
psi, yield stress of 73, 000 psi, ultimate stress value of
83, 000 psi and fracture toughness of 38, 000 lb in
3}2
. The eective length of the specimen is taken
as 13.25 in.
Eccentrically loaded cracked beam-columns are analyzed for dierent eccentricities and the failure
load as computed using Eq. (11) are tabulated in Table 1 and compared with the experimental
results of Leibowitz et al. [2]. It is seen that a good agreement exists between the experimental
and nite element results. The results show that a crack in a beam-column under axial load reduces
its carrying capacity. The load carrying capacity is further reduced as the size of the crack is
increased. In addition, when the eccentricity of the applied load is increased, the load carrying
capacity decreases. The load and mid-span lateral deection response of cracked beam-columns at
Table 1
Comparison of failure load (lbs) calculated from FE code with experimental values [2]
Crack Eccentricity of load (inch)
depth (in)
0.09 0.25 0.50 1.00 1.25
0.020 Expt. 2440 1850 1320 1150 1010
Theory 2651 2284 1888 1412 1257
0.070 Expt. 2460 1950 1490 1100 910
Theory 2472 1973 1506 1027 886
0.140 Expt. 2180 1680 1180 800 630
Theory 2284 1718 1236 790 669
0.195 Expt. 2100 1450 940 550 470
Theory 2121 1529 1056 647 541
Fig. 3. Loaddeection plot for column with crack size 0.02 in.
various load eccentricities and dierent crack sizes are studied and the results are shown in Figs. 36.
The failure load is assumed to have reached when mode I stress intensity factor reaches the fracture
toughness of the material, provided the material is brittle. The nature of the loaddeection curve is
non-linear due to the dependence of the bending moment on the lateral deection. As the deection
increases, the bending moment increases and an increase in bending moment results in the increase
in lateral deection. Initially, the lateral deection is small and the rate at which it increases with
load is small. For an eccentrically loaded column, the load components can be resolved into two
componentsa concentric compressive load and a moment. The magnitude of the moment as given
by Eq. (9) increases with increase in lateral deection. For an uncracked column, the moment gives
a linear distribution of stress producing tension on one side and compression on the opposite side,
while the concentric compressive load produces a uniform compressive stress distribution across the
cross-section. If the crack is on the tension producing side, then at some value of lateral deection
the crack will be in opening mode with tensile stresses along the crack. At this stage, the bending
stiness gets reduced and the lateral deections grow at a faster rate. This is true even in the case
of increasing eccentricities. The load carrying capacity gets drastically reduced as the eccentricity in
load increases.
The eect of crack depth on failure load and maximum horizontal deection of an eccentrically
loaded beam-column is shown in Fig. 7 for dierent eccentricities. It is seen that the failure load
drops considerably for increasing crack depths and increasing load eccentricities.
The mode I stress intensity factor is plotted against axial load for the cracked beam-columns for
varying load eccentricities in Figs. 811. The stress intensity factors are calculated from Eq. (10)
taking both bending and axial compression stress intensity factors into consideration. The fracture
load obtained for all crack sizes and all eccentricities correlates very well with the experimental
Fig. 7. Eect of crack size on failure load.
Fig. 8. Stress intensity factor vs. load for column with crack size 0.02 in.
results of Liebowitz et al. [2] for the fracture toughness value of 37, 000 lb in
3}2
. This, therefore
indicates the validity of the superposition of stress intensity factors of the same mode. When the
load eccentricity is lower, mode I stress intensity factor is lower for a particular load value since the
crack surfaces bear compressive stress until the stress due to the moment reverses its sign. These
curves are non-linear due to the dependence of the moment on the lateral deection. It may be noted
that the material behavior is assumed to be linear throughout the analysis. Mode I stress intensity
factor increases gradually initially and then becomes asymtotic close to the failure load.
A crack reduces the exural rigidity of a column and hence the stiness for a cracked column
will be less than that of an un-cracked column. Therefore, the load carrying capacity of a cracked
column gets reduced. This is seen in Fig. 12 where the ratio of critical load of a cracked column
and the buckling load of an un-cracked column (P
cr
}P
0
) is plotted against the ratio of crack size to
column thickness (a}W) for dierent ratios of column length to column thickness (L}W). It is also
seen that the eect of crack decreases with both a}W and 1}(L}W). For a very slender column or a
Fig. 12. Critical load of cracked and uncracked columns.
Fig. 13. Eect of crack size and slenderness ratio on critical load of column.
column with a small crack, the critical load of the column is not aected much by the crack. For a
column with a crack of 0.45W long and the column having a value of 75 for L}W, the critical load
is reduced by only about 6% from that of an un-cracked column. Similar observations were made
in the studies of Okamura et al. [5] and Leobowitz et al. [2].
The eect of higher values of slenderness ratio on the critical load of beam-columns is shown
in Fig. 13. It is clearly seen that the critical load of cracked column is very close to that of an
un-cracked column for short crack lengths. For slenderness ratios greater than 180, the presence
of crack has no signicant eect on the critical load of a beam-column. According to the results
reported by Liebowitz et al. [2], the maximum load carrying capacity of eccentrically loaded notched
columns having slenderness ratios less than 250 may be reduced signicantly. These discussions are
valid only for an elastic cracked columns which can sustain large deections. Often, the tensile crack
tip stress eld causes fracture before the critical load is reached.
Fig. 14. Beam column with concentrated lateral load.
4. Analysis of cracked beam-columns subjected to lateral loads
As explained earlier, beam-columns are members that are subjected to both bending and axial
compression. However, we are now concerned with members where both bending and axial com-
pression are due to intentionally applied loads. Bending is now a primary eect, whereas in the
earlier section of analysis of eccentrically loaded columns, it was a secondary eect.
For an un-cracked beam column the maximum deection, i.e., deection at mid-section of a simply
supported member that is simultaneously bend by a transverse load Q and axial force P as shown
in Fig. 14 is given by Chajes [1]
o = o
0
1
1 (P}P
cr
)
, (13)
where P is the axial compressive load and P
cr
is the critical load of simply supported column given
by
2
EI}L
2
. The above equation indicates that the maximum deection of the member is equal to
o
0
, the maximum deection that would exist if only Q were acting, multiplied by an amplication
factor that depends on the ratio P}P
cr
. The eect of axial load is to magnify the deection that
would exist in the beam if the axial force were not present.
For a cracked beam-column, since the exural rigidity reduces in the presence of a crack, the
maximum deection will increase and the carrying capacity will decrease compared to an un-cracked
beam column. Fig. 15 shows the comparison of load deection characteristics between cracked and
un-cracked beam-columns for dierent crack sizes. It is seen that the ability to carry lateral load
gets reduced in the presence of a crack at constant axial load. Further, it is observed that the
crack comes into play only after a certain lateral load is applied. This is because, the crack is
initially in compression. When the lateral load increases, the stress along the crack changes from
compression to tension. At this stage, the crack will be subjected to opening mode and becomes
active in reducing the lateral load carrying capacity. For constant axial compressive load, when the
size of crack increases, the lateral load carrying capacity decreases.
In Fig. 16, the loaddeection curves of a cracked beam-column are drawn for dierent values
of axial compression. It is seen that the ability of a cracked beam-column to resist lateral load
decreases as the axial load increases. Since the bending stiness of a member is proportional to
the slope of loaddeection relationship, these curves clearly demonstrate that an increase in axial
compressive load produces a decrease in bending stiness and for constant axial load the bending
stiness of a cracked beam-column is less than the bending stiness of an un-cracked one. The
curves also show that the relationship between the lateral load Q and lateral deection o is linear
for zero axial compressive load (P = 0) and bi-linear when subjected to axial compressive load
(P 0). The slope of the bi-linear curves decreases for increasing axial load. This is because in the
Fig. 15. Eect of crack size on carrying capacity of beam-column.
Fig. 16. Eect of axial load on lateral load carrying capacity of cracked beam-column.
initial stage of loading the cracked beam-column behaves as an un-cracked beam-column so long
as the moment is not capable of opening the crack, which is closed by the compressive force and
the net SIF being less than zero. Since, the compressive load is constant and with increasing lateral
load, the moment increases thereby opening the crack. The eect of crack now starts coming into
play thereby decreasing the stiness.
The stress intensity factor of the beam column is plotted against lateral load in Fig. 17 for
dierent crack lengths at a constant axial compressive load of 500 lbs. It is seen that the stress
intensity factor becomes positive only when some lateral load comes on the beam since the crack
is initially in compression due to the axial compressive load.
Fig. 17. Stress intensity factor vs. lateral concentrated load on beam column.
5. Conclusions
A simplied method for nite element analysis of cracked beam-columns subjected to axial and
lateral loads has been presented and the following conclusions are drawn:
(1) The cracked beam element is simple and ecient to analyze cracked beam-columns. Since it
contains the three degrees of freedom commonly associated with beam elements, it can be easily
incorporated into any standard nite element code. The only limitation being that this element
cannot represent crack interaction and hence restricted in modeling cracks and notches with
sucient spacing so that crack interaction is negligible.
(2) In beam-columns under axial compression, the eect of a crack is to increase the lateral deection
and decrease the load carrying capacity. The axial load carrying capacity decreases as the crack
size and the eccentricity increase.
(3) The net stress intensity factor at the crack tip which is the dierence between the bending and
axial compressive stress intensity factor, is not a linear function of the axial compressive load.
This is due to the dependence of the lateral deection and the moment due to axial compression.
The stress intensity factor increases slowly at lower values of compressive load and as this load
approaches the failure load, the stress intensity factor increases rapidly.
(4) The critical load of a cracked column decreases with the crack size to column width ratio (a}W)
and the column length to column width ratio (L}W). This eect is small if the crack size is
small and the column length is large.
(5) For beam-columns with slenderness ratio greater than 180, the presence of crack has no signif-
icant eect on the critical load.
(6) The ability to carry lateral load in a beam-column decreases when the axial load or the crack
size increases. The relationship between lateral load and lateral deection is bi-linear for cracked
beam-column in the presence of axial compressive load. The stress intensity factor is a linear
function of lateral load.
Appendix A
In this appendix, the compliance coecients used in the derivation of the cracked beam stiness
matrix by Tharp [7] along with the expressions for the stress intensity factors are presented.
In a component, decrease in stiness with increasing crack length may be simple to visualize, but
in fracture mechanics, it is a easier to deal with compliance, which is inverse of stiness. Thus,
compliance of a body increases with increase in crack length. Compliance for a cracked member
is based on well-known relationship between load and deection. The compliances for extension,
bending and shear are dened by z
= o}P, z
mm
= 0}M, z
tt
= w}J, respectively, where o is axial
extension, P is axial load, 0 is rotation, M is moment, w is deection and J the shear force.
Compliances are related to energy release rate G and stress intensity factor K by
G
1 t
2
E
K
2
I
=
P
2
2
dz
dA
(A.1)
G
m
=
1 t
2
E
K
2
Im
=
M
2
2
dz
mm
dA
(A.2)
G
t
=
1 t
2
E
K
2
IIt
=
J
2
2
dz
tt
dA
(A.3)
where K
I
and K
Im
are mode I stress intensity factors caused by axial load P and bending moment M,
respectively, and K
II
is mode II stress intensity factor due to shear force J. E is Youngs modulus,
j is Poissons ratio for plain strain and zero for plain stress and dA is an innitesimal increment of
crack area equal to b da, where b is the dimension of rectangular beam perpendicular to x, plane
and a is crack length as shown in Fig. 2. Subscripts ,m,t refer to axial load, moment and shear,
respectively.
Compliances for the cracked beam column are derived by integrating Eqs. (A.1)(A.3):
z
= z
0
+ z
= z
0
+
2(1 t
2
)
E
A
0
K
I
P
2
dA, (A.4)
z
m
= z
m0
+ z
mm
= z
m0
+
2(1 t
2
)
E
A
0
K
Im
M
2
dA, (A.5)
z
t
= z
t0
+ z
tt
= z
t0
+
2(1 t
2
)
E
A
0
K
IIt
J
2
dA, (A.6)
where z
0
, z
m0
, z
t0
are compliances for uncracked beam column and z
, z
mm
, z
tt
are the compliance
contribution attributable to the crack. In a cracked beam, axial force causes rotation at the cracked
section and bending causes axial displacement. These eects are combined in compliance coecients
z
m
and z
m
, which must be equal. Compliance z
m
is given by
z
m
=
2(1 t
2
)
E
A
0
K
I
P
K
Im
M
dA. (A.7)
Since shear force does not interact with axial load or bending moment, the other cross compliances
are zero.
Compliances are calculated by the integrations indicated in Eqs. (A.4)(A.7). The stress intensity
factor for extension valid for a}w60.6 is given by
K
I
=(P}w)(a)
1}2
[a
0
+ a
1
(a}w) + a
2
(a}w)
2
+a
3
(a}w)
3
+ a
4
(a}w)
4
] (A.8)
with a
0
= 1.12, a
1
= 0.23, a
2
= 10.6, a
3
= 21.7 and a
4
= 30.4.
a, w and b are the crack length, depth and width of crack element, respectively. Integration in
Eq. (A.4) yields
z
=(2(1 v
2
)}E)(a
2
0
(a}w)
2
}2 + 2a
0
a
1
(a}w)
3
}3
+(2a
0
a
2
+ a
2
1
)(a}w)
4
}4 + 2(a
0
a
3
+ a
1
a
2
)(a}w)
5
}5
+(2a
0
a
4
+ 2a
1
a
3
+ a
2
2
)(a}w)
6
}6
+2(a
1
a
4
+ a
2
a
3
)(a}w)
7
}7 + (2a
2
a
4
+ a
2
3
)(a}w)
8
}8
+2a
3
a
4
(a}w)
9
}9 + a
2
4
(a}w)
10
}10). (A.9)
The stress intensity factor for pure bending for a}w60.6 is given by
K
Im
=(6M(a)
1}2
}w
2
)[b
0
+ b
1
(a}w) + b
2
(a}w)
2
+b
3
(a}w)
3
+ b
4
(a}w)
4
] (A.10)
with b
0
= 1.12, b
1
= 1.39, b
2
= 7.32, b
3
= 13.1 and b
4
= 14.0.
Integration in Eq. (A.5) yields
z
mm
=(72(1 v
2
)}Ew
2
)(b
2
0
(a}w)
2
}2 + 2b
0
b
1
(a}w)
3
}3
+(2b
0
b
2
+ b
2
1
)(a}w)
4
}4 + 2(b
0
b
3
+ b
1
b
2
)(a}w)
5
}5
+(2b
0
b
4
+ 2b
1
b
3
+ b
2
2
)(a}w)
6
}6 + 2(b
1
b
4
+ b
2
b
3
) (a}w)
7
}7
+(2b
2
b
4
+ b
2
3
)(a}w)
8
}8 + 2b
3
b
4
(a}w)
9
}9
+b
2
4
(a}w)
10
}10). (A.11)
The above stress intensity formulae are integrated in Eq. (A.7) to yield
z
m
=(12(1 v
2
)}Ew)(a
0
b
0
(a}w)
2
}2 + (a
0
b
1
+ a
1
b
0
)(a}w)
3
}3
+(a
0
b
2
+ a
1
b
1
+ a
2
b
0
)(a}w)
4
}4
+(a
0
b
3
+ a
1
b
2
+ a
2
b
1
+ a
3
b
0
)(a}w)
5
}5
+(a
0
b
4
+ a
1
b
3
+ a
2
b
2
+ a
3
b
1
+ a
4
b
0
)(a}w)
6
}6
+(a
1
b
4
+ a
2
b
3
+ a
3
b
2
+ a
4
b
1
)(a}w)
7
}7
+(a
2
b
4
+ a
3
b
3
+ a
4
b
2
)(a}w)
8
}8
+(a
3
b
4
+ a
4
b
3
)(a}w)
9
}9 + a
4
b
4
(a}w)
10
}10). (A.12)
For calculation of shear compliance z
tt
for a cracked beam column Tharp [7] has given a relationship
for stress intensity factor in mode II valid for 0 6a}w61.0 as
K
IIt
=(J(w a)
1}2
)[1.993(a}w) + 4.513(a}w)
2
9.516(a}w)
3
+ 4.482(a}w)
4
]. (A.13)
The associated compliance z
tt
is integrated numerically using this relationship.
References
[1] A. Chajes, Principles of Structural Stability Theory, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Clis, NJ, 1974.
[2] H. Liebowitz, H. Vanderveldt, D.W. Harris, Carrying capacity of notched columns, Int. J. Solids Struct. 3 (1967)
489500.
[3] S.P. Timoshenko, J.M. Gere, Theory of Elastic Stability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.
[4] H. Liebowitz, W.D. Claus Jr., Failure of notched columns, Eng. Fract. Mech. 1 (1968) 379383.
[5] H. Okamura, H.W. Liu, C.S. Chu, A cracked column under compression, Eng. Fract. Mech. 1 (1969) 547564.
[6] F.K. Ibrahim, Matrix analysis of stability behavior of cracked columns, J. Struct. Eng. (India) 21 (4) (1995)
257266.
[7] T.M. Tharp, A nite element for edge-cracked beam columns, Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 24 (1987) 19411950.
[8] A. Kumar, Behavior of cracked beam columns, M.E. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India, 2002.

Finite Element Analysis For Fracture Behavior of Cracked Beam-Columns

Uploaded by

Finite Element Analysis For Fracture Behavior of Cracked Beam-Columns

Uploaded by

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40 (2004) 17731789

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-80-2293-3117; fax: +91-80-2360-0404.

You might also like