CEE 575 Fracture Mechanics

Final Project
Travis Fillmore
Munci Inonu
Maozhe Gong
//

Figure 1: A semi-infinite strip with crack

Question 1
Recall the expression of the energy release rate G and of the mode I stress
intensity factor KI as a function of the prescribed displacement , the midheight h, the Youngs modulus E and the Poissons ratio . Assume Plane strain
conditions.
For 2D plane strain, zz = 0 and
yy =

E
[(1 )yy + xx ]
(1 + )(1 2)
zz = (xx + yy ).

For this problem, xx = xy = 0 and xx = xy = 0. Substituted into the above equations this gives
yy =

E
[(1 )yy ]
(1 + )(1 2)
zz = (yy ).

Strain energy U = 12 = 21 yy yy . Substituting in yy (E, , yy ) and yy =

U=

2h

yields

1 E(1 )2
.
8 (1 + )(1 2)h2

Strain energy U is related to energy release rate G by 2U hbda = Gbda which yields G = 2U h.
Substituting in values for U produces
G(, h, E, ) =

E(1 )
2
.
4 (1 + )(1 2)h

The energy release rate G is related to the first mode stress intensity factor KI by G =
KI2
E
1 2

KI2

. This means that the stress intensity factor can be expressed in terms of known variables by
KI (, h, E, ) =

E
p
.
2 (1 + ) (1 2)h

Question 2
Deformed configuration
The deformed configurations are analyzed by Abaqus CAE using the CAE file provided, the results
are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Figure 2: Deformed configuration

Figure 3: Deformed configuration close to the crack tip

Vertical reaction force on the top surface

The result is 38031.8N . This result is a summation of all nodal reaction forces on the top surface,
the nodal reaction forces are calculated by Abaqus CAE.

Question 3
Calculate the stress intensity factor in mode I, KI , from the displacements of
the node close to the crack tip. Compare with the theoretical value.
The approximation of KI is

1

i
C h
KI 2u B u C n
2
d

(1)

with

E 2


C=
8 1 2

(2)

3000M P a 2


C=
8 1 0.32

(3)

C = 1032.95M P a

(4)

From the CAE results,

u B = 3.5981 102 mm


u C = 7.0977 102 mm
d = 0.543mm/4 = 0.1358mm

(5)
(6)
(7)

Substitute the calculated parameters to equation (1) to get KI ,

1032.95
1
KI =
23.5981 102 7.0977 102 M P a m
2
0.1358

KI = 198.36 M P a mm

(8)
(9)

To find the theoretical value, KI solution from question 1 is used,

E

p
2 (1 + ) (1 2)h

0.4
3000
p
MPa m
KI =
2 (1 + 0.3) (1 2 0.3)10

KI = 230.77 M P a mm
KI =

(10)
(11)
(12)

The theoretical value for KI is 14% higher than the computational value from ABAQUS.
This
dicrepancy likely comes
from discretization error in the model, which leads to too low a value


u B compared to u A . We expect that as the mesh is refined the computational value for KI
will increase and approach the theoretical KI .

Question 4
Evaluate the energy release rate G using the J-integral
The energy release rate G using the J-integral method is 13.03M N/mm , the result is calculated
by Abaqus CAE.

Compare with the Griffith-Irwin estimate

The Griffith-Irwin estimate is

KI2
KI2
=
.
E

E
1 2

The numerical value is

= 11.94 M N/mm .

Compare with the theoretical solution provided in Question 1.

In question 1, G is derived in this equation,
E(1 )
2
4 (1 + )(1 2)h

(13)

0.42
3000(1 0.3)
4 (1 + 0.3)(1 2 0.3)10

(14)

G = 16.15 M N/mm

(15)

G=
then,
G=

The Griffith-Irwin estimate is 26% lower than the theoretical solution while the J-integral
is 19% lower than the theoretical solution. In this problem J-integral is a better estimate of the
theoretical energy release rate G. This is probably because the path independence property of the
J-integral relies less on the refinement of the mesh than the point-displacement method of calculating KI in question 3.
The point-displacement method relies on the models ability to accurately model the 1r dependence, which relies on the refinement of the mesh near the crack tip. However, the J-integral
can be calculated far away from the crack tip, implying that it relies less on the accuracy extremely
close to the crack tip and the refinement there.

Question 5
Run several simulations corresponding to different values of between 0 and
0.6mm. Plot G = f ().
The results are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: G = f ()

Comment on the scaling of the energy release rate and compare to the analytical
prediction
According to the results, the analytical solution is larger than the FEM solution, with an almost
constant error of 20%. This error must come from something that does not change significantly
for changing . Possible reasons include the analytical solutions assumption that the plate is
infinite is not met and the FEM discretization error.

Question 6
The LEFM local solution predicts a scaling of the stresses in
as a function of the distance r to the crack tip.

1 .
r

Plot 22 ( = 0, r)

Plot 22 ( = 0, r) as a function of the distance r to the crack tip

In order to obtain the 22 results from ABAQUS, a feature called path was used. A path was
created along = 0 starting at the crack tip and extending until the end of the domain. Then in
XYData manager the path option was used to plot the 22 versus radius r as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: 22 versus r for the FEM and theoretical solutions

Very close to the crack tip there is some large error over the domain in which the quarter
node quadrilateral element is used. This oscillation is considered discretization error and has no
bearing on the K-dominance region. As the radius r increases, the theoretical solution decreases
while the FEM solution remains fairly constant (as one would expect in a plate with a patch-test
type problem such as this one). Depending on the tolerance  =
zone can be determined.

T heory
F EM
22
22
,
T heory
22

the K-dominant

Estimate the region of the K-dominance.

The error between the theoretical and the FEM solutions for 22 is shown in Figure 5.
The error  is chosen to be  = 0.5. The radius r = 3 mm at that tolerance. Thus the
K-dominant zone is estimated to be a circle with the crack tip at its center and a radius of 3 mm.

Figure 6: Error  versus r

Question 7
The analytical solution found in Question 1, applies when Lh << 1 and La << 1.
Display and investigate the dependence of the energy release rate G on both Lh
and a/L.
In order to plot Lh versus G, the problem dimensions were resized using the Features option of
Parts. The variable h was changed while a was held constant. The results are shown in Figure 7.
The theoretical value for the energy release rate G matches the fem solution fairly well ( 20%
error). However, it is interesting to note that the fem solution underestimates the energy release
rate. It does this similarly for small h and large h. This seems to run contradictory to analytical
solution assumption that Lh << 1. However, the underestimation is likely occurring from discretization error. The mesh closest to the crack tip always has the same size so that the discretization
error stagnates.
As with the theoretical dependence G(h), the fem solution shows a dependence on h. As h
1
increases, G decreases with sqrth
.
In order to plot La versus G, the problem dimensions were resized using the Features option
of Parts. The variable a was changed while h was held constant. The results are shown in Figure
8.
The theoretical dependence for the energy release rate G(a) matches the fem solution fairly
well. However, the mesh is consistently fairly coarse so that the fem solution consistently underestimates the energy release rate. There seems to be some variance in the fem solution for very low

Figure 7:

h
L

versus G for constant

a
L

= 0.4

Figure 8:

a
L

versus G for constant

h
L

= 0.1

values of a or very high values.

As with the lack of theoretical dependency G(a), the fem solution also lacks any dependency
except for possible discretization error when the crack is very short or very long.
9

Question 8
2D
2D
2D
We call 2D = {11
(r, ), 22
(r, ), 12
(r, )} the LEFM solution given in slide 24 on
Chapter 2. We call = {11 (r, ), 22 (r, ), 12 (r, )}T the actual full field solution
provided
by the finite element simulation in Abaqus. We define the error as:
q
2D

2D

2D

e = | 1111 11 |2 + | 2222 22 |2 + | 1212 12 |2 . Show the contour of the error e for the
initial configuration and determine the zone of K-dominance.

Since this question deals with the error between the FEM solution found in ABAQUS and the
K-field analytical solution in the notes, a qualitative comparison may give some insight as to what
to expect. The contour plots of the analytical solutions were made using Matlab and screenshots
were taken of the Abaqus solutions. The scaling in each figure is approximately the same. The S11
solution is shown in Figure 9.

(a) Exact

(b) ABAQUS

Figure 9: 11 solution from analytical and the fem results

The analytical K-field shape takes a dumbell shape; however, abaqus only supplies the right
half of the dumbell well. The left half rounds off near the crack. Thus, large error in s11 will
probably be found near = . The S12 solution is shown in Figure 10.
The two plots bear some resemblance. The region to the left of the crack tip has an increased
magnitude in the same manner as the analytical solution. However, the other regions little in
common, with the abaqus solution failing to reach the comparable magnitudes. It is expected that
this discrepancy in behavior will result in large errors close to the crack tip. Finally Figure 11 is
inspected.
Similar to S11, this plot looks pretty good everywhere except to the left of the crack tip. It
has too small a magnitude in this region.

10

(a) Exact

(b) ABAQUS

Figure 10: 12 solution from analytical and the fem results

(a) Exact

(b) ABAQUS

Figure 11: 22 solution from analytical and the fem results

11

In order to compare the analytical results with the fem results, the path feature of abaqus
was utilized. Figure 11 shows the mesh lines spreading radially from the crack tip. These lines
were used to define paths. The entire circular region around the crack tip that uses those lines
for element creation was considered. Paths were created along each radial line and its angle
considered. Abaqus calculates solution values at each node along the line at a certain radius r.
The XY Data Manager feature is used to calculate 11 , 12 , and 22 for every and r.
2D , 2D , and 2D to calculate e as
These values are compared against analytical values 11
12
22
specified in the question prompt. There are several problems with this analysis however. At cer2D
tain values = {0, , }, the 2D solutions are 0. This means that the error | 2D |2 will be
infinite. This makes determining the error in such regions using this method unreliable. In order to
circumvent these shortcomings in these regions, ( 2D ) is scaled by the next largest magnitude
of value 2D .

Also, the definition of error e is made difficult by the fem solution values close to the crack
tip. At the crack tip, the fem has a finite magnitude. However the analytical solution has an
infinite solution (scales with 1r ). This means that the closer to the crack tip, the higher the error
will be. Also, an unusual phenomenon is observed a little farther away as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Error versus radius r for = 0

The error decreases quickly as expected until at a point (in this case r = 0.3 mm) the error
increases quickly. The reason for this increase in error is unknown. It may result from discretization/modeling error (this jump always occurs within the quarter-point element) in the fem model
or be the actual solution to the problem. After this initial increase in error the error drops again
and then gradually increases until K-dominance is lost.

12

As a result of the plot above, several contours will be shown. First, the small r value at
which the error is very small will be shown. Then the error at the terminally increasing zone will
be displayed. The resulting contours for e are shown in Figure 13. The circle outside the error
contours denotes the area over which the radial elements are defined, while the x and y axis are
defined in millimeters.

Figure 13: Contour of several error tolerances including the inner error contour
Above and below the crack tip (located at (0, 0)) the error is large. To the right of the crack
tip the error is at its lowest, while the left of the crack tip has interesting behavior. As one moves
from above the crack tip to the left the error decreases and then increases dramatically to 0. Part
of this dramatic increase comes from the result that all analytical stresses have a magnitude of 0
here. This means that according to any of the proposed definitions for error, the error here will be
scaled by 0 and infinite.
Also, these contours look very similar to the contours of the 11 solution in Figure 9. This
13

hearkens back to the qualitative comparison between the analytical and the fem solutions. If any
directions of stress do not match up well, then they will result in significant error. Thus, since 22
matches poorly to the left of the crack tip, error will be high there. While, 12 does not match
the solution very well close to the crack tip, the error from this coincides with (and may result
from) discretization error. However, above and below the crack tip 22 should continue to have an
elevated magnitude, which the fem does not. This results in high error between the two above and
below the crack tip. The unusual branches extending to upper left and lower left from the crack
tip in Figure 13 likely result from interaction in the 22 and 11 errors.
In order to estimate the zone of K-dominance one must choose an error tolerance parameter
 as well as determine whether the jump in error shown in Figure 12 results from discretization
error or is the correct solution for the problem. It will be assumed that the jump results from a
discretization error. The error tolerance will be taken as  = 0.5.
Since the high error above and below the crack tip is due to coarseness of mesh, it will be
assumed that the solution in the limit of refinement will have a similar error as what is given to
the right of the crack tip. The same will be said for the 0 magnitude solutions to the left of the
crack tip. Thus, the K-dominant zone will be a circle with the same radius as epsilon = 0.5 when
= 0. This is shown in Figure 14 displayed among the fem elements.

14

Figure 14: Contour of the K-dominant zone

15