Problems in engineering, computational science, and the physical and biological sciences
are using increasingly sophisticated mathematical techniques. Thus, the bridge between
the mathematical sciences and other disciplines is heavily traveled. The correspondingly
increased dialog between the disciplines has led to the establishment of the series: Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics.
The purpose of this series is to meet the current and future needs for the interaction between
various science and technology areas on the one hand and mathematics on the other. This is
done, firstly, by encouraging the ways that mathematics may be applied in traditional areas, as
well as point towards new and innovative areas of applications; and, secondly, by encouraging
other scientific disciplines to engage in a dialog with mathematicians outlining their problems
to both access new methods and suggest innovative developments within mathematics itself.
The series will consist of monographs and highlevel texts from researchers working on the
interplay between mathematics and other fields of science and technology.
Series Editors
S.S. Antman
Department of Mathematics
and
Institute for Physical Science
and Technology
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742, USA
ssa@math.umd.edu
L. Sirovich
Department of Biomathematics
Laboratory of Applied Mathematics
Mt. Sinai School of Medicine
Box 1012
New York, NY 10029, USA
Lawrence.Sirovich@mssm.edu
Series Advisors
C.L. Bris L. Glass
P.S. Krishnaprasad R.V. Kohn
J.D. Muray S.S. Sastry
P. Holmes
Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering
Princeton University
215 Fine Hall
Princeton, NJ 08544, USA
pholmes@math.princeton.edu
K. Sreenivasan
Department of Physics
New York University
70 Washington Square South
New York City, NY 10012, USA
katepalli.sreenivasan@nyu.edu
Zohar Yosibash
Singularities in Elliptic
Boundary Value Problems
and Elasticity and Their
Connection with Failure
Initiation
123
Zohar Yosibash
Department of Mechanical Engineering
BenGurion University of the Negev
PO Box 653
84105 BeerSheva
Israel
ISSN 09396047
ISBN 9781461415077
eISBN 9781461415084
DOI 10.1007/9781461415084
Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011940836
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 35B40, 35B65, 35C20, 35J15, 35J25, 35J52, 35Q74, 47A75,
65N30, 74A45, 74F05, 74G70, 74R10, 74S05, 80M10
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written
permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York,
NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in
connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are
not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject
to proprietary rights.
Printed on acidfree paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Preface
Things in life break, and as my son used to say after being asked why he broke
one of his toys, It happens. This monograph is mainly aimed at providing
mathematical insight into why it happens, especially when brittle materials are
of interest. We are interested also in investigating whether nature is acquainted
with the mathematical solution, i.e., does the experimental evidence correspond to
the mathematical predictions?
We are motivated by the theory of fracture mechanics, which has matured over
the past half century and is able nowadays to predict failure incidents in mechanical
components due to an existing crack. The classical approach to fracture mechanics is
based on a simplified postulate, namely the correlation of a parameter characterizing
the linear elastic solution in a neighborhood of the crack tip to experimental
observations. It is well known that the linear elastic solution is singular at the crack
tip, i.e., its gradient (associated with the stress field) tends to infinity. Thus, from an
engineering viewpoint, the linear elastic solution is meaningless in the close vicinity
of the crack tip, because of evident nonlinear effects such as large strains and plastic
deformations.
Nevertheless, when the nonlinear behavior is confined entirely to some small
region inside an elastic solution, then it can be determined through the solution
of the linear elastic problem. Consequently, experimental observations on failure
initiation and propagation in the neighborhood of a crack tip have been shown to
correlate well with the linear elastic solution in many engineering applications.
Although attracting much attention, a crack tip is only a special, and rather simple
case of singular points. In a solid body, singular solutions occur at reentrant corners,
where material properties abruptly change along a free surface; at interior points
where three or more zones of different materials intersect; or where an abrupt change
in boundary conditions occurs. In the introduction we show some examples of the
aforementioned singularities in twodimensional domains.
From the mathematical viewpoint, the linear elastic solution in the vicinity of any
of the above cases has the same characteristics as the solution in the neighborhood
of a crack tip. Thus, an unavoidable question comes to mind: Can one predict
failure initiation at the singular points based on parameters of the elastic solution?
vii
viii
Preface
The answer to this question is of major engineering importance due to its broad
applicability to failures in electronic devices, composite materials and metallic
structures. As in linear elasticity, the solution to heatconduction problems has
similar behavior near singularities, and the coupled thermo elastic response is
crucial in understanding failureinitiation events in electronic components.
The first step toward a satisfactory answer is the capability to reliably compute
the singular solution and/or functionals associated with it in the neighborhood of
any singularity. This is one of the main motivations in writing this monograph. We
also wanted to gather as many explicit mathematical results as possible on the linear
elastic and heatconduction solutions in the neighborhood of singular points, and
present these in engineering terminology for practical usage. This means that we
will rigorously treat the mathematical formulations from an engineering viewpoint.
We present numerical algorithms for the computation of singular solutions in
anisotropic materials and multi material interfaces, and advocate for the proper
interpretation of the results in engineering practice, so that these can be correlated
to experimental observations.
In the third part of the book, threedimensional domains and singularities
associated with edges and vertices are addressed. These have been mostly neglected
in the mathematical analysis due to the tedious required treatment. In the past ten
years, major achievements have been realized in the mathematical description of
the singular solution in the vicinity of 3D edges, with new insights into these
realistic 3D solutions. These are summarized herein together with new numerical
methods for the extraction of socalled edge stress intensity functions and their
relevance to fracture initiation. We also derive exact solutions in the vicinity of
vertex singularities and extend the numerical methods for the computation of these
solutions when analytical methods become too complex to be applied.
I have tried to make this book introductory in nature and as much as possible
selfcontained, and much effort has been invested to make the text uniform in its
form and notation. Nevertheless, some preliminary knowledge of the finite element
method is advised (see, e.g., [178]) but not mandatory, because we use the method
for the solution of example problems (a short chapter is devoted to finite element
fundamentals). It is aimed at the postgraduate level and to practitioners (engineers
and applied mathematicians) who are working in the field of failure initiation and
propagation. Many examples of engineering relevance are provided and solved in
detail. We apologize to authors of relevant works that have not been cited; this is the
result of my ignorance rather than my judgment.
The book is divided into fourteen chapters, each containing several sections.
Most of it (the first nine chapters) addresses twodimensional domains, where only
singular points exist. The thermo elastic system and the feasibility of using the eigen
pairs and GSIFs for predicting failure initiation in brittle material in engineering
practice are addressed. Several failure laws for twodimensional domains with Vnotches and multi material interfaces are presented, and their validity is examined by
comparison to experimental observation. A sufficient simple and reliable condition
for predicting failure initiation (crack formation) in micronlevel electronic devices,
involving singular points, is still a topic of active research and interest, and
Preface
ix
Zohar Yosibash
Contents
Introduction .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 What Is It All About? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Principles and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Layout.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 A Model Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.1 A PathIndependent Integral . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.2 Orthogonality of the Primal and Dual
Eigenfunctions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.3 Particular Solutions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4.4 Curved Boundaries Intersecting at the Singular Point . . . .
1.5 The Heat Conduction Problem: Notation . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.6 The Linear Elasticity Problem: Notation .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
5
7
9
13
14
15
17
17
20
36
38
47
47
49
53
27
27
29
31
32
36
xi
xii
Contents
3.2.2
3.3
3.4
54
54
58
58
63
65
66
70
73
73
76
76
79
84
86
87
89
92
93
97
98
106
107
111
115
121
122
126
Contents
xiii
5.4.2
5.4.3
6
133
157
185
188
188
190
191
191
133
133
135
137
142
147
147
149
152
158
158
161
162
163
165
166
166
171
172
178
xiv
Contents
8.2
8.3
8.4
196
196
200
203
205
207
210
211
212
214
216
221
224
227
228
230
230
231
237
240
246
247
249
254
257
265
265
268
270
273
Contents
xv
275
277
279
279
280
282
285
291
292
294
295
315
297
301
303
303
304
306
307
307
311
317
317
321
322
329
333
335
337
xvi
Contents
13.2.3 Numerical
A Clamped Vnotched
Example:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Domain ! D 3
2
13.2.4 Numerical Example of Engineering
Importance: Compact Tension Specimen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3 Eigenpairs and ESIFs for Anisotropic
and Multimaterial Interfaces .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.1 Computing Eigenpairs .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.2 Computing Complex Primal and Dual
Shadow
Functions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.3 Difficulties in Computing Shadows and
Remedies for Several Pathological Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.4 Extracting Complex ESIFs by the QDFM .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.5 Numerical Example: A Crack at the Interface
of Two Isotropic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13.3.6 Numerical Example: CTS, Crack at the
Interface of Two Anisotropic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Remarks on Circular Edges and Open Questions . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.1 Circular Singular Edges in 3D Domains:
The Laplace Equation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.1.1 Axisymmetric Case, @ 0 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.1.2 General Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.2 Circular Singular Edges in 3D Domains:
The Elasticity System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14.3 Further Theoretical and Practical Applications .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
339
340
346
352
357
360
364
366
371
377
377
379
385
390
392
401
404
406
407
Contents
xvii
427
427
427
428
430
436
436
437
438
438
442
442
References .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Index . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
a
a
a
f;x
f 0 .x/
Denotes a tensor.
Denotes a vector.
Denotes a matrix.
Denotes @f
.
@x
Denotes df
.
dx
E./
Ec ./
Eij
G
Gc
U
B.; /
F./
;
i
i
@
"
1 ;
2
R ;
R
Elliptical coordinates.
The i th singular exponent (i th eigenvalue). The i th singular
scalar solution is i D r i siC ./.
The i th singular exponent (i th eigenvalue) associated with a
vertex singularity. The i th singular scalar solution is i D
i siC .; '/.
Derivative operator @x@ .
The strain tensor.
Boundaries intersecting at the singular point.
Circular boundary around the singular point having a radius of
R (resp. R ).
xix
xx
i .; /
. /
. /
i j , i j
.j /
.j /
, i
!
@
Q
c
.x/
.; /
Ai
Ablunt
Ic
Bm .x3 /, JBm .x3 /
D
D .r; /
e or e
E
E
H11
k, kij
K
kc
KI , KII
KIc
. /
Km i B
MR
`0
n
ng
N
r;
siC ./
si ./
SC
i ./
S
i ./
t
T
T
q.x/
u
uQ
Vi
x
xxi
Chapter 1
Introduction
The point of departure is the motivation to write this monograph, and the assumptions under which linear theories predict well failure initiation and propagation
effects. Thereafter, a layout of the book is provided, after which a rather simplified
model problem presents the notation adopted.
The main goal of this book is to provide a unified approach for the analysis
of singular points, both analytically and numerically, and the subsequent use of
the computed data in engineering practice for predicting and eventually preventing
failures in structural mechanics. We also summarize recent new insights on the
solutions of realistic threedimensional domains in the vicinity of singular edges and
vertices. We strive to provide a rigorous mathematical framework for singularities
in two and threedimensional domains in a systematic and simple manner. We
then turn to numerical methods, specifically highorder finite element analysis, and
summarize advanced methods for the computation of the necessary mathematical
quantities for realistic problems too complex to be tackled analytically. Failure criteria based on the generated data are being proposed and supported by experimental
observations.
1 Introduction
proficiency and are not aimed at practical applications to failure initiation and
propagation in reallife structures (except [109]). At the same time, highorder
finite element methods (FEMs), namely the p and hpversions of the FEM, were
developed and proved to be very efficient for approximating the solutions of elliptic
boundary value problems with singular points on the boundary [911]. The use of
these pFEMs together with new extraction methods enables the computation of special singular solutions [12, 13, 177] elegantly and very efficiently suitable for use in
engineering practice. Furthermore, threedimensional explicit solutions for edge and
vertex singularities are seldom provided, and their connection to two dimensional
approximation is not well documented. Because of a growing demand for efficient
and reliable means for predicting and eventually preventing failure initiation and
propagation in multichip modules (MCM), electronic packages, and composite
materials subjected to mechanical and thermal loads, there is a need to clearly
address these singular solutions and utilize them in engineering practice. Thermal,
elastic, and thermoelastic problems associated with largescale integrated circuits,
electronic packaging, and composites increase in complexity and importance. These
components are assemblages of dissimilar materials with different thermal and
mechanical properties. The mismatch of the physical properties causes flux and
stress intensification at the corners of interfaces and can lead to mechanical failures.
For example, in a conference paper on electronic components [119] the following
was stated: The catastrophic effects of the residual stresses in electronic devices
has been very well documented... However, no appropriate solutions are available
yet: Most of these analyses though, have been based on elementary strength of
materials concepts such as beam theory and proved inadequate to predict the shear
stress magnitude at material interfaces.
The traditional finite element analysis of stresses is also considered inadequate
[81]: Since the stress and displacement fields near a bonding edge show singularity
behavior, the adhesive strength evaluation method, using maximum stresses calculated by a numerical stress analysis, such as the finite element method, is generally
not valid.
These material interfaces, as well as crack tips, are called singular points
because the temperature fluxes are infinite in the linear theory of steadystate heat
conduction, and so are the stresses in the linear theory of elasticity. For example,
typical singular points where failures initiate and propagate in an electronic device
are illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Typical cracks can be observed by sectioning a VLSI device followed by a
scanning electron microscope inspection, as shown in Figure 1.2. As observed, the
failure initiates at the vertex of a reentrant Vnotch.
It has been known for several decades that in large metallic structures, cracks
may cause catastrophic failures. One of the recent and welldocumented events
of a structural failure in a civil airplane is the Aloha Airlines Flight 243 accident
on April 28, 1988. A section of the upper fuselage was torn away in flight at
24,000 ft in a Boeing B777200 due to cracks originating in multiple places around
riveted holes; see Figure 1.3. The airplane had flown 89,680 flights over its 19year
lifetime. Aircraft bulkheads can also break due to fatigue cracks, as did the F16
bulkhead shown in Figure 1.4. There are many other examples of failed structures
Fig. 1.2 Cracks in the passivation layer of a VLSI device: on the right a top view of the wafer, on
the left a scanning electron microscope image showing the crosssection.
Fig. 1.3 The Aloha Airline Boeing 777 immediately after landing, April 1988.
1 Introduction
Fig. 1.4 A broken bulkhead from a F16 aircraft due to a small surface crack.
Fig. 1.5 PMMA and Alumina7%Zirconia specimens that break due to failures starting at Vnotch
tips.
such as those shown in Figure 1.5; where the failure starts at the Vnotch tip in
a PMMA polymer, or an Alumina7%Zirconia ceramic. Such failures and their
possible prediction will be discussed in this monograph.
New approaches to predicting the initiation and extension of delaminations in
plasticencapsulated LSI (large scale integrated circuit) devices, for example, are
based on the computation of certain functionals, called the generalized flux/stress
intensity factors (GFIFs/GSIFs); the strength of the stress singularity; and in
thermoelastic problems, the thermal stress intensity factors (TSIFs). These are
defined in the sequel, and they apply to many types of singular points, such as
reentrant corners, abrupt change in boundary conditions, multimaterial interfaces,
and at an internal intersection point of several materials. We show in Figure 1.6
some examples of the aforementioned singularities in twodimensional domains.
Singular Points
Some may claim that failure initiation and crack propagation are inherently nonlinear processes, and the linear elastic solution may not be of practical application.
However, when the nonlinear behavior is confined entirely to some small region
inside an elastic solution, then it can be determined through the solution of the
linear elastic problem. Consequently, experimental observations on failure initiation
and propagation in the neighborhood of a crack tip have been shown to correlate
well with the linear elastic solution in many engineering applications. An overview
of the mechanical problems in electronic devices supports the new trend [85].
The author has organized the research committee on the mechanical problems
in electron devices, which consists of the members from Japanese universities and
private industries. The committee examined the research results on the mechanical
problems in electron devices . . . The intensity and the order of the stress singularity
are the main parameters to determine the (failure) criterion . . .
The approach of correlating the GFIFs/GSIFs or TSIFs (determined through an
elastic analysis) to experimental observations for establishing failure laws seems to
be the right approach, as shown by several recent publications [58, 59, 77, 81, 143,
206]. Quoting from [81], for example: . . . in the case of plastic encapsulated LSI
(Large Scale Integrated Circuit) devices, the thermalexpansion mismatch of utilized
materials causes thermal stresses . . . these thermal stresses could cause serious
reliability problems, such as interface debonding, resin cracking . . . A new method
for evaluating adhesive strength was developed which uses twostresssingularity
parameters . . . this method was applied to estimate delamination behavior of plastic
encapsulated LSI models, and these estimated results coincide well with the
observed results using scanning acoustic tomography.
6
Fig. 1.7 Definition of NL
and EL .
1 Introduction
x2
x1
NL
EL
dimensional domain containing a singular point. Let uNL D fu1 ; u2 gNL be the
displacement vector (in x1 and x2 directions) that is the solution to the fully solid
mechanics nonlinear problem. It is expected that failure initiation will depend on
uNL , or some functionals computed from it, in the strongly nonlinear region of the
singular point bounded by a boundary NL , as shown in Figure 1.7. This region is
called the process zone. Let EL be a curve outside of NL , with uNL jEL the trace of
uNL on this curve. Denoting the solution of the linear elastic problem by uEL , then
the following reasonable assumptions hold for brittle materials:
Assumption 1.1 Inside of EL the error uNL jEL uEL jEL is so small that conclusions based on uEL jEL are sufficiently close to conclusions based on uEL jNL for
practical purposes.
This assumption is valid whenever the nonlinear behavior is confined entirely
to some small region inside EL (a typical situation for brittle metals and ceramic
materials). Assumption 1.1 leads to the important conclusion that failure initiation,
which depends on the solution of the nonlinear problem inside of NL , can be
determined through a solution of the linear elastic problem, even though all basic
assumptions of the linear theory may be violated inside NL . Consequently, failure
initiation in the neighborhood of a singular point can be predicted on the basis of
the theory of linear elasticity.
Assumption 1.2 There exists a physical principle that establishes the relationship
between crack initiation and the stress field on the basis of information obtained
from the linear solution uEL only.
The theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics, having been used successfully in
engineering practice for over half a century, is a typical application of Assumption
1.2, where not the total elastic solution is of interest, but a specific parameter
characterizing its behavior in the vicinity of the singular point. In general, the
linear solution uEL is not known, and only an approximation to it, obtained by
finite element methods, for example, and denoted by uFE is known. Therefore the
following assumption is necessary:
1.3 Layout
Assumption 1.3 There exists a norm kk such that when kuEL uFE k is sufficiently
small, then the physical principle of Assumption 1.2 is not sensitive to replacement
of uEL with uFE .
Of course, the specific norm is expected to depend on the physical principle of
Assumption 1.2, which is materialdependent.
Based on these assumptions, linear elastic computations can be used for prediction of failure initiation and propagation even though failure processes are nonlinear
in nature. There are two essential elements of failure initiation analysis:
1. A hypothesis concerning the relationship between certain parameters of the
stress/strain field and observed failure initiation or crack propagation events.
2. Convincing experimental confirmation that the hypothesis holds independently
of variations in geometric attributes, loading, and constraints.
It would not be sensible to perform failure initiation analysis unless a detailed
understanding of uEL is achieved, and an accurate estimate of uFE is obtained. Thus
it is our aim in this book to explore the solution in the vicinity of singularities and
its approximation by FE methods.
1.3 Layout
The book is divided into fourteen chapters, each containing several sections. The
first nine chapters address twodimensional domains, where only singular points
exist. Thermoelastic singularities, failure laws and their application for predicting
failure initiation in electronic devices are presented in Chapters 79. We then
proceed to threedimensional problems addressed in Chapters 1013. We conclude
with circular 3D edges and remarks on open questions.
In the introduction the notation and problems of interest are presented. We
formulate mathematically the problems of heat conduction and linear elasticity in
two and three dimensions and present the general functional representation of the
singular solutions. Based on the simple Laplace equation, we derive explicitly the
singular solution in the vicinity of a reentrant corner. Chapter 2 provides a short
introduction to the finite element method (FEM), especially the pversion of the
FEM. The singular solutions have a strong impact on the rates of convergence of
the finite element approximations: thus these are discussed also. Chapters 3 and 4
are devoted to twodimensional heat conduction singular solutions. Basic ideas are
presented and computation of socalled eigenpairs by the modified Steklov weak
formulation is performed in Chapter 3. The modified Steklov weak eigenproblem
is derived for a general scalar elliptic equation representing heat conduction in
anisotropic domains and multimaterial interfaces. In the case of an isotropic domain,
the weak eigenproblem is simplified and corresponds to the Laplace equation,
for which the explicit solution has been given in the introduction. In Chapter 4
1 Introduction
we present a method for the computation of the generalized flux intensity factors
(GFIFs) by two methods: the dual weak formulation and the eigenpairs, and the
dual singular functions followed by many examples. Chapters 5 and 6 address
the linear elastic singular solutions in a twodimensional domain. We discuss
some unique features of the elastic system, as complex eigenpairs (giving rise
to oscillatory solutions in the vicinity of the singular point), as well as powerlogarithmic stress singularities. In Chapter 5 we derive analytically the asymptotic
representation of the displacement and stress field in an isotropic material containing
a Vnotch or crack, and address cracks at a bimaterial interface where complex
eigenpairs exist. Thereafter we formulate the modified Steklov weak form for the
computation of eigenpairs for cases in which analytical methods are too complex to
be applied. Chapter 6 is dedicated to the extraction of generalized stress intensity
factors (GSIFs) from FE solution by the contour integral method (CIM) and the
complementary energy method (CEM). Again, computation of GSIFs by the CIM
and CEM for realistic engineering problems are provided. We then proceed to the
problem of thermoelasticity and its singular solution in Chapter 7. This problem
is solved in a decoupled way, first obtaining the temperature distribution, with its
singular behavior, which is thereafter imposed as a thermal loading on the elastic
domain. Due to the thermal loading an inhomogeneous elastic problem is obtained,
giving rise to thermal generalized stress intensity factors (TGSIFs), which are
computed by a sequence of solutions. TGSIFs for multimaterial interface problems
and crack tips are provided to demonstrate the methods performance. In Chapter 8
we discuss the various possible interpretations of the elastic singular solutions and
their correlation to failure criteria for mechanical components. We propose some
extensions of fracture mechanics failure laws to multimaterial interfaces and general
twodimensional singular points. Several available failure criteria have been tested
against experimental observations provided herein, leading to a good correlation.
The application in engineering practice of a new failure criterion for preventing
thermoelastic failures in an electronic device at the manufacturing process is
illustrated and demonstrated by experimental observations in Chapter 9.
The remainder of the text is devoted to threedimensional domains, where edge
singularities, vertex singularities, and vertexedge singularities are evident. After
a short explanation of the three different singularity types, based on the Laplace
equation, we consider the decomposition of the solution in the neighborhood of
a straight edge in Chapter 10 for general heat conduction equations, first treating
the Laplace equation. Here we emphasize the difference between twodimensional
and threedimensional edge singularities. We introduce in Chapter 11 the quasidual
function method for extracting edge flux intensity functions (EFIFs), which may be
viewed as an extension of the dual singular function method in 2D domains. This
accurate and efficient method provides the polynomial representation of the EFIFs
along the edge and is implemented as a postsolution operation in conjunction with
pFEMs. Vertex singularities for the Laplace equation are investigated in Chapter 12.
An exact solution for the case of axisymmetric conical points is discussed first,
followed by a numerical method that is an extension of the modified Steklov method
for 3D vertex singularities. Chapter 13 is devoted to the computation of edge
eigenpairs for linear elasticity, and the various methods for extracting the edge stress
intensity functions along a given straight edge. Numerical examples are presented.
Finally, we provide in Chapter 14 some recent results on circular singular edges in
threedimensional domains, and a review of open problems in this field from the
mathematical, conceptual viewpoint, as well as from an engineering viewpoint.
Many appendices include topics that are connected with the mainstream topic
of the monograph but are not essential for understanding the methods and ideas
discussed. In Appendix A we provide the definition of norms and function spaces,
which play an important role in FEMs. The exact solution to scalar elliptic problems
in twodimensional anisotropic domains (and multimaterial domains) is derived
in Appendix B, and in Appendix C we discuss the asymptotic solution near
circular edges in twodimensional domains intersecting at a singular point when
the Laplace equation is of interest. We show that the eigenvalues of the heat
conduction problem in a twodimensional domain are real numbers in Appendix
D. The pathindependent integral and the orthogonality of the eigenfunctions for
general heatconduction problems in 2D are derived and proved in Appendix E.
Finally, we discuss the energy release rate (ERR) method for cracks in appendix F
and its connection to the Jintegral and the extraction of stressintensityfactors.
x2
r
P
Fig. 1.8 Twodimensional
domain with a reentrant
corner, notation.
1
2
x1
10
1 Introduction
def @2
@r 2
r2 D
1 @
r @r
1 @2
r 2 @ 2
D0
in ;
(1.1)
D
O
on @ 1 2 ;
(1.2)
D
on 1 [ 2 ;
(1.3)
(1.4)
R0 .r/
s 00 ./
R00 .r/
Cr
D
D 2:
R.r/
R.r/
s./
(1.5)
Here primes represent differentiation with respect to r and for R.r/ and
s./ respectively. The constant is positive, denoted by 2 ; otherwise, s./ is an
exponential function, which cannot possibly satisfy the homogeneous boundary
conditions on D 0; !. The function R.r/ satisfies the Euler ordinary differential
equation of second order, whose solution is of the form
(
R.r/ D
for 0; ar C br ;
for D 0; a C b log r;
(1.6)
0 !:
(1.7)
One may observe that for both positive and negative , the equations that determine
s./ are identical. The solution to (1.7) is
(
s./ D
(1.8)
11
The homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions (1.3) imply on s./ the following boundary conditions
.r; D 0/ D .r; D !/ D 0
s.0/ D s.!/ D 0:
(1.9)
Applying the boundary conditions on (1.8), one may observe that the solution
associated with D 0 is the trivial solution, and we are left with
s.!/ D d sin.!/ D 0 H) i D i =!;
i 2 Z:
(1.10)
Both positive and negative i values satisfy (1.1). We denote by s C ./ the
functions associated with the positive value of , and by s ./ those associated
with the negative value of . Although for the Laplace equation s C ./ s ./
((1.7) is quadratic in ), for a general scalar elliptic equation, and for the elasticity
system this is no longer the case.
The restriction i 0 is imposed because of physical reasoning, since at
r D 0 should be finite, so that we deal with solutions belonging to the Sobolev
space H 1 ./ (see Appendix A). The negative values are nevertheless of interest
for other mathematical manipulations and for describing the far field, as will be
discussed in the sequel. In view of (1.10) and (1.6), the solution to (1.1) admits the
expansion
H D
P1
i D1 Ai r
i C
si ./;
H D
i D1
+
Ai r i =! sin
i
;
!
i D i =!;
(1.11)
i and si ./ are called eigenpairs, and these are determined uniformly by the
geometry and boundary conditions in the neighborhood of the singular point. We
also define the primal eigenfunction and dual eigenfunction to be the two
functions corresponding to the same positive and negative eigenvalues siC ./ and
si ./, respectively.
The series (1.11) is an asymptotic series, i.e., taking a finite number of terms,
say N , the series is more and more accurate as r becomes smaller, but for a given
r, the series might even diverge as N gets larger and larger. The series coefficients
Ai can be bounded in the vicinity of the singular point for r < R (see, for example,
[138, Chapter 2]):
p
jAi j < C iRi ;
(1.12)
where C is a generic constant, and R represents the largest radius in the vicinity of
the singular point where (1.11) still holds.
It has been shown that all i in (1.10) are real numbers for the Laplace equation.
It can be shown also that all eigenpairs of scalar isotropic domains (either open
domains or multimaterial interfaces) are real. Mantic et al. [115] proved that all
eigenpairs of scalar anisotropic domains (multimaterial interfaces or single material) in open domains are real. For periodic, anisotropic multimaterial interfaces,
12
1 Introduction
however, complex eigenpairs can appear (see Appendix D). For the linear elastic
problem, complex eigenpairs are known to exist, and their interpretation will be
discussed in the sequel.
th
Notice that if i < 1, the corresponding
i term in the expansion (1.11) for the
def @H
@H
flux vector q H D gradH D @x1 ; @x2 is unbounded as r ! 0.
Proposition 1.1 We say that H is singular at 0 if q H D gradH tends to infinity
as r ! 0. The solution H in (1.11) is therefore singular at 0 if ! > .
Problem P
1.1. Show that q H D gradH for H given by (1.11) can be represented
C
i 1
as q H D 1
.q H /C
i ./. Find the vectors .q H /i ./ explicitly, and show
i D1 Ai r
that for ! > , the first term in the series for q H is singular.
Hint: @x@ 1 D cos @r@ 1r sin @@ , @x@ 2 D sin @r@ C 1r cos @@ .
Proposition 1.1 is slightly ambiguous, because A1 may be zero, and although
! > the solution will not tend to infinity. The coefficients Ai are so far
undetermined, and depend on the boundary conditions away from the singular point
and the right hand side of the Laplace equation if it exists. We can think of the
coefficients Ai of these terms as analogous to the stress intensity factors of elasticity
in linear elastic fracture mechanics (this topic will be addressed in detail in the
sequel). We generalize this terminology, and refer to all coefficients Ai , whether or
not the corresponding flux terms are singular, as generalized flux intensity factors
(GFIFs) .
To be more precise in mathematical terms, it is necessary to discuss the regularity
of the solution of the Laplace equation r 2 D f (more details can be found
in [109, Chapter 4] and references therein). For the Laplace equation with a
smooth (say f 2 H k ) righthand side, homogeneous Dirichlet BCs and a smooth
boundary without kinks, the solution is as smooth as the righthand side allows:
f 2 H k ) 2 H kC2. This is called the shift theorem. In case @ has
corner points, then the shift theorem no longer holds, even if the righthand side
is in C 1 . In this case, however, the solution may be decomposed into a singular
part and a regular remainder, which can again be as smooth as the righthand side
allows:
D
N
X
i D1
N
X
i D1
!
Ai r i siC ./
r!0
!0:
13
A very similar analysis can be performed for two other boundary conditions:
(
@
D grad n D 0
on 1 [ 2 ;
Neumann B.C.s @n
(1.13)
@
D 0 on 2 ;
Newton B.C.s
D 0 on 1
@n
where n is the normal outward unit vector to the boundary. The eigenpairs for the
above boundary conditions may be easily computed and are explicitly given:
(
i =!
for Neumann B.C.s;
(1.14)
i D
.2i 1/=2! for Newton B.C.s;
(
siC ./
si ./
(1.15)
r 2 rdrd D 0:
(1.16)
@
D @
,
Use Greens theorem, and note that along the arcs of the shaded domain @n
@r
(1.16) becomes
Z
@
@
2
r rdrd C
d
@n
@n
1 [2
Z !
Z !
@
@
@
@
Rd
R d D 0:
C
@r
@r
@r
@r
0
0
R
R
(1.17)
14
1 Introduction
x2
R
R*
R*
R
x1
P
1
2
I .; / D
@
@
@r
@r
Z
Rd D
@
@
@r
@r
R d:
(1.18)
R
The integral I .; / is pathindependent because its value is the same for any R.
!
0
i
h
Ri siC ./.j /Rj 1 sj ./ Rj sj ./i Ri 1 siC ./ Rd
Z
D
0
i
.R /j sj ./i .R /i 1 siC ./ R d;
no summation on i and j;
(1.19)
15
!
0
no summation on i and j:
(1.20)
One may choose any R and R . Then if i j , in order for (1.20) to hold, one
obtains
Z !
siC ./sj ./d D 0 if i j:
(1.21)
0
This shows that the primal and dual eigenfunctions are orthogonal with
respect to a path integral along an arc starting at 1 and terminating at 2 (this
orthogonal property holds for any path starting at 1 and terminating at 2 ). The
dual eigenfunctions in conjunction with the pathindependent integral are used in
Chapter 4 for the extraction of GFIFs from FE solutions.
in :
(1.22)
1
X
r i fi ./:
(1.23)
i D0
1
X
r i C2 Fi ./:
(1.24)
i D0
(1.25)
16
1 Introduction
= 2
=0
=0
=0
Let us demonstrate the overall solution by considering a simple example, the Saint
Venant torsion problem, formulated in terms of Prandtls stress potential, denoted
also by , as follows1 (see e.g., [167, Chapter 35]):
r 2 D 2
D0
in ;
(1.26)
on @:
(1.27)
Consider a long rod with a crosssection in the shape of a circular sector of radius 1,
shown in Figure 1.10. The solution to this problem, D H C P , is [121]
H .r; / D
8
r i =! sin.i=!/
2
i
4
.i
=!/
i D1;3;5:::
(1.28)
P .r; / D r 2
(1.30)
i
2 h
C ln.r/ cos.2/ sin.2/ ; ! D =2;
4
2 2 3
ln.r/ cos.2/ C sin.2/ ; ! D 3=2:
P .r; / D r
3 4
(1.29)
(1.31)
@
;
@x2
23 D k
@
;
@x1
where is the shear modulus, and k is the angle of twist per unit length of the rod.
D
J X
K
1 X
X
17
(1.32)
i D1 j D1 kD1
where K might be 1 for integer eigenvalues (and a righthandside term exists), and
J differs from 0 if 1 and/or 2 are curvilinear arcs. The singular term due to the
curvature (with i D 1; j D 1) may be more singular than the second term (with
i D 2; j D 0). This happens if
1 C 1 < 2 ;
i.e., ! < :
X X
i
(1.33)
j D1;2;
@i D
@
@xi
18
1 Introduction
div v D @1 v1 C @2 v2 C @3 v3 D @i vi :
We seek for the heat conduction a solution (the temperature function) denoted by
in satisfying the Fourier steadystate heat conduction equation
div .kgrad/ D Q
in ;
(1.34)
in ;
(1.35)
k12
k22
3
k13
k23 5 :
k33
8x 2 ;
(1.36)
where
is a generic positive constant called the ellipticity constant. Here Q is
the heat generation term per unit of volume. We consider two sorts of boundary
conditions: Dirichlet boundary conditions ( D O , O being a given function) on a
part of the domain boundary, denoted by @D ; and Neumann boundary conditions
(.kgrad/ n D qO n ) on the other part of the domain boundary, denoted by @N .
Homogeneous boundary conditions are assumed on the surface in the vicinity of the
the singular edge or vertex.
The heat conduction equation in its classical form (1.34) can be given a weak
formulation. Multiplying (1.34) by a test function , then integrating by parts and
using the boundary conditions, one obtains the weak heat conduction formulation
(for details the reader is referred to [178]):
Seek
2 E./; D O on @D
B.; / D F ./
such that
8 2 Eo ./;
(1.37)
19
B.; / D
(1.38)
Z
qOn d C
@N
Q d x:
(1.39)
The energy spaces E and Eo are defined in Appendix A together with their
connection to the Sobolev spaces H 1 and Ho1 .
In a threedimensional domain, the singular solution of (1.34) or (1.37) is
decomposed into three different forms, depending on whether it is in the neighborhood of an edge, a vertex, or an intersection of the edge and the vertex.
Mathematical details on the decomposition can be found, e.g., in [6,15,40,49,73,76]
and the references therein. A representative threedimensional polyhedral domain
containing typical 3D singularities is shown in Figure 1.11. Vertex singularities
arise in the neighborhood of the vertices Vi , and edge singularities arise in the
neighborhood of the edges Eij . Close to the vertex/edge intersection, vertexedge
singularities arise.
Before treating threedimensional singularities, we simplify the problem and
address the heat conduction problem over a twodimensional domain. One may
consider the twodimensional problem as a restriction to edge singularity on a plane
perpendicular to the edge, as shown in Figure 1.11. Over this twodimensional
domain we consider in Chapters 34 the solution to (1.35), except that the indices
are i; j D 1; 2. If kij 0 for i j , and if a multimaterial interface
exists (i.e., kij is piecewise constant in the neighborhood of a singular point), as
shown in Figure 1.12, neither the eigenpairs nor the GFIFs are known analytically,
and numerical methods for their determination are needed. The modified Steklov
method for the determination of eigenpairs associated with the heat conduction
20
1 Introduction
x2
x2
def 1
1
@j ui C @i uj D
ui;j C uj;i :
2
2
ij D 2"ij ;
i j;
(1.40)
2
Named after Woldemar Voigt (September 2, 1850  December 13, 1919), a German physicist who
also introduced (among many other important things such as the Lorentz transformation) the word
tensor in its current meaning in 1899.
21
@1
60
6
6
def 6 0
D D 6
60
6
4 @3
@2
0
@2
0
@3
0
@1
3
0
07
7
7
@3 7
7:
@2 7
7
@1 5
0
(1.41)
Throughout the book the stress tensor will be given in either its tensor or vector
form:
3
2
11
12
13
def
def
D 412
or
D .11 22 33 23 13 12 /T :
22
23 5
13
23
33
The elastic constitutive law (Hookes law) connects the stress vector with the
strain/displacement vectors:
D E" D EDu:
(1.42)
E
.1 C /.1 2/
2
.1 /
0
0
6
.1 /
0
0
6
6
.1 /
0
0
6
6
6
.1 2/=2
0
6
4
.1 2/=2
3
0
0 7
7
7
0 7
7;
0 7
7
5
0
.1 2/=2
where E and are engineering notations, Youngs modulus and the Poisson ratio,
respectively. Most mathematical publications use instead the Lame constants
and , connected to E and by
ED
.3 C 2 /
;
C
;
2. C /
E
;
2.1 C /
E
:
.1 C /.1 2/
Cij kl D ij kl C i k j l C i l j k ;
i; j; k; l D 1; 2; 3:
(1.43)
22
1 Introduction
The stress tensor satisfies the equilibrium equations at every point, resulting in a
system of three secondorder partial differential equations:
@i j i .u/ D fj
in ;
j D 1; 2; 3;
(1.44)
where f D .f1 f2 f3 /T is the body force per unit volume, and the notation j i .u/
implies that stress components are expressed in terms of the three displacement
functions.
For an isotropic material, (1.44) can be explicitly written in terms of displacements; these are known as the NavierLame (in Cartesian coordinates) equations3:
r 2 u . C /grad div u D f
in :
(1.45)
on .@D /i ;
(1.46)
on @N ;
(1.47)
3
The elasticity system in a general curvilinear coordinate system in terms of dilatations and
rotations is provided in [113].
23
8 9
"rr >
>
>
>
>
"
>
=
< >
"zz
def
;
"Q D
z >
>
>
>
>
>
rz >
;
:
r
8 9
< ur =
def
uQ D u ;
: ;
uz
8 9
rr >
>
>
>
>
>
=
< >
zz
def
Q D
:
z >
>
>
>
>
>
rz >
;
:
r
(1.48)
z D @z u C 1r @ uz ;
" D 1r @ u C
ur
r
rz D @r uz C @z ur ;
"zz D @z uz ;
r D 1r @ ur C @ ur
(1.49)
u
r
whereas the constitutive relation (Hookes law) is identical to (1.43), where the
Cartesian stress and strain tensors are replaced by the cylindrical ones.
The elasticity system can be brought to a weak formulation by multiplying (1.44)
by a displacement test function vector v, then integrating over the domain and using
Greens theorem (see details in [178, Chapter 5]):
Seek
u 2 E./; u D uO on [i .@D /i
B.u; v/ D F.v/
such that
8v 2 Eo ./;
(1.50)
B.u; v/ D
(1.51)
T
TO vd C
Z
f T v d x:
(1.52)
Planar Elasticity
Situations exist (for isotropic materials) for which the elasticity problem can be
solved over a twodimensional domain. These are called plane stress and plane
strain situations (for more details the reader is referred to [167]). The only difference
between them is Hookes law, i.e., the material matrix:
24
1 Introduction
E D
1 2
<
2
6
6
4
7
7
5
.1 /=2
plane stress;
.1 /
.1C/.12/ 4
(1.53)
3
.1 /
7
7
5
.1 2/=2
0
plane strain:
Q
& C
& C &
;
C
& D
;
; ; & D 1; 2;
(1.54)
with
(
plane strain;
Q D
2 =. C 2 / plane stress:
In 2D elasticity, only two displacement functions, u1 and u2 , are sought, and the
stress/strain vectors consist of three unknown entries with subscripts 11, 22, and 12
e.g., " D ."11 "22
12 /T .
The operator matrix D for plane elasticity is
2
@1
def
D D 4 0
@2
0
@2
@1
3
0
05 :
0
(1.55)
X
1
u1
Ai r i sC
D
uD
i ./;
u2
i D1
C
s ./
D 1C
:
s2 ./ i
(1.56)
8 C 9
<S11 ./=
SC
./
D
S C ./ :
i
: 22
;
C
S12
./ i
(1.57)
sC
i ./
25
X
J X
K
1 X
u1
D
Aij k r i Cj lnk .r/sC
ij k ./;
u2
i D1 j D1 kD1
sC
ij k ./ D
C
s1 ./
:
s2C ./ ij k
(1.58)
The similarity between the elastic singular expansion (1.58) and that of the heat
conduction singular expansion (1.32) is notable. For elasticity, however, complex
eigenpairs may (and frequently do) exist, and a multiple eigenvalue may exist with
different eigenvectors (as in the case of twodimensional crack tips, where 1 D
2 D 1=2). There is the possibility that a multiple eigenvalue exists with a lower
number of corresponding eigenvectors (the algebraic multiplicity is higher than the
geometric multiplicity). This case is associated with the special cases in which K
is greater than zero, and powerlogarithmic singularities are evident (see details in
[28, 52, 136]). When tractions are applied in the close vicinity of the singular point,
powerlogarithmic singularities may exist as well (the reader is referred to [37]).
J differs from 0 if 1 and/or 2 are curvilinear arcs.
Chapter 2
The various methods described in this monograph for the computation of eigenpairs
and GFIF/GSIFs cannot in general be carried out by means of analytical techniques;
thus they require the use of numerical methods. We use the pversion of the
FE method as the machinery for obtaining the required quantities, therefore, this
chapter provides a brief introduction to these methods, their main features and
characteristics. Readers interested in the mathematical aspects of p and hpFEMs
are encouraged to consult Schwabs book [157] whereas details on the applicative
aspects of p and spectral FE methods are well documented in Karniadakis and
Scherwins book [92] and Szabo and Babuskas book [178].
in 2 R2 :
(2.1)
on @D ;
(2.2)
on @N :
(2.3)
The Dirichlet boundary condition (2.2) is called an essential boundary condition, whereas the Neumann boundary condition (2.3) is called a natural boundary
27
28
@ k @ d D
Z
Q d:
(2.4)
@ k @ d D
Z
k @ n d C
k @ @ d: (2.5)
k @ @ d D
Q d C
qOn d:
(2.7)
@N
What has been obtained in (2.7) is the weak formulation already presented in (1.37)
in a 3D setting, where the lefthand side is denoted the bilinear form B.; / (see
(1.38)), and the righthand side is denoted by the linear form F ./ (see (1.39)). In
summary, the weak formulation for this example problem is
Seek EX 2 Eo ./ such that
B.EX ; / D F ./
8 2 Eo ./;
(2.8)
./ D
1
B.; / F ./:
2
(2.9)
The principle of minimum potential energy states that the exact solution is the one
that gives the potential energy a minimum value:
def
(2.10)
Of course, if essential boundary conditions are prescribed, the energy space has to
be adjusted accordingly. The main role of the potential energy principle is its use
2.2 Discretization
29
2.2 Discretization
As formulated, Eo ./ is an infinitely large space, so that in order to solve (2.8), one
needs to find a function within an infinite number of functions. This is, of course,
not practically possible. Instead, and this is the major step where the discretization
errors are introduced, one may consider a finitedimensional subspace, i.e., in
EoN ./ Eo ./, such that dim.EoN / D N . So instead of solving (2.8), we are
seeking an approximate solution, denoted by FE 2 EoN ./:
Seek FE 2 EoN ./; such that
B.FE ; / D F ./
One important property is that from all functions in EoN ./, the function FE that
satisfies (2.11) is the closest to EX when measured in the energy norm:
min kEX kEoN ./ D kEX FE kEoN ./ ;
(2.12)
2EoN ./
def
and furthermore, the numerical error e.x/ D EX FE is orthogonal to the space
EoN ./. The important question that arises is, how can one estimate the numerical
error e.x/? The answer to this question requires the definitions of hierarchical
spaces and extensions.
Consider, for example, a set of hierarchical subspaces (see a graphical interpretation of hierarchical subspaces as opposed to nonhierarchical subspaces
in Figure 2.1) EoN1 ./ EoN2 ./ Eo ./, having the property that
30
N1 < N2 < . Then by (2.12), kEX FE2 kEo ./ kEX FE1 kEo ./ . Of course,
as the space EoN ./ is enriched by more and more functions, then the approximated
solutions become closer to the exact solution. The systematic enrichments of the
subspaces are called extensions, and we will elaborate on a special extension
procedure, called p and hpextensions.
In order to solve (2.8), we partition the domain over which the integration has
to be performed into quadrilateral or triangular subdomains, called elements. The
collection of these elements is called the FE mesh. Each element is denoted by
` , so that [` D ; see Figure 2.2 as an example of a typical FE pmesh. Having
the mesh, the integral over the entire domain can be replaced by the sum of integrals
over each subdomain (element), so that the weak form in (2.8) can now be stated as
X
B` .FE ; / D
F` ./
8 2 EoN ./;
(2.13)
where B` .; /, for example, is the bilinear form over the element ` ,
Z
B` .; / D
k @ @ d D
`
8 9
@
< @x1 >
=
@ @
k11 k12
dx1 dx2 ;
k12 k22
@x1 @x2
: @ >
;
@x2
(2.14)
and the linear form for the element is
Z
Q dx1 dx2 C
F` ./ D
`
@N `
qOn d:
(2.15)
2.2 Discretization
31
Fig. 2.3 Blending mapping from the standard element to the physical element.
1
1
1
.1/
.2/
.3/
.1 /xi ./ C .1 C /xi ./ C .1 C /xi ./
2
2
2
1
.4/
C .1 /xi ./
2
1
1
.1/
.2/
.1 /.1 /Xi .1 C /.1 /Xi
4
4
1
1
.3/
.4/
.1 C /.1 C /Xi .1 /.1 C /Xi ; i D 1; 2: (2.16)
4
4
=
< @ >
;
:@>
@
D J
8 9
@
@ >
;
@x2
"
;
with
J D
@x1 @x2
@ @
@x1 @x2
@ @
#
;
32
B` .; / D
1
8 9
@ >
< @ =
@ @ 1 T
k J 1
J
jJ jd d:
@ @
;
: @ >
(2.17)
@
Similarly, if for example the boundary of the domain coincides with the element
edge 23 (see Figure 2.3), then the linear form for element ` is
F` ./ D
Q jJ jd d C
1
1
1
(2.18)
DOF
X
.`/
bi i .; /
i D1
.`/
D b
T
.`/
.; / D
DOF
X
i D1
.`/
.`/
ci i .; / D .c .`/ /T ;
(2.19)
where bi and ci are the amplitudes of the basis functions in element `, and i
are products of integrals of Legendre polynomials in and . Substituting (2.19)
into (2.17), one obtains an expression for the unconstrained elemental stiffness
2.2 Discretization
33
(2.20)
.`/
Kij D
1
@i @i
@ @
J 1
T
k J 1
8 @ 9
j>
< @ =
;
: @j >
jJ jd d:
(2.21)
@
Substituting (2.19) into (2.18), one obtains an expression for the unconstrained
load vector r .`/ associated with F` ;
F` ./ D .c.`/ /T r .`/ ;
(2.22)
i Q jJ jd d C
1
1
1
(2.23)
Product (9nodes)
Vertex
1
1 .; / D .1 / .1 / .1 C C /
4
1 .; / D
1
. 1/ . 1/
4
1
2 .; / D .1 C / .1 / .1 C /
4
2 .; / D
1
. C 1/ . 1/
4
1
3 .; / D .1 C / .1 C / .1 /
4
1
4 .; / D .1 / .1 C / .1 C /
4
3 .; / D
1
. C 1/ . C 1/
4
4 .; / D
1
. 1/ . C 1/
4
34
Edge
1
1 2 . 1/
2
1
1 2 .1 C /
6 .; / D
2
1
1 2 .1 C /
7 .; / D
2
1
8 .; / D .1 / . 1/
2
Face
9 .; / D 1 2 1 2
1
1 2 .1 /
2
1
6 .; / D .1 C / 1 2
2
1
1 2 .1 C /
7 .; / D
2
1
8 .; / D .1 / 1 2
2
5 .; / D
5 .; / D
Edge (cont.)
1
1 .; / D .1 / .1 /
4
9 .; / D
1
.1 C / .1 /
4
10 .; / D
2 .; / D
1
.1 C / .1 C /
4
1
4 .; / D .1 / .1 C /
4
3 .; / D
Edge
11 .; / D
r
12 .; / D
r
3
1 2 .1 /
5 .; / D
32
r
3
.1 C / 1 2
6 .; / D
32
r
3
7 .; / D
1 2 .1 C /
32
r
3
.1 / 1 2
8 .; / D
32
13 .; / D
r
14 .; / D
r
15 .; / D
r
16 .; / D
5
1 2 .1 /
32
5
.1 C / 1 2
32
5
1 2 .1 C /
32
5
.1 / 1 2
32
7
1 2 15 2 .1/
512
7
.1 C / 1 2 1 52
512
7
1 2 1 5 2 .1 C /
512
7
.1 / 1 2 1 52
512
Face
17 .; / D
3
1 2 1 2
8
::
:
The specific vertex, edge or face number i with which a shape function i is
associated is shown in Figure 2.4. A graphical representation of the hierarchical
truth space shape functions is shown in Figure 2.5.
2.2 Discretization
35
7 11
15 20
8 12
16 21
17
22
59
13 18
6 10
14 19..
Conventional
hSpace
Hierarchic
Trunk Space
Fig. 2.5 Trunk space hierarchic shape functions over quadrilaterals (from prof. Ernst Rank of
TUMGermany).
For a given mesh and p level, the global stiffness matrix and load vector are
obtained by an assembly procedure of the elemental stiffness matrices and load
vectors, so the weak form (2.13) becomes
c T Kb D c T r;
8c;
Kb D r:
(2.24)
The solution of (2.24) determines b, thus defines the finite element solution FE for
a given discretization.
36
Fig. 2.6 An example of a mesh design with geometric mesh refinement in the vicinity of singular
points.
kekE./ D kuEX uFE kE./ for elasticity. The error estimates are presented as error
bounds, and are expressed in terms of h, a characteristic length of the largest element
in the domain, and p, the polynomial degree of the test and trial functions. Because
both h and p are associated with the number of degrees of freedom1 N , the error
bounds are expressed as
kekE./ C hn p m Cf .N /;
1
(2.25)
The connection between h, p, and N depends on the mesh and the dimension of the problem:
2.3 Convergence Rates of FEMs and Their Connection to the Solution Regularity
37
8 2 H 1 ./
belongs to H s ./, i.e., 2 H s ./, for every Q 2 H s2 and there exists a constant
c.s; / such that
kkH s ./ c.s; /kQkH s2 ./ :
Roughly speaking, the more regular the solution, the less its value and first
derivatives change over a given short distance in the domain. Following [176, 178],
we may differentiate the solutions of elliptic PDEs based on their regularity into
three categories:
Category A: The exact solution is analytic on each element including on the
boundary, u; 2 C 1 ./.
Category B: The exact solution is analytic on each element including on the
boundary, except at some vertices at which nodes are located (and edges in
3D domains). The regularity of the exact solution is determined by the smallest
def
eigenvalue that characterizes the most singular solution in the domain: D
mini i .
Category C : The exact solution is neither in category A nor in category B.
A very brief description of the mathematical steps followed to obtain estimates
such as (2.25) from various finite element methods (for the heat conduction problem
for example) are as follows:
First bound the error between the function and its interpolant Ih in a given
norm H k , in terms of kkH t , where t > k. That is, provide estimates
k Ih kH k ./ kkH t ./ :
8
1
<C h p
N D C h2 p 2
:
C ko p 2
(2.26)
38
Second, use regularity theorems (shift theorems), the simplest of which says: Let
the elliptic bilinear form have sufficiently smooth coefficient functions. Then if
is convex, the Dirichlet problem is H 2 regular (see definition below). If has a
C s boundary with s 2, then the Dirichlet problem is H s regular.
A combination of the first and second steps enables one to bound the interpolation
error in terms of a constant depending on the input data (lefthand side of
equation and BCs), shape of the boundary, and material coefficients k.
The last step is the use of Ceas lemma, bounding the finite element error by the
interpolation error:
k FE kH 1 ./
c
inf k kH 1 ./ :
2Sh
k
N
:
(2.29)
For large N the inequality becomes almost equal, so that (2.29) reads
log kekE./ log k log N;
(2.30)
2.3 Convergence Rates of FEMs and Their Connection to the Solution Regularity
39
h
Algebraic
D p=2
Algebraic .see Note 1/
D 12 min.p; /
Algebraic
>0
p
Exponential
1=2
Algebraic
D
Algebraic
>0
hp
Exponential
1=2
Exponential
1=3
See Note 2
Category
A
B
p
Exponential
1=3
hp
Exponential
1=3
Exponential
1=5
See Note 2
Algebraic
Algebraic
>0
>0
Note 1: Uniform or quasiuniform meshes are assumed. The maximum
possible value of obtainable with optimal (adaptively determined)
meshes is p=2.
Note 2: When the exact solution has a recognizable structure, then nearly
exponential convergence rates can be obtained with hpadaptive
schemes [11].
Note 3: The characterization of smoothness in 3D is much more difficult
than in 2D. Nevertheless, as in the 2D case, the rate of pconvergence is twice the rate of ohconvergence when quasiuniform
meshes are used.
q
Dq
1
=
B.e; e/ >
2
>
1
B.e; e/;
2
p
FE EX :
(2.31)
Although the exact solution is unknown, it is possible to obtain very sharp estimates
for the error in energy norm using three consecutive FE solutions with increasing
hierarchical spaces having 1 << N1 < N2 < N3 . Combine (2.31) and (2.27) to
obtain
FE EX
k2
:
N 2
(2.32)
40
D 1=3
D 1=4
D 1=5
D 1=4
The three unknowns EX ; k; can be computed if we express (2.32) for the three
consecutive FE solutions:
FEi EX
k2
2
i D 1; 2; 3:
(2.33)
Ni
These three equations may be solved and one obtains an implicit equation for
determining EX :
EX FE3
EX FE2
EX FE2
EX FE1
N2 log N1
log
log N log N
3
(2.34)
Problem 2.1. Use (2.33) for three consecutive FE solutions to obtain (2.34).
Once EX is determined, the error of each FE solution can be estimated by (2.31).
These error estimates are progressively better as N increases.
Some Remarks
Before we present some numerical examples, let us provide some remarks on
hpextensions and optimal convergence rates (see Table 2.3 and [14]):
The optimal convergence rate is achieved by taking a geometric graded mesh
with a factor 0:17, and a lineardegree vector p such that pj D .2/ 1/j C 1,
where j indicates the element at the j th layer away from the singular point.
For pextensions over a geometric mesh with uniform p D .2/1/n, where n
is the number of layers around the singular point, one still obtains an exponential
convergence rate, but the exponent
reduces by a factor of about 0.7.
It is interesting to note that for the hextensions, the geometric refinement is not
optimal, but the radical one is [14]. Using a radical mesh, when refining further
and further one obtains the envelope of the hp version if the polynomial level on
every element is increased linearly as the number of elements is increased.
2.3 Convergence Rates of FEMs and Their Connection to the Solution Regularity
Fig. 2.7 The Lshaped
domain (with the coarsest FE
mesh having 3 elements).
41
1.0
x
1.0
1.0
2
3
:
(2.35)
@
@x
@
@x
( @
D
@r
@r @x
@ @ )
@ @x
@ @r
@r @y
@ @
@ @y
(
D
@
@r
cos
@ sin
@ r
@
@r
sin C
@ cos
@ r
(
)
cos 3
2
1=3
D A1 r
:
3
sin 3
(2.36)
1
1
1
D B.; / F ./ D B.; / D
2
2
2
"
dxdy D 0:91811318807A21:
@
@x
2
C
@
@y
2 #
(2.37)
42
100
h=1
Relative error in energy norm e (%)
h = 1/2
h = 1/8
10
4
2
3
h = 1/64
6
7 8
e = CN 0.68
e = CN 0.35
4
5
6
0.1
hFE, p=1 Uniform mesh
p=8
0.01
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
DOFs (N)
(2.38)
2.3 Convergence Rates of FEMs and Their Connection to the Solution Regularity
43
h=1
h = 1/2
100
h = 1/8
h = 1/64
1
p=4
10
IIeII=CN 0.53
1
hFE. p=1 Unifrom mesh
hFE. p=2 Unifrom mesh
pFE. Unifrom mesh
pFE. Graded mesh 3 refinements
Power (pFE Uniform mesh)
0.1
10
IIeII=CN 0.28
100
5
6
7
P=8
1000
DOFs (N)
10000
100000
44
100
10
1
3
4
3
0.1
7
0.01
pFE, m=0
pFE, m=0.5
p=5
10
15
20
p=8
25
30
35
N1/2
1
g 2 .4; .t//
1
Tn D 2
15.256 2m m2 /.16 m2 / C cos 2.t/
g .4; .t//
193.256 C m2 / 512.m2 C 1/ C 7200m cos2 2.t/ ;
(2.39)
(2.40)
where
g.4; .t// D 25632m cos 2.t/Cm2 ;
16 C m
tan.t/ :
16 m
For an isotropic material under the assumption of plane stress with E D 1 and
D 0:3, the following values for the potential energy for the two different ms are
obtained: EX .m D 0/ D 26:33892955 and EX .m D 0:5/ D 27:08611104.
By varying m from 0 to 0.5, we obtain stress concentration factors at point A that
range from 3 to 7, respectively, but the solution is still analytic. A pFE analysis
was performed on a mesh of 15 quadrilateral elements by increasing the polynomial
order from 1 to 8, where an exponential convergence rate is expected:
kekE
k
:
exp . N
/
2.3 Convergence Rates of FEMs and Their Connection to the Solution Regularity
45
Applying the log operator to the convergence estimate (2.28), and since the problem
is in Category A, then according to Table 2.2,
log kekE log k N 1=2 log.exp/:
(2.41)
For large N the inequality becomes almost equal and we plot in Figure 2.11 the
log of the relative error in energy norm as a function of N 1=2 . As expected, a straight
line is obtained both for the domain with m D 0 and for m D 0:5.
Having described and demonstrated the high convergence rates of the pversion
of the FEM, we apply it in the next chapters for the computation of the eigenpairs
to extract GFIFs and GSIFs.
Chapter 3
Here we present a numerical procedure based on the pversion of the finite element
method for computing efficiently and reliably approximations to the eigenpairs
associated with twodimensional heat conduction singular points. The proposed
method, called the modified Steklov method, is general, that is, applicable to
singularities associated with corners, nonisotropic multimaterial interfaces, and
abrupt changes in boundary conditions. We introduce the method and demonstrate
some of its main characteristics on several numerical examples.
47
48
Several numerical methods have been presented for the computation of the
eigenvalues during the last decade, but only scant attention has been given to the
computation of the eigenfunctions and their connection to the GFIFs/GSIFs.
Leguillon and SanchezPalencia [109] proposed the matrix and the determinant
methods based on the hversion of the FEM to compute the eigenvalues and the
corresponding eigenfunctions.
In [138,139], Papadakis and Babuska propose a method by which the eigenvalues
are determined using the matrix method followed by an iterative approach and the
shooting method, while the eigenfunctions are evaluated using numerical integration based on the RungeKuttaFehlberg method. This enables the calculation
of the eigenpairs for anisotropic inhomogeneous materials with several types of
boundary conditions. A detailed discussion on the evaluation of the eigenvalues,
which involve the solution of a nonlinear eigenvalue problem, is presented. Both
methods reduce the 2D problem to a 1D ordinary differential equation.
Barsoum in [21] and [20] proposed the iterative finite element method for
the computation of the first smallest eigenpair. This method, however, is less
efficient, robust, and general than the matrix and the determinant methods.
Gu and Belytschko [74] proposed a method based on a stress function and
the interpolation of displacements (based on the finite element method) for
the computation of the eigenvalues, without discussing the computation of the
eigenfunctions.
The Steklov method, first mentioned in [100] and used for vertex singularities of
the Laplace operator in [15] and for elastic edge singularities in [6], has been
modified by Yosibash and Szabo [200, 210]. This modified method is called
the modified Steklov method. It makes it possible to compute reliably eigenpairs
resulting from singularities due to corners, abrupt changes in material properties,
and boundary conditions. The modified Steklov method, used in conjunction
with the pversion of the finite element method, is robust and efficient, and the
computed eigenpairs are shown to converge strongly and accurately.
Costabel and Dauge [41] proposed a determinant method, that is somewhat
different from that of [109], and more accurate and efficient. This method
provides the first 4n eigenpairs, where n is the number of materials in the angular
direction of the singular point. In [44], a semianalytic method for the computation
of eigenpairs for general twodimensional singular points or 3D edges in linear
elasticity is presented. It is based on the construction of a matrix of a lower
dimension, whose determinant is zero for the sought eigenvalues. Except during
the preliminary step at which the computation of the roots of a certain polynomial
are done numerically, the construction of the matrix is analytic. Therefore this
method is very accurate and fast.
Pageau et al. [135] (and the references to their work therein) propose a finite
element method based on the hversion FEM and the formulation of Yamada
and Okumura for the determination of the eigenpairs. These methods involve the
solution of a quadratic eigenproblem. The method is less efficient and accurate
when compared to the others.
49
Ying and Katz [198, 199] proposed an explicit closedform expression for the
eigenequation in the case of a trimaterial isotropic edge. However, explicit expressions become extremely cumbersome for anisotropic multimaterial interfaces,
and even for isotropic multimaterial interfaces with more than three materials.
Mantic et al. [115] use the transfer matrix for the computation of eigenpairs,
especially for multimaterial corner problems. They obtained explicit forms
of eigenequations for evaluation of the singularity exponent in the case of
multimaterial corners.
(3.1)
"modified Steklov"
Domain
2
R*
R*
R
50
in R
; D 1; 2;
(3.2)
(3.3)
i.e. D 1 ; .1 C !/;
(3.4)
where n is the outward normal vector. This problem is not well posed, because
no boundary conditions are specified (yet) on the artificial circular boundaries R
and R . To create these boundary conditions, let us assume that and s./ are an
eigenpair satisfying (3.3) and the boundary conditions (3.4) on 1 and 2 . Thus
D r s./ is a solution, and on the circular boundary R it satisfies
@
@
D
D r 1 s./jrDR D
@n
@r
R
on R :
(3.5)
D
D r 1 s./jrDR D
@n
@r
R
on R :
(3.6)
in R ;
(3.7)
D 1 ; .1 C !/;
(3.8)
@
D on R ; i.e., r D R;
@r
R
@
D on R ; i.e., r D R ;
@r
R
(3.9)
(3.10)
51
R
We concentrate our discussion on the first term in (3.11), because the second term is
treated in exactly the same manner only that R is replaced by R and the direction
of integration is reversed. Note that .n1 ; n2 / .cos ; sin /, so that the first term in
(3.11) becomes
Z
.k11 @1 C k12 @2 / cos C .k21 @1 C k22 @2 / sin d:
R
1 C!
1
1 C!
1
@
d:
@
(3.12)
(3.13)
B.; / NR .; / C NR .; / D MR .; / C MR .; / ; 8 2 E.R /;
52
where
def
MR .; / D
1 C!
1
.k11 ./ cos2 C k12 ./ sin 2 C k22 ./ sin2 / R d;
(3.14)
1 C!
@
def
d;
NR .; / D
.k22 ./ k11 .// sin cos C k12 ./ cos 2
@
1
R
(3.15)
Z
and MR , NR are exactly the same as (3.14), (3.15) only that the expressions are
to be evaluated at R .
There are important and interesting properties that arise when one examins the
weak eigenproblem (3.14).
Remark 3.1. For isotropic homogeneous materials k11 D k22 D k; k12 D 0, and
thus NR D NR 0 and (3.15) involves only symmetric terms, i.e., eigenpairs are
real. This case is associated with the Laplace equation.
Remark 3.2. For the general heatconduction equation the bilinear forms NR
and NR are asymmetric with respect to and . This may give rise to complex
eigenvalues and eigenvectors for anisotropic domains. However, the eigenpairs are
always real unless an internal singular point within a multimaterial interface with
anisotropic materials is considered (see [115]). In the numerical algorithm we
always seek 2 C.
Remark 3.3. The weak form has some unusual properties:
(a) The expressions NR (respectively NR ) involve the derivative of along a
curve. However, if one seeks 2 E.R /, then the trace of its derivatives on R
(resp. R ), which is nothing more than @
, is not well defined on its boundary
@
@
2
2
since @ 62 L .R / (resp. L .R /). A heuristic way to bypass this difficulty is
to use the following argument. We are really interested in D r s./ such that
@
s./ is piecewise analytic, so that @
2 L2 .R / (resp. L2 .R /). This means
that we restrict the space in which lies to be E.R / \ L2 .R / \ L2 .R /. In
the finite element method we design the mesh such that the element boundaries
coincide with R and R . Thus we automatically satisfy the new restriction on
the space by choosing only polynomials along R and R .
(b) It is necessary to show that any eigenpair that is the solution of the weak form,
is of the form r s./, and is also the eigenpair of the Steklov strong formulation.
(c) The weak form (3.13) is not a variational principle in the sense that a minimum
principle is equivalent to it (this is because the bilinear forms NR and NR
are asymmetric). Thus the problem formulated in the weak form loses its
selfadjoint property, and the minimax principle does not hold. Therefore,
nonmonotonic convergence of the approximated eigenpairs is expected even
when the sequence of finite element spaces Si .i D 1; 2; : : :/ is hierarchic,
53
that is Si Si C1 . Indeed, as we show by numerical examples, the approximated eigenvalues are sometimes smaller than the exact ones and sometimes
larger.
It is natural to expect that by enlarging the finite element space, the
eigenpairs will approach the exact values. To prove convergence, it is necessary
to prove consistency and stability. Consistency is ensured, since the trial space
is dense in H 1 , and the approximated eigenfunction converges to any function
in H 1 in the H 1 norm. The stability proof, which requires that the numeric
operators be uniformly invertible, is more difficult. However, the general proof
of convergence rate of nonselfadjoint problems given in [8] is useful for our
purposes because it establishes that the Steklov problem does converge.
Remark 3.4. The weak form (3.13) does not exclude the existence of negative
eigenpairs. This is because solutions of the form r s ./ do belong to the space
E.R /. Therefore both the positive and negative eigenpairs are obtainable. It is
interesting to note that for the Laplace equation if is an eigenvalue, with a
corresponding eigenfunction called s C ./, then is also an eigenvalue with
an associated eigenfunction s ./ s C ./. For a general heat conduction
problem, is an eigenvalue, but the associated eigenfunction s ./ is different
from s C ./. The negative eigenpairs are usually used for the computation of the
GFIFs by a powerful method called the dual singular function method (see
for example [12, 27]). Thus, the capability of computing s ./ by the modified
Steklov method may be appreciated for postprocessing operation for extracting
GFIFs.
Remark 3.5. The domain R does not include singular points, hence no special
refinements of the finite element mesh is required. Furthermore, R is small in size
so that very few finite elements are needed in using the FEM.
A similar method to the one presented here has been addressed in [15, 100].
However, these approaches have not excluded the vertex P from the domain of
interest. Thus the performance of the previous methods, called the classical
Steklov weak eigenproblem (this is the historical reason that the present method
is called a modified Steklov method), is considerably inferior to the one presented
here. For a comparison of the methods the reader is referred to [210].
and . D 1 C !/ D 0:
(3.16)
54
In this case, the only difference in the weak modified Steklov eigenproblem (3.13)
is the restriction of the space E.R / to
Eo .R / D fj 2 E.R /; and .1 / D .1 C !/ D 0g ;
(3.17)
and the modified Steklov eigenproblem is identical to (3.13) with E.R / replaced
by Eo .R / .
(3.18)
where
Z
B.; / D
R
1 C!
@ @ rdrd;
(3.19)
1
R
def
MR .; / D
1 C!
1
R d;
(3.20)
and MR , is exactly the same as (3.20), only that the expressions is to be evaluated
at R . One may observe that all forms in (3.18) are symmetric; thus only real
eigenpairs are obtained.
55
1
R
R*
R*
Mapping Function
3
1
R* x2
4
1
1
x1
Fig. 3.3 The mapping of the standard element to the real element.
finite elements through a meshing process in the direction only. Let us divide the
domain shown in Figure 3.1 into three finite elements as illustrated in Figure 3.2.
These elements are mapped from a standard element in the ; plane such that 1
1, 1 1, by an appropriate mapping function x1 D x1 .; /,
x2 D x2 .; /. Let us consider a single element that is mapped from the standard
element as shown in Figure 3.3. The mapping is given by the following blending
functions:
! C 21
1
!
1 C
C
R
CR
;
x1 .; / D cos
2
2
2
2
!
! C 21
1
1C
x2 .; / D sin
C
R
CR
:
2
2
2
2
(3.21)
(3.22)
The polynomial basis and trial functions are defined on the standard element. Let
the temperature function and the trial function be expressed in terms of the basis
functions i .; / given in Chapter 2:
56
.; / D
N
X
bi i .; / D T b;
.; / D
i D1
N
X
ci i .; / D cT ; (3.23)
i D1
where bi and ci are the amplitudes of the basis functions, and i are the shape
functions. Substituting (3.23) into the expression for B.; / given by (2.14), one
obtains the unconstrained stiffness matrix K associated with B, given by (2.21):
B.; / D cT Kb:
(3.24)
Let us consider now the computation of the matrices associated with MR and
NR presented in (3.14)(3.15):
MR .; / D cT MR b;
NR .; / D cT NR b:
(3.25)
One may observe, that many of the shape functions i are zero on the side 12 of
the standard element, so that many of the entries of the matrices MR and NR are
zero. On this side 1 1, whereas D 1, and only the angle is a function
of as follows:
D
! C 21
!
C
:
2
2
The only entries of the matrices that are nonzero are associated with the shape
functions 1 , 2 , 5 , 9 , and so on. We compute only those that are nonzero (i.e.
i; j D 1; 2; 5; 9; : : :):
.MR /ij D
!
2
Z
.NR /ij D
1
1
1
1
k11 ./ cos2 C k12 ./ sin 2
(3.26)
Ck22 ./ sin2 i .; D 1/j .; D 1/ d ;
.k22 ./ k11 .// sin cos C k12 ./ cos 2
@i
j
@
d :
D1
(3.27)
Note that the entries of the matrices NR and MR have the same values as those
of NR and MR , but of opposite sign. This is because the shape functions on R
and R are the same, and so is the mapping to the standard plane, except that the
integration is from 1 to 1. The entries of NR and MR that are not zero, are
associated with i; j D 3; 4; 7; 11; : : : .
Usually more than one element is required over R , each having element
matrices K, MR , MR , NR , and NR . These are assembled (all element
matrices K are assembled to form the global K matrix, etc). If we denote by
57
bt ot the set of all coefficients, these associated with R we denote by bR , and those
associated with R we denote by bR , the eigenproblem to be solved is
Kbt ot .NR bR C NR bR / D .MR bR C MR bR / :
(3.28)
We assemble the lefthand part of (3.28), denote the whole matrix (which becomes
Q and assemble the righthand part which is denoted by
nonsymmetric) by K,
MR[R :
Q t ot D MR[R bR[R ;
Kb
(3.29)
where bR[R D bR [ bR . The vector that represents the total number of nodal
values in R may be divided into two vectors such that one contains the coefficients
bR[R , and the other contains the remaining coefficients: bTtot D fbTR[R ; bTin g. By
Q we can write the eigenproblem (3.29) in the form
partitioning K,
MR[R 0 bR[R
KR[R .NR C NR / KRi n bR[R
D
:
Ki nR
0
0
Ki n
bi n
bi n
(3.30)
Equation (3.30) can be used to eliminate bi n by static condensation as follows. The
system of equations (3.30) can be partitioned into two systems:
fKR[R .NR C NR /g bR[R C KRi n bi n D MR[R bR[R ; (3.31)
Ki nR bR[R C Ki n bi n D 0:
(3.32)
(3.33)
(3.34)
where
KS D .KR[R .NR C NR // KRi n Ki n 1 Ki nR :
(3.35)
For the solution of the eigenproblem (3.34), it is important to note that KS is, in
general, a full matrix. However, since the order of the matrices is relatively small,
the solution (using Cholesky factorization to compute Ki n 1 ) is inexpensive.
58
Using any available routine for a generalized eigenvalue problem,1 we may solve
(3.34), obtaining the eigenvalues i and their corresponding eigenvectors.
The entries of the above matrices are computed by numerical integration based
on 14 point Gauss quadrature. Numerical experiments have shown that satisfactory
accuracy is achieved with 14 integration points. The difference in the numerically
approximated eigenvalues, when using 13 and 14 Gauss integration points, is
significant only after the 14th digit. The computations were done with 16 significant
digits.
/2
P
R*
x1
59
C
1
1C
RC
R ;
4
2
2
(3.36)
C
1
1C
RC
R ;
4
2
2
(3.37)
so that
2
1
1C
C
R
C
R
4
4
2
2
J D
2 cos 4 C 4 .R C R /
1
1C
jJ j D .R R /
RC
R ;
8
2
2
44
sin
3
1
1C
C
R
C
R
4
4
2
2
5;
.R
C
R
sin
C
/
2
4
4
cos
(3.38)
and
1
C
/
cos
C
RC
.R
C
R
4
4
4
4
4
2
1 4
D
jJ j 1 cos
C
.R C R /
sin
C
1 R C
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
J 1
1
2
sin
1C
R
2
1C
R
2
3
5:
(3.39)
For the Laplace equation k is reduced to the identity matrix. Substituting (3.39)
into (2.21), the i; j entry in the stiffness matrix becomes
Kij D
1
@i @i
;
@
@
T
1
jJ j
8 9
# @j >
< @ =
.R R/
0
4
2
d d
2
1
R C 1C
R
0
: @j >
;
16
2
2
"1
@i @j .R R/2
@i @j
2
C
4jJ j
@ @ 16jJ j
1 @ @
2
1C
1
d d :
RC
R
2
2
1
(3.40)
We choose in all cases R D 1, and in this particular case R D 0:9 (the eigenproblem
is virtually independent of R for R > 1=2). Let us explicitly compute the value of
K11 :
60
K11 D
1
1
1
jJ j
(
@1
@
2
.0:05/2
2 )
1C
1
C
0:9
d d
2
2
(
1
1 2
1
160
.0:05/2
D
4
1 1:9 0:1
)
1C 2
1 2
2 1
C 0:9
d d
C
4
16
2
2
@1
C
@
2
2
16
D 4:99596:
(3.41)
.MR /ij D
4
1
1
(3.43)
Substituting the functions 1 , 2 , and 5 (all others are zero on the side 12 on the
quadrilateral element), we obtain
22
8 9
<b1 =
63
MR b2 D 4
: ;
4
b5
1
3
2
3
61
8 9
1
p
6 < b1 =
1 7
p
5 b2 :
6 : ;
2
b5
5
(3.44)
The matrix MR is similar to MR , with oposite signs, and it multiplies a vector
of different coefficients:
2 2 1 1 3 8 9
8 9
p
< b3 =
3
6 < b3 =
6 3 2
7
p1 5 b4 :
(3.45)
MR b4 D 4
3
6 : ;
: ;
4
2
b7
b7
5
6
MR b2 C MR b4 D 6
: ;
: ;
46
6
b5
b7
6
4
1
p
6
1
p
6
2
5
1
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
38 9
b >
1>
>
07
>
7
b2 >
>
7
< >
=
7
0 7 b5
:
1
7
p
b3 >
67
>
>
>
7
>
p1 5
b4 >
>
6 :
;
b7
2
0
(3.46)
One needs to rearrange rows and collumns in the above matrix to bring it to the form
in (3.30):
2
6
6
6
6
6
64
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
22
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
1
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
1
p
6
1
p
6
0
0
2
5
MR[R
3 2
0
07
7 6
0
7 6
6
p1 7 60
67 6
7
p1 7 60
67 6
40
05
0
2
5
0
0
33
0
8 9
7 b 1 >
7
>
07
77
b 2 >
>
77
>
>
077
b >
>
77
>
3
>
077
>
77 <b 4 =
057
:
b 5 >
>
0 7
7
>
b 7 >
7
>
>
7
>
>
7
b6 >
>
7
5: >
;
b8
0
0
(3.47)
62
6
7
6
7
KR[R
KRi n
6
7
6
9:9618 4:9608 7
6
7
6
9:9618 7
4
5
Ki n
(3.48)
Using (3.48), we may condense the matrix K according to (3.35), obtaining a
symmetric matrix (because K itself is symmetric):
KS D KR[R KRi n Ki n 1 KRi n T
3
2
4:99188 2:46251 2:4959 4:9585 3:04324 3:04324
6
4:99188 4:9585 2:4959 3:04324 3:04324 7
7
6
7
6
4:99188 2:46251 3:04324 3:043247
6
D6
7:(3.49)
6
4:99188 3:04324 3:043247
7
6
4
3:02576 2:959875
3:02812
The last step left is to solve the generalized eigenproblem (3.34). Because MR[R
is nonsingular, we can transform the generalized eigenproblem to a regular one by
multiplying (3.34) by MR[R 1 :
MR[R 1 KS bR[R D bR[R :
(3.50)
63
R
y
120
r=1
1
0.95
1
2
120
Fig. 3.5 A crack with homogeneous Newton BCs in a circular domain and the FE mesh used for
the computation of the eigenpairs.
If we increase the polynomial degree over the element, we obtain the following
values for .1 /pDi :
..1 /pD3 ; .1 /pD4 ; .1 /pD5 ; .1 /pD6 ; .1 /pD7 ; .1 /pD8 /
D .2:000568859638720; 2:000568859628970; 2:000000278341443;
2:000000278341425; 2:000000000037642; 2:000000000037600/:
As observed, we may obtain for polynomial degree p D 8 the first eigenvalue with
a relative error of 1:85 109 %. Not only the positive eigenvalues are obtained, but
also the negative ones, and their corresponding eigenvectors. The second eigenvalue
(2 D 4) has 3 106% relative error at p D 8.
It is important to realize that as we increase the polynomial degree, the size of
the condensed matrix KS increases by 2 for each order of the polynomial degree,
although the overall number of basis functions i .; / may increase considerably.
For example, at p D 8 one has 47 shape functions, but the size of the matrix KS
is 18 18.
@
@
in ;
D 0 on 2 ;
(3.51)
@
D y on R :
@r
64
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E01
1.E02
1.E03
1.E04
1.E05
1.E06
1.E07
1.E08
10
100
DOF
The solution to this problem, accurate up to the sixth significant digit, is given
in [12]:
.r; / D 1:35812r 1=4 sin.=4/ C 0:970087r 3=4 sin.3=4/
0:452707r 5=4 sin.5=4/ C O.r 7=4 /;
(3.52)
def R
and B.; / D d D 4:52707.
We first study the convergence of the eigenvalues computed by the modified
Steklov method, and show that the value of R has a minor influence on the accuracy
of the results if chosen in the range 0:5 R 0:95.
First we compute the eigenpairs using three finite elements having 120 each,
with R D 1 and R D 0:95, as shown in Figure 3.5. The convergence of the
first three computed eigenvalues as the plevel over each element is increased from
p D 1 up to p D 6 is demonstrated in Figure 3.6. The absolute relative error as a
.i /EX
percentage is computed as 100 abs .i /FE
. This example demonstrates the
.i /EX
efficiency and accuracy of the modified Steklov method in computing the eigenpairs.
Eigenvalues have relative errors of less than 108 % with fewer than 100 DOFs.
Next, we keep the polynomial degree fixed p D 8 over the three elements, and
extract the first three eigenpairs taking R to the range between R D 0:3 and
R D 0:99. We plot the absolute relative error in the first three eigenvalues as a
function of R in Figure 3.7. One may notice that if R is chosen in the range
0:5 R 0:95, excellent results are obtained. Even if chosen out of this range,
still the computed values are very accurate. We use in all computations a value of
R in the specified range.
65
1.E06
First evalue
1.E07
Second evalue
Third evalue
1.E08
1.E09
1.E10
1.E11
1.E12
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
R*
Fig. 3.7 Relative error (%) of the first three eigenpairs as a function of R .
@2
@2
C 2 D 0;
2
@x1
@x2
(3.53)
1
X
i D1
2i
Ai r 3 2
2i
3
i=3
2i
cos
arctan.2 tan / ;
1 C 3 sin2
3
(3.54)
where r and are polar coordinates centered on the reentrant corner such that D 0
coincides with the 1 boundary. The first term in the expansion (3.54) for r is
unbounded as r ! 0.
Let be the unit circle sector shown in Figure 3.8. The circular boundary of
the domain, R , is loaded by a flux boundary condition that corresponds to the first
symmetric eigenfunction of the asymptotic expansion of :
66
R
r
r=1
1
2
1
@
1 @
@ def
C sin 2.k22 k11 /
D qr D .k11 cos2 C k22 sin2 /
@r
@r
2
r @
2
D A1 r 1=3 2.1 C 3 sin2 /2=3 2 sin 2 sin
arctan.2 tan /
3
2
2
3
arctan.2 tan / :
C .1 C 3 cos2 /.1 C 3 sin2 / sin2 2 cos
3
2
3
(3.55)
On the other two boundaries fluxfree boundary conditions are applied. The GFIF
A1 is arbitrarily selected to be A1 D 1, while the others are Ai D 0, i D 2; 3; : : : ; 1.
The exact solution to this problem is given by the first term with i D 1 in (3.54).
We use three finite elements having 90 each, with R D 1 and R D 0:95. The
convergence of the first three computed eigenvalues as the plevel over each element
is increased from p D 1 up to p D 8 is demonstrated in Figure 3.9, showing the
absolute relative error as a percentage versus the number of degrees of freedom.
We also show in Figure 3.10 the first three eigenfunctions s1C ./; s2C ./; s3C ./
and their dual counterparts s1 ./; s2 ./; s3 ./ computed at p D 8. For the
anisotropic material the primal eigenfunctions siC ./ are different from to the dual
ones si ./.
67
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E01
1.E02
1.E03
First evalue (2/3)
1.E04
1.E05
1.E06
10
100
1000
DOF
Fig. 3.9 Absolute relative error (%) of the first three eigenpairs.
k .i / r 2 D 0
in i ;
i D 1; 2;
(3.56)
s1C ./ D
k .2/ D 1;
k .1/ D 10 and
1 D 0:731691779 and
2 D 1:268308221;
(
0
=2;
cos.1 a/ C c1 sin.1 a/
(
s2C ./
on i D @i ; i D 1; 2: (3.57)
0
=2;
=2 2
;
(3.58)
(3.59)
(3.60)
(3.61)
68
First efunction
Second efunction
Third efunction
Eigenfunction
0.5
0.5
1
90
Angle (deg)
180
270
180
270
Dual Eigenfunction
0.5
0.5
1
90
Angle (deg)
10
@2
@2
C 2 D0
2
@x1
@x2
in 1 ;
@2
@2
C
0:1
D0
@x12
@x22
in 2 :
(3.62)
69
r=2
pD5
57
4:3e7
4:5e6
pD6
76
1:0e9
7:9e8
pD7
98
3:0e11
1:0e10
pD8
123
1:0e10
1:0e10
p1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DOF
30
73
116
173
244
329
428
541
<1
0.9210204825
0.8943243330
0.8792150895
0.8806907064
0.8816130960
0.8816518948
0.8816075676
0.8815999758
=1
0.2354645754
0.3172441170
0.3247298610
0.3235360557
0.3230501821
0.3230476439
0.3230757155
0.3230801526
[115]
0.8816020381
0.3230787589
This case has been shown in [115] to have complex eigenpairs. Using the modified
Steklov method, we compute the first eigenvalue on a mesh consisting 14 elements,
3 in 1 and 11 in 2 . We present the real and imaginary parts of the first computed
eigenvalue in Table 3.2. The absolute relative error as a percentage versus the
number of degrees of freedom is shown in Figure 3.12. Again, even for cases in
which complex eigenvalues appear, the modified Steklov method provides good
results and captures accurately the existence of complex eigenpairs.
70
1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E01
1.E02
Re First evalue
1.E03
Im First evalue
1.E04
10
1000
100
DOF
Fig. 3.12 Absolute relative error (%) of the real and imaginary parts of the first eigenvalue for the
bimaterial anisotropic internal singular point.
Fig. 3.13 Domain for the
two anisotropic fluxfree
bimaterial scalar problem.
1
r=1
=2
. See Figure 3.13.
The equations to be solved in each subdomain are
.i /
k
@2
D0
@x @x
in i ; i D 1; 2;
(3.63)
71
First efunction
First dual efunction
Eigenfunction
0.5
0.5
1
0
90
Angle (deg)
180
Fig. 3.14 The first primal and dual eigenfunctions for the bimaterial anisotropic interface as
computed at p D 8 using six elements.
1.E03
1.E04
First efunction
1.E05
1.E06
1.E07
90
180
Angle (deg)
Fig. 3.15 Absolute relative error (%) of the first eigenfunction for the bimaterial anisotropic
interface.
.2/
.1/
.2/
.2/
72
The fluxfree boundary conditions (3.4) are applied on the straight edges
intersecting in the singular point, and continuity of the function and flux across
.1/
the interface boundary are maintained, i.e.m is continuous and k @ n D
.2/
@
@
D 1 ;
@r
@r
.i /
(3.64)
where 1 is given by (B.41) and (B.43) (evaluated at r D 1), the exact solution in
each subdomain is given by (B.41) and (B.43).
Using a finite element mesh having six elements, we computed the eigenpairs for
p D 1 to p D 8. At p D 6 with 145 DOFs we obtain the eigenvalues correct up
to the seventh digit as shown in the analytical solution. We present the first primal
and dual eigenfunctions computed at p D 8 in Figure 3.14, and the absolute relative
error as a percentage in Figure 3.15.
After computing the eigenpairs the next task is the extraction of GFIFs, discussed
in the next chapter.
Chapter 4
Having computed the eigenpairs associated with a 2D singular point, the next task
is the computation of the coefficients of the series expansion Ai s, called for the heat
conduction equation generalized flux intensity functions (GFIFs). The eigenpairs
may be viewed as characterizing the straining modes, and their amplitudes (the
GFIFs) quantify the amount of energy residing in particular straining modes. For
this reason, failure theories directly or indirectly involve the GFIFs. As a simple
example, consider a solution for which all eigenpairs are given. Although the first
eigenvalue may be very small, if the corresponding GFIF is zero, the solution does
not manifest this singular behavior.
Many methods exist for the computation of GFIFs, mainly associated with
cracks, from finite element solutions. For example, the Jintegral method, the
energy release rate method, the stiffness derivative method, the dual singular
function method (also known as the contour integral method CIM), the cutoff
function method (CFM), the singular superelement method, etc. See references
[12, 27, 31, 177] and the references therein. Most of the methods, however, are
applicable to crack singularities in isotropic materials only and do not provide any
desired number of stress intensity factors.
One of the most efficient ways for extracting the GFIFs in a superconvergent
manner is by an indirect extraction procedure using the dual singular function [12,
27]. These efficient procedures use specially constructed extraction functions (the
dual eigenpairs), and will be presented in the next section.
73
74
over the domain shown in Figure 4.1, for example, and assume that the boundary
conditions are homogeneous in a close vicinity of the singularity. The point of
departure in deriving the dual singular function method is the pathindependent
integral defined in Appendix E in (E.18), over the arc R :
Z
1 C!
IR D
1
1
C
r
@
@
k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2
@r
@r
@
@
@
@
.k22 k11 /
sin 2 C k12 cos 2
2
Rd:
(4.1)
rDR
(4.2)
Of course, the chosen function i , being constructed using the dual eigenpair,
satisfies the differential equation and the homogeneous boundary conditions, thus
is justified to be used in the path independent integral. Substituting (4.2) in (4.1)
yields
IR D ci R
i
1 C!
1
@
C i k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2 si
r
@r
.k22 k11 /
@
.si /0
sin 2 C k12 cos 2
C si
d;
@
2
rDR
no summation on i
(4.3)
If the solution is known along a circular path around the singular point, it can
be substituted in (4.3) to obtain the value of IR . On the other hand,
P in the vicinity
of the singular point, the solution can be represented also as D j Aj r j sjC ./.
Inserting the series solution in (4.3), one obtains
IR D ci
Aj R
j i
1
1 C!n
si .sjC /0
sjC .si /0
no summation on i:
i C j sjC si k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2
.k k /
22
11
sin 2 C k12 cos 2 d;
2
(4.4)
Because of the orthogonality of the primal and dual eigenpairs (see (E.21)), all
integrals in the sum for which j i vanish, so that (4.4) becomes:
Z
IR D Ai ci
1 C!
1
75
2i siC si k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2
.k22 k11 /
C 0
C 0
sin 2 C k12 cos 2 d;
C si .si / si .si /
2
no summation on i:
(4.5)
In view of (4.5), we are at the stage to provide the expression for the constant ci ,
which can be computed by the i th primal and dual eigenpairs, and the coefficients
of heat conduction
"Z
1 C!
2i siC si k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2
ci D
1
si .siC /0
siC .si /0
1
.k22 k11 /
sin 2 C k12 cos 2 d
2
no summation on i:
(4.6)
Before computing the inverse of the integral in the righthand side of (4.6), one
must check that the integral is not identically zero. For the Laplace equation it can
be shown that this integral is nonzero, but a proof for a general heat conduction
equation is not known to exist at this time.
Inserting (4.6) in (4.5), one obtains that
IR D Ai :
(4.7)
Combining (4.7) with (4.3), one obtains the dual singular function method for
the computation of any desired GFIF:
Z 1 C!
ci
@
C i k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2 si
r
Ai D
R i 1
@r
.k22 k11 /
@
C si
d;
.si /0
sin 2 C k12 cos 2
@
2
rDR
no summation on i
(4.8)
In practice, the solution is not known, but only its numerical approximation (by the
FEM for example). It is known, however, that in the vicinity of the singularity the
finite element approximation is not of high accuracy. Thus, instead of using the exact
solution for evaluating the integral in (4.8), one uses its numerical approximation
FE along a circular curve away from the singular point, thus obtaining .Ai /FE .
Remark 4.1. Because the dual singular function method is based on the pathindependent integral, the circular path used for the computation can be of any
76
radius. It has been proven in [12] that using FE , the error Ai .Ai /FE has a
superconvergent property, i.e., .Ai /FE approaches Ai at a rate that is twice as fast
as the error in energy norm.
Remark 4.2. Computing .Ai /FE by (4.8) involves the derivative @@rFE . This enlarges
the approximation error in the GFIFs because numerical derivatives are associated
with larger numerical errors.
For the Laplace equation, siC D si D si and the expression for the computation
of Ai reduces to
Ai D
2i Ri
R 1 C!
1
si2 d
1 C!
1
@
C i
r
si d;
@r
rDR
no summation on i:
(4.9)
q1
qD
D kr $ q D k @ :
q2
(4.10)
With this notation, the heat conduction equation (2.1) can be stated as
rq DQ
in ;
(4.11)
on N ;
on D :
(4.12)
(4.13)
77
r q d D
Q d:
(4.14)
I
q n d C
r qd D
Q d:
(4.15)
Let us concentrate our attention on the first term of (4.15). From Greens theorem,
r .kr/ d D
r .kr/ d C
.kr/n.kr/n d;
@
(4.16)
we obtain that
I
.kr/ n d D
r .kr/ d C
r .kr/ d
@
I
.kr/ n d:
(4.17)
(4.18)
I
.kr/n d D
@
r q d C
r l d
l n d: (4.19)
@
Substitute (4.11) for the first term on the RHS of (4.19) (this is a strong argument
that requires that r q D Q at each point in ), and require that r l D 0 in ,
so that (4.19) becomes
.kr/ n d D
@
Q d
l n d:
(4.20)
I
l n d C
@
r qd D 0:
(4.21)
78
Z
1
k l qd D
O l n d:
(4.22)
D
(4.23)
.Ec /0 ./ D fq j q 2 Ec ./; q n D 0
on N g ;
on N g:
(4.24)
(4.25)
With this notation we are ready to introduce the complementary weak form:
Seek q 2 Ec ./ satisfying
Bc .q; l / D Fc .l /
def
where Bc .q; l / D
8l 2 Ec ./;
k1 l q d;
(4.26)
def
Fc .l / D
R
D
O l n d:
In case N , then the complementary weak form requires the use of EQc ./ and
.Ec /0 ./:
Seek q 2 EQc ./ satisfying
Bc .q; l / D Fc .l /
8l 2 .Ec /0 ./;
and if homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions are prescribed, then the above
should read:
Seek q 2 .Ec /0 ./ satisfying
Bc .q; l / D Fc .l /
8l 2 .Ec /0 ./:
(4.27)
Detailed discussion on the complementary weak form and its relation to the
primal weak form is given in [131], where it is shown that the exact energy can
79
x2
R
1
x1
be bounded from below as well as from above by the approximate energy computed
by finite elements using the two weak forms. These bounds have been used for aposteriori error estimations in which two finite element solutions were obtained over
the same domain using both forms. These bounds, however, are global measures,
which provide no information about the quality of the solution and its derivatives at
specific points, and furthermore, each problem has to be solved twice, which is not
practical in general.
1 1 C !g:
80
.q1 /i
q i .r; / D
(4.28)
D krr i siC ./
.q2 /i
.k cos C k12 sin /siC ./ .k11 sin k12 cos /.siC /0 ./
D r i 1 i 11
;
i .k21 cos C k22 sin /siC ./ .k21 sin k22 cos /.siC /0 ./
no summation on i;
which is linearly independent, and satisfies any homogeneous boundary conditions
on 1 and 2 . Any
N
N
X
X
qD
Ai q i ;
lD
bi q i ;
(4.29)
i D1
i D1
(4.30)
A T D fFc gT Bc 1 ;
(4.31)
or
where
Z
.Bc /ij D
0
1 C!
r i Cj 2
1
T
1
i .k11 cos C k12 sin /siC .k11 sin k12 cos /.siC /0
k11 k12
k21 k22
i .k21 cos C k22 sin /siC .k21 sin k22 cos /.siC /0
8h
i9
< j .k11 cos C k12 sin /s C .k11 sin k12 cos /.s C /0 =
j
j
i rdr d
h
: j .k21 cos C k22 sin /s C .k21 sin k22 cos /.s C /0 ;
j
R i Cj
i C j
k
11
k21
T
C
C 0
i .k11 cos C k12 sin /siC .k11 sin k12 cos /.siC/ 0
i .k21 cos C k22 sin /si .k21 sin k22 cos /.si /
1
8h
i9
1<
C
C 0 =
.k
cos
C
k
sin
/s
..k
sin
k
cos
/.s
/
j
11
12
11
12
j
j
k12
i d:
h
k22 : j .k21 cos C k22 sin /sjC .k21 sin k22 cos /.sjC /0 ;
Z
1 C!
(4.32)
81
o
1
C
i siC .sjC /0 C j .siC /0 sjC
.k22 k11 / sin 2 C k12 cos 2
d;
2
no summation on i and j; i; j D 1; 2; : : : ; N
Z 1 C!
h
.Fc /j D Rj
O R j .k11 cos2 C k12 sin 2 C k22 sin2 /sjC
C
(4.33)
1
1
.k22 k11 / sin 2 C k12 cos 2 .sjC /0 d;
2
R
no summation on j D 1; 2; : : : ; N
(4.34)
Remark 4.3. The matrix Bc is symmetric, so that (4.31) can be written also as
A D Bc 1 fFc g.
Remark 4.4. Computing the entries of the matrix Bc involves only a path integral
(1D integration) and includes only terms associated with the eigenpairs and the
heat conduction coefficients. Its dimension is determined by the number of GFIFs
sought, thus is usually very small.
Remark 4.5. Computing the entries of the vector fFc g involves only a path integral
(1D integration) along an arc, and requires the knowledge of the exact solution
along that arc in addition to the eigenpairs and the heat conduction coefficients. In
practice, instead of the exact solution, an approximation FE is used.
Remark 4.6. Homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions q n D 0 on 1 and
2 in the framework of the complementary weak formulation have to be treated
by constraining the statically admissible space. However, using the eigenpairs
in constructing the statically admissible space, the constraints are automatically
satisfied, because any q i in (4.28) satisfies the condition q n D 0 on 1 and 2 .
The Laplace equation as a special case: For the specific example of the Laplace
equation, we have kij D ij , so expressions for Bc and fFc g are simplified to
.Bc /ij D
Ri Cj
i C j
1 C!
1
i j siC sjC C .siC /0 .sjC /0 d;
no summation on i and j;
Z 1 C!
.Fc /j D j Rj
O R sjC d;
1
(4.35)
no summation on j
(4.36)
82
We need the following lemma to prove that the matrix Bc is a diagonal matrix
in the case of the Laplace equation.
Lemma 4.1. Let siC ./ and sjC ./ be the i th and j th eigenpairs of the Laplace
equation in R with homogeneous boundary conditions on 1 and 2 . Then
Z
1 C!
1
(
.siC /0 .sjC /0 d D
i j;
0;
R C!
i2 11 .siC /2 d;
i D j:
(4.37)
Proof. Multiply the Laplace equation by a function , integrate over the domain
R , then use Greens theorem to obtain
I
.r n/ d
@R
.r/ .r/ d D 0:
(4.38)
Take D r i siC ./ and D r j sjC ./. Then these satisfy the homogeneous
boundary conditions on 1 and 2 , so that (4.38) becomes
"
#
@r i siC ./ j C
Rd
(4.39)
r sj ./
@r
1
rDR
#
" i C
j C
C
@r si ./ @r sj ./
1 @r i siC ./ @r j sj ./
C 2
rdrd D 0;
@r
@r
r
@
@
R
Z
1 C!
no summation on i and j;
which after integrating over r, becomes
n
Ri Cj i 1
j
i Cj
1 C! C C
si sj d
1
1
i Cj
R 1 C!
1
o
.siC /0 .sjC /0 d D 0;
no summation on i and j
(4.40)
i 1
j
i Cj
1 C! C C
si sj d
1
1
i Cj
R 1 C!
1
.siC /0 .sjC /0 d D 0;
(4.41)
no summation on i and j:
For the Laplace equation sjC D sj , and using the orthogonality of the eigenfunction
(1.21), the first integral in (4.40) is zero for i j , so that
Z
1 C!
1
.siC /0 .sjC /0 d D 0;
i j:
(4.42)
83
1 C!
i =2
1
.siC /2 d
1
2i
1 C!
1
.siC /0 2 d D 0;
no summation on i:
(4.43)
With the help of Lemma 4.1, the matrix Bc in (4.35) (for the Laplace equation)
is diagonal, and its entries are easily computed by
(
.Bc /ij D
0;
R C!
i R2i 11 .siC /2 d;
i j;
i D j;
no summation on i:
(4.44)
no summation on i:
(4.45)
Problem 4.1. Use (1.11) and (1.14)  (1.15) to obtain the result in equation (4.45).
Because Bc is diagonal, for the Laplace equation one can explicitly compute
each of the Ai s, using (4.45) and (4.36):
Ai D
2
!Ri
1 C!
1
O R siC d;
no summation on i:
(4.46)
2
!R i
2
!R i
Z
Z
1 C!
1
1 C!
1
FE R siC d
e./siC d;
no summation on i
(4.47)
The eigenfunctions siC ./ are analytic continuous functions on R . Therefore they
are normalized so that jsiC ./j 1, and (4.47) becomes
84
2
!Ri
1 C!
je./j d
1
2
kekL1 .R / :
!Ri
(4.48)
2C
2C
kekL2 .R /
kekL2 .@R / ;
i
!R
!Ri
C
C
kekH 1 .R /
kekH 1 ./ :
i
!R
!Ri
(4.49)
C
C
kekH 1 ./
kekE :
i
!R
!Ri
(4.50)
Remark 4.7. We conclude that the convergence rate of the approximated GFIFs for
the Laplace equation is at least as fast as the convergence rate of the finiteelement
error in energy norm. Numerical experiments show that in practice, the convergence
rate is as fast as the convergence of the finiteelement energy (twice as fast as the
convergence rate in energy norm), namely the method is superconvergent.
The following numerical examples indicate that errors in the computed GFIFs
converge much faster than the error in energy norm.
i D 1; 2; : : : ; p C 1;
(4.51)
where i ./ are the edge shape functions, and cij is the eigenvector corresponding
to the j th eigenvalue. In the following we formulate the matrix Bc and the vector
fFc g for the case that the eigenpairs are only an approximation of the exact values.
Denoting by .i /FE the approximated eigenvalues, (4.33) becomes
.Bc /ij D
85
ci k k ./cj ` ` ./
C k11 sin2 k12 sin 2 C k22 cos2 ci k k ./0 cj ` ` ./0
1
C
.k22 k11 / sin 2 C k12 cos 2
2
.i /FE ci k k ./cj ` ` ./0 C .j /FE k ./0 cj ` ` ./ d;
no summation on i and j; i; j D 1; 2; : : : ; N
(4.52)
Assume that the finite element mesh used for computing the eigenpairs has
nG elements in the circumferential direction and a polynomial degree p. Using
a Gauss quadrature of NG points, the explicit expression for each term in Bc is
given by
.Bc /ij D
nG pC1 NG
R.i /FE C.j /FE X X X
.n/ .n/
wm ci k cj `
.i /FE C .j /FE nD1
mD1
k;`D1
! .n/
.n/
.n/
.i /FE .j /FE k11 cos2 .m / C k12 sin2.m /
2
.n/
Ck22 sin2 .m / k .m /` .m /
2
.n/ 2
.n/
.n/
2
k
sin
.
/
k
sin2.
/
C
k
cos
.
/
m
m
m
12
22
! .n/ 11
k0 .m /`0 .m /
1 .n/
.n/
.n/
.k k11 / sin2.m / C k12 cos2.m /
2 22
0
0
.i /FE k .m /` .m / C .j /FE k .m /; ` .m /
no summation on i and j;
(4.53)
i; j D 1; 2; : : : ; N;
where wm and m are the weights and abscissas of the Gauss quadrature, and ! .n/ is
the opening angle of element n used for the computation of the eigenpairs.
86
Similarly, the expression for the terms in the vector fFc g in (4.34) is
.Fc /i D R.i /FE
NG
nG pC1
X
XX
.n/
..
O
m //wm ci k
! .n/
.n/
.n/
.n/
k11 cos2 .m / C k12 sin2.m / C k22 sin2 .m / k .m /
2
1 .n/
.n/
.n/
(4.54)
.k22 k11 / sin2.m / C k12 cos2.m / k0 .m / ;
C
2
.i /FE
no summation on i;
i D 1; 2; : : : ; N:
"
k;`D1
NG
! .n/ X
wm k .m /` .m / C
2 mD1
no summation on i and j;
!#
NG
2 X
wm k0 .m /`0 .m /
! .n/ mD1
i; j D 1; 2; : : : ; N:
(4.55)
Remark 4.8. .Bc /ij D 0 for i j , and therefore only the diagonal terms are to
be computed. The values .Bc /ij ; i j , are computed also to assess the accuracy
of the approximate eigenpairs.
Expression (4.54) becomes for the Laplace equation
.Fc /i D .i /FE R.i /FE
nG pC1
X
X
nD1 kD1
.n/ !
ci k
NG
.n/ X
mD1
no summation on i:
(4.56)
Note that the finite element discretization over the domain may be different
from the one used for the modified Steklov problem.
4.3 Numerical Examples: Extracting GFIFs Using the Complementary Weak Form
87
1.0
0.15
0.0225
Fig. 4.2 The finite element mesh for Babuskas model problem.
Table 4.1 Computed values of the first three GFIFs, R D 0:9 and N D 10.
pD1
DOF
12
kekE (%) 34.5
pD2
36
16.7
pD3
64
12.8
pD4
104
11.3
pD5
156
10.3
pD6
220
9.5
pD7
296
8.9
pD8
384
8.4
pD1
1
0
.A1 /FE
eA1 (%)
.A2 /FE
eA2 (%)
0.892975
7.9
0.970822
0.075
0.969563
0.05
0.970206
0.012
0.970089
0.0002
0.970075
0.0012
0.970091
0.0004
0.970084
0.0003
0.970087
0
.A3 /FE
eA3 (%)
0.378148
16.4
0.445853
1.5
0.452560
0.03
0.452493
0.047
0.452697
0.002
0.452704
0.0007
0.452706
0.0002
0.452707
0
0.452707
0
88
10 1
10 0
10 1
10 2
10 3
Energy norm
Strain energy.
First GFIF.
Second GFIF.
Third GFIF.
10
100
DOF
2. The GFIFs .A2 /FE and .A3 /FE are much more accurate than .A1 /FE , and the
observed convergence rate is considerably faster that the convergence of the error
in energy norm.
3. For path radii taken far enough from the singular point, R > 0:5 in this example
problem, the accuracy of the GFIFs is almost independent of R.
4. As expected, the number of terms considered in the series has no influence on
the accuracy of the GFIFs (because the matrix Bc is diagonal for the Laplace
problem).
We present in Figure 4.3 the convergence of the GFIFs compared to the relative
error in energy norm and the relative error in strain energy. Note that the rate
of convergence in the first GFIF is faster than the rate of convergence of the
energy norm, and at p > 4 is virtually the same as the rate of convergence of
the strain energy. The second and third GFIFs converge much faster. It is seen
that the first GFIF converges monotonically, which should not be expected in
general.
4.3 Numerical Examples: Extracting GFIFs Using the Complementary Weak Form
89
1.0
3 106
3 105
0.035
0.71
2.4
4:5 108
2:25 105
0.0018
0.0084
0.49
<109
3 108
7:8 105
0.0069
0.063
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
pD5
pD6
pD7
pD4
0.0002
0.03
0.39
0.73
17
Error in
eigenvalue
GFIF
#
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
plevel
for eval
computation
1:62
0:13
0:08
0:71
1:235
1:62
0:122
0:216
0:52
6:2
1:62
0:12
0:54
7:2
29:5
1:63
0:54
6:79
7:12
28:5
0:73
0:05
0:01
0:184
1:235
0:73
0:058
0:135
0:009
3:6
0:73
0:064
0:63
7:76
26:65
0:75
0:36
6:84
7:68
25:55
Table 4.2 Relative error (%) in computed GFIFs for the Lshaped domain.
pD4
pD5
kekE
6:02
4:65
0:37
0:05
0:0048
0:235
0:639
0:37
0:058
0:138
0:044
4:19
0:36
0:064
0:61
7:72
27:5
0:38
0:36
6:87
7:64
26:15
pD6
3:74
0:43
0:016
0:027
0:326
0:212
0:43
0:0066
0:160
0:136
5:05
0:43
0:001
0:61
7:6
28:7
0:45
0:42
6:87
7:52
34:4
pD7
3:10
0:29
0:005
0:037
0:302
0:173
0:29
0:0044
0:17
0:112
4:69
0:30
0:0096
0:61
7:64
28:1
0:31
0:41
6:84
7:56
26:8
pD8
2:62
0:48
0:001
0:037
0:304
0:0825
0:48
0:01
0:147
0:116
4:77
0:48
0:016
0:62
7:6
28:35
0:5
0:4
6:87
7:56
26:85
extrapolated
90
4 GFIFs Computation for TwoDimensional Heat Conduction Problems
<109
<109
2:3 106
3:7 105
0.0064
0
0
0
0
0
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
AO1
AO2
AO3
AO4
AO5
pD8
pD1
1:63
1:34
0
0:41
1:5
1:62
0:13
0:058
0:427
2:07
0:73
0:05
0
0:108
0:92
0:73
0:05
0:021
0:099
0:436
0:36
0:05
0
0:056
0:33
0:37
0:05
0:027
0:047
0:155
0:43
0:014
0
0:03
0:49
0:43
0:016
0:004
0:044
1:0
0:30
0:004
0
0:0096
0:105
0:30
0:0046
0:0055
0:021
0:63
0:48
0:016
0
0:011
0:207
0:48
0:0015
0:009
0:022
0:715
4.3 Numerical Examples: Extracting GFIFs Using the Complementary Weak Form
91
92
3. Using the coarsest mesh possible for the extraction of both the eigenpairs and
the GFIFs, excellent results have been obtained. The relative error in the first five
eigenpairs is less than 0.007%, and the relative error in the first five GFIFs is less
than 0.7% when the relative error in energy norm is 2.6%.
@2
@2
C 2 D0
2
@x1
@x2
@
D A1 r 1=3 2.1 C 3 sin2 /2=3
@r
3
2
.1 C 3 cos2 /.1 C 3 sin2 / sin2 2
3
2
2
2
cos arctan.2 tan / C 2 sin 2 sin arctan.2 tan / ;
3
3
(4.57)
and choose arbitrarily A1 D 1, so the solution in the entire domain is given by (3.54)
with A1 D 1 and Ai D 0, for i 2.
Let be the unit circle sector shown in Figure 4.5, which is divided into six
finite elements, such that the refined finite element layer around the singular point
has radius 0.15.
To demonstrate the entire numerical procedure, we do not use the exact eigenpairs in our computations but their approximations obtained at p D 8 (1 D
0:666666675, 2 D 1:333333307, and 3 D 2:000000413), see Section 3.4.3.
The first three GFIFs were extracted, taking R to be 0.5. The number of degrees
of freedom, the error in energy norm, and the computed values of the three GFIFs
are listed in Table 4.3. Of course, A1 has to converge to 1, and A2 and A3 have to
converge to 0.
We may see from Table 4.3 that the GFIFs converge strongly, although not
monotonically. Our method yields solutions at plevel 2 or 3 that are within the
range of precision normally needed in engineering computations.
4.3 Numerical Examples: Extracting GFIFs Using the Complementary Weak Form
93
Y
Z
Table 4.3 First three GFIFs for the model problem with sixelement mesh
pD1
pD2
pD3
pD4
pD5
pD6
pD7
DOF
22
39
62
91
126
167
pD8
214
kekE .%/
33.95
7.02
3.74
2.23
1.65
1.32
1.10
0.93
A1
0.8027116
0.9905142
0.9997004
0.9997054
0.9993824
0.9995902
0.9997769
0.9998464
A2
A3
0.1694275
1e 10
0.0038147
5e 10
0.0036318
4e 10
2:38e 4
5e 10
1:5e 4
5e 10
7:8e 5
5e 10
4:6e 5
5e 10
3:4e 5
5e 10
We have plotted the relative error in energy norm, the relative error in strain
energy, and the absolute value of the relative error in A1 on a loglog scale in
Figure 4.6.
The convergence path of the GFIF A1 follows closely that of the strain energy,
which is a behavior referred to as superconvergence.
Taking advantage of the strong convergence observed, we now use over the same
domain only three finite elements, without the refined layer toward the singular
point. The integration path was taken to be R D 0:9, and we plot the same data
as in Figure 4.6 for the threeelement mesh in Figure 4.7. The convergence curve of
the GFIF A1 is oscillating with mean approximately the strain energy convergence
curve.
This anisotropic model problem clearly demonstrates the effectiveness and the
superconvergent property of the proposed method for anisotropic materials.
94
10
10
10
1
10
2
10
3
Energy norm.
Energy.
First GFIF.
10
100
DOF.
10 1
10 0
Energy norm.
Strain energy.
First GFIF.
10
DOF.
100
4.3 Numerical Examples: Extracting GFIFs Using the Complementary Weak Form
95
Table 4.4 First two GFIFs for scalar problem 3: Internal point at the interface of two materials.
pD1
pD2
pD3
pD4
pD5
pD6
pD7
DOF
18
33
54
81
114
153
pD8
198
kekE .%/
73.68
10.52
8.47
1.28
0.75
0.51
0.41
0.34
kek2E .%/
54.28
1.11
0.717
0.0164
0.0056
0.0026
0.00168
0.001156
.A1 /FE
.A2 /FE
0.82729
0.98729
0.99934
0.99956
0.99973
0.99990
0.99993
0.99994
0.19937
1.03126
1.03587
1.00040
0.99939
1.000006
1.00004
0.999997
17:27
1:27
0:065
0:0434
0:0273
0:0103
0:0067
0:0059
80:06
3.12
3.587
0.0405
0:0610
0.0005
0.0037
0:00030
(%), the computed value of the GFIFs, and the relative error in GFIFs (%) are listed
in Table 4.4 for R D 0:6.
The data in Table 4.4 are plotted on a loglog scale in Figure 4.9. It is seen that
the rate of convergence of the GFIF is faster than the rate of convergence in the
energy norm, and although not monotonic, is similar to the rate of convergence of
the energy.
Chapter 5
The twodimensional elastic solution in the vicinity of a singular point has the
same characteristics as presented for the heat conduction solution, namely, it can
be expanded as a linear combination of eigenpairs and their coefficients:
uD
I X
J X
L
X
(5.1)
i D1 j D0 `D0
r and being the polar coordinates of a system located in the singular point, and
i and s./ are the eigenpairs; M is zero except for cases in which the boundary
near the singular point is curved (see Appendix C), and logarithmic terms may be
present J 0 only for special cases for which m multiple eigenvalues exist with
fewer than m corresponding eigenvectors (the algebraic multiplicity is grater than
the geometric multiplicity), or when inhomogeneous BCs are prescribed on the Vnotch faces. This case is not rigorously discussed in this chapter, but several remarks
are provided at the end of it and it is further addressed in the chapters that compute
the eigenpairs numerically.
Near a singular point, in the case of an isotropic material, the completeness1
of the eigenfunctions is ensured in the framework of a very general theory given
by Kondratiev [95]. Kondratiev showed that the solution of any evenorder elliptic
boundary value problem near angular or conical points can be expressed as a series
of eigenfunctions of the form ui D r i .ln r/q si ./.
In the 2D isotropic elasticity case, Gregory [69] has provided a proof of
completeness for a freefree wedge, and as proposed by Gregory, the proof
could be extended to all other linear homogeneous boundary conditions. A detailed
discussion on the behavior of the eigenvalues for isotropic, freefree, 2D corners
was given by Vasilopoulos in [185].
Completeness is defined in the sense that the analytic solution has an expansion as a sum of the
eigenfunctions.
Z. Yosibash, Singularities in Elliptic Boundary Value Problems and Elasticity
and Their Connection with Failure Initiation, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics 37,
DOI 10.1007/9781461415084 5, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
97
98
99
x2
uy
ur
ux
x1
/2
1
1
@ ur D 0;
r2
(5.8)
(5.9)
100
Equations (5.8)  (5.9) hold also for the planestress situation after one replaces the
Lame constant by Q D 2. C 2/1 ; see [125, Sec. 25].
Assume a solution of the form (this is formally obtained using the Mellin
transform with respect to r on the system of equations (5.8)  (5.9)
uQ D r
sr ./ def
D r sQ ./:
s ./
(5.10)
After substituting (5.10) into (5.8)  (5.9), and dividing by r 2 , one reduces the
problem to a set of two ODEs for the unknown functions sr ./; s ./:
sr00 C . C 2/. 2 1/sr C . C / . C 3/s0 D 0;
(5.11)
(5.12)
For solving the system (5.11)  (5.12) we consider a solution vector of the
form
C
;
(5.13)
sQ ./ D e {
{D
where C; D, and are unknowns. Substituting (5.13) into (5.11)  (5.12) a set of
two homogeneous algebraic equations is obtained:
C .2 1/. C 2/ 2 D . C / . C 3/ D 0; (5.14)
C . C / C . C 3/ C D 2 . C 2/ C .2 1/ D 0: (5.15)
Expressing C in terms of D and in (5.14),
C D D
. C / . C 3/
;
.2 1/. C 2/ 2
(5.16)
2 D .1 C /;
3 D .1 /;
4 D .1 /:
(5.17)
Once the s are found, the relationships between C and D can be expressed also.
For example, for 1 D .1 C / one obtains C1 D D1 , for 2 D .1 C / then
C2 D D2 , for 3 D .1 / one obtains D3 D C3 .C/C.C3/
.C/.C3/ , and for
101
sQ ./ D C1 e {.1C/
cos.1 C /
sin.1 C /
C C2 r
uQ D C1 r
sin.1 C /
cos.1 C /
(
)
C 3 . C / cos.1 /
C C3 r
C 3 C . C / sin.1 /
(
)
C 3 . C / sin.1 /
C C4 r
;
C 3 C . C / cos.1 /
0;
(5.20)
cos
sin
. C 3/ cos C sin
C C2
C C3
sin
cos
. C 3/ sin C . C 2/ cos
C C4
. C 3/ sin C cos
;
. C 3/ cos . C 2/ sin
D 0:
(5.21)
Problem 5.1. Derive (5.20) from (5.18), and (5.21) from (5.19).
So far, is undetermined, as well as the four constants C1 ; C2 ; C3 ; C4 . This is the
stage at which the boundary conditions on 1 and 2 are to be considered, enabling
us to determine and two of the four coefficients. In cylindrical coordinates, the
normal and tangential directions on 1 are simply the , and r directions, and on
2 these are the and r directions. Thus, un D ur , ut D u , Tn D T D , and
Tt D Tr D r .
102
(5.22)
(5.23)
(5.24)
Notice that Hookes law (5.22)  (5.24) holds for planestress situation also if one
replaces the Lame constant by Q D 2. C 2/1 . Inserting (5.10) in (5.22) (5.24) one obtains
D r 1 . C 2/.s0 C sr / C sr ;
(5.25)
(5.26)
(5.27)
(5.29)
103
The last two terms in (5.29) have to vanish, because they produce infinite strain
energy; thus C3 D C4 D 0. The first two terms are associated with a rigidbody
motion in the x1 and x2 directions, producing of course zero stresses.
In [185], Vnotches with TF/TF boundary conditions are studied by the Airy
stress function method, where it is demonstrated that the D 0 case represents a
state of zero stress, i.e., a rigidbody motion, so can be neglected. Therefore we will
concentrate our attention on the case 0.
As an example for deriving the explicit eigenequation, consider the TF/TF
situation, for which the homogeneous boundary conditions have to be satisfied for all r, so in view of (5.28), the four conditions on the stresses for
D !=2 are
T
0
D
D
;
(5.30)
Tr D !
r D !
0
2
and explicitly,
2 cos
!.1 C /
!.1 C /
!.1 /
C1 2 sin
C2 C 2. C /.1 C / cos
C3
2
2
2
!.1 C /
!.1 C /
!.1 /
C1 C 2 cos
C2 C 2. C /.1 / sin
C3
2
2
2
!.1 /
C4 D 0;
2
!.1 C /
!.1 /
!.1 C /
C1 2 sin
C2 C 2. C /.1 C / cos
C3
2
2
2
!.1 /
C4 D 0;
2
!.1 /
C4 D 0;
2
!.1 C /
!.1 /
!.1 C /
C1 C 2 cos
C2 C 2. C /.1 / sin
C3
2
2
2
!.1 /
C4 D 0:
2
def
Define D !.1C/
, so that !.1/
D ! , and using the odd/even properties of the
2
2
trigonometric functions sin. / D sin , cos. / D cos , the above equations
can be written in matrix form:
2
cos
6 sin
24
cos
sin
sin
cos
sin
cos
. C /.1 C / cos.! /
. C /.1 / sin.! /
. C /.1 C / cos.! /
. C /.1 / sin.! /
38 9
(5.31)
104
By adding and subtracting rows as followsto row 1 add row 3, to row 2 add row
4, from row 3 subtract row 1, and from row 4 subtract row 2one obtains:
38 9
2
>
>
: ;
sin
0 . C /.1 / sin.! /
0
C4
(5.32)
Then interchanging rows and columns, (5.32) can be brought to the following
form:
38 9
2
>
>
: ;
0
0
sin . C /.1 C / sin.! /
C4
(5.33)
where C1 and C3 are connected and C2 and C4 are connected, and furthermore,
C1 ; C3 are independent of C2 ; C4 . For a nontrivial solution of the homogeneous
equation (5.31), the determinant of the matrix has to vanish. The determinant is the
product of two determinants of 2 2 submatrices, resulting in
.1 / cos sin.! / .1 C / sin cos.! /
.1 C / cos sin.! / .1 / sin cos.! / D 0: (5.34)
Equation (5.33) can be simplified:
sin2 .!/ 2 sin2 ! D sin.!/ sin ! sin.!/ C sin ! D 0
TF/TF:
(5.35)
This equation has an infinite number of pairs, one of them determining the
connection between C1 and C3 and the other the connection between C2 and C4 .
Problem 5.2. Derive (5.35) from (5.33).
The completeness of the eigenfunctions is ensured in the framework of the
general theory of Kondratiev [95], where it is shown that for an evenorder
elliptic boundary value problem the solution in the vicinity of a Vnotch can be
expressed as a series of eigenfunctions of the form r i .ln r/j si ./, with si ./ being
smooth functions. The case of logarithmic singularities appears when the geometric
multiplicity is larger than the algebraic multiplicity (multiple i having the same
eigenfunctions), when the curves intersecting at the singular point are not straight
lines, or in the case of inhomogeneous boundary conditions on 1 and/or 2 , and
will be addressed in the next subsection. For twodimensional elasticity, Gregory
[69] provided a proof of completeness of the cases of infinite strip and a wedge.
105
In a similar manner, the equations for all other nine homogeneous boundary
conditions can be obtained (see [153] and the references therein):
2
C
sin2 .!/ 2 C3
sin2 ! D 0
HC/HC
(5.36)
HC/SC
(5.37)
HC/SS
(5.38)
HC/TF
(5.39)
(5.40)
(5.41)
C
sin 2.!/ C3
sin 2! D 0
2
C
sin 2.!/ C C3
sin 2! D 0
sin2 .!/
.C/2
.C/.C3/
C
C 2 C3
sin2 ! D 0
SC/TF
(5.42)
SS/SS
(5.43)
SS/TF
(5.44)
Some of the equations (5.35)  (5.44) may have solutions that are complex
(complex eigenvalues) that appear in conjugate pairs. In this case, the eigenfunctions as well as the coefficients of the asymptotic expansion are complex
conjugates.
The distribution of the zeros of equations (5.35)  (5.44) as a function of the
opening angle ! is important for determining the strength of singularities (regularity
of the displacements), and to find the opening angle beyond which the stresses are
singular. A detailed analysis of the dependence of the eigenvalues on the opening
angle ! can be found in [185].
In Table 5.1 we summarize the critical opening angles (angles at which the
stresses become singular), and the minimum eigenvalue obtained at ! D 2 (crack).
The distribution of zeros of the ten different homogeneous boundarycondition
combinations are provided in Figures 210 of [153].
Remark 5.1. Cracks in homogeneous materials are of major importance in engineering applications, and it is important to know that for these cases all
eigenvalues are real (no oscillatory terms [57] even if the material is anisotropic)
and no logarithmic terms (no terms of the type r ln.r/) exist if same homogeneous boundary conditions are prescribed on both faces of the crack [43].
The absence of the logarithmic terms extends also to cracks in threedimensional
domains.
106
Critical angle !
180
180
90
90
61:696804 : : : ( )
90
45
90
90
128:726699 : : : ( )
B.C.
TF/TF
HC/HC
HC/SC
HC/SS
HC/TF
SC/SC
SC/SS
SC/TF
SS/SS
SS/TF
min
1=2
1=2
1=4
1=4
1=4
0 C " ( )
0 C " ( )
1=4
0 C " ( )
1=4
. /
(5.45)
(5.46)
The superscripts I and II denote the eigenvalues i associated with the relationship
between C1 and C3 , and with the relationship between C2 and C4 respectively. For
each positive eigenvalue i , the negative eigenvalue i also satisfies the mathematical equations. However these are excluded because they represent displacement
fields that are infinite at the crack tip and thus are nonphysical. Because there is an
infinite number of eigenvalues, the solution will consist also of an infinite number
of terms, as shown in the sequel.
For each i(I) the relationship between C1 and C3 is obtained from either the first
or second equation in (5.33). For i D 1; 3; 5, the second equation of (5.33) is used,
whereas for i D 2; 4; 6, the first equation is used (this is because of the specific case
of a crack ! D 2 ):
h
i
h
i
. C /.1 i(I) / sin !.1 i(I) /=2 C3i D sin !.1 C i(I) /=2 C1i ;
i D 1; 3; 5; : : : ;
h
i
. C /.1 C i(I) / cos !.1 i(I) /=2 C3i D cos !.1 C i(I) /=2 C1i ;
h
i D 2; 4; 6; : : : ;
(5.47)
107
and for i(II) , the relation between C2 and C4 is obtained from the fourth or third
equation in (5.33):
h
i
h
i
. C /.1 C i(II) / sin !.1 i(II) /=2 C4i D sin !.1 C i(II) /=2 C2i ;
i D 1; 3; 5; : : : ;
h
i
. C /.1 i(II) / cos !.1 i(II) /=2 C4i D cos !.1 C i(II) /=2 C2i ;
h
i D 2; 4; 6; : : : :
(5.48)
>
(I)
(I)
>
.11 / sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
<
=
(I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
1 1 cos.1 C (I) / .1C1 / sin!.1C1 /=2 cos.1 (I) /
Q D C11 21 r
(I)
(I)
1
1
.11 / sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
>
(I)
>
sin!.1C1 /=2
(I)
(I)
>
:
;
sin.1 C 1 /
sin.1
/
(I)
1
sin!.11 /=2
8
9
(II)
(II)
.31 / sin!.1C1 /=2
(II)
(II) >
sin.1
C
/
C
sin.1
/
>
(II)
(II)
1
1
>
.1C1 / sin!.11 /=2
>
>
<
=
(II)
(II)
(II)
sin!.1C1 /=2
1 1
(II)
(II)
;
CC21 21 r
sin.1 C 1 /
sin.1
/
(II)
1
sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
(II)
(II)
>
>
1 /=2
:cos.1 C (II) / .11(II)/ sin!.1C(II)
cos.1 1(II) /;
1
.1C1 / sin!.11 /=2
8
(I)
< cos.1 C 1 / C
(I)
uQ D C11 r 1
(5.49)
9
(I)
(I)
C31 .C/ sin!.1C1 /=2
(I)
>
cos.1
/
=
(I)
(I)
1
.C/.1 / sin!.1 /=2
: sin.1 C (I) /
1
8
(II)
< sin.1 C 1 / C
(II)
CC21 r 1
(I)
(I)
:cos.1 C (II) / C
1
(I)
.C/.11 /
(I)
sin!.11 /=2
(II)
>
sin.1 1(I) / ;
(II)
(II)
sin!.11 /=2
(II)
sin!.1C1 /=2
(II)
sin!.11 /=2
9
sin.1 1(II) / >
=
>
cos.1 1(II) / ;
108
The eigenstresses are normalized so that for mode I SI . D 0/ D 1, and for
(I)
II
. D 0/ D 1. Thus, .r; D 0/ D A1 r 1
mode II: Sr
A2 r
(II)
1 1
1
SI . D 0/ D
def
II
Sr
. D 0/ D 1
1;
(5.50)
(5.51)
I
>
/
C
cos.1
/
=S
.
D
0/
cos.1
C
(I)
(I)
>
1
1
>
>
>
=
<
(I)
(I)
(I)
.1C1 / sin!.1C1 /=2
(I)
(I)
1 1
I
cos.1 1 / =S . D 0/
cos.1 C 1 / C
A1 r
(I)
(I)
.11 / sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
>
>
(I)
>
sin!.1C
/=2
(I)
(I)
>
I
1
;
:
sin.1 1 / =S . D 0/
sin.1 C 1 / C
(I)
sin!.11 /=2
9
8
(II)
(II)
.31 / sin!.1C1 /=2
(II)
(II)
>
II
>
/
C
sin.1
/
=S
.
D
0/
sin.1
C
(II)
(II)
>
1
1
r
>
>
>
=
<
(II)
(II)
sin!.1C1 /=2
(II)
(II)
1 1
II
CA2 r
;
sin.1 1 / =Sr . D 0/
sin.1 C 1 / C
(II)
sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
>
>
(II)
(II)
>
II
1 /=2
;
: cos.1 C 1(II) / .11(II)/ sin!.1C(II)
cos.1 1(II) / =Sr
. D 0/>
.1C1 / sin!.11 /=2
(5.52)
ur
u
D
(I)
A1 r 1
21(I)
8
cos.1 C 1(I) / C
<
9
(I)
>
cos.1
/
>
(I)
(I)
1
>
.C/.11 /
sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
I
=
=S . D 0/ >
>
(I)
(I)
>
C3C1 .C/ sin!.1C1 /=2
(I)
(I)
>
>
sin.1
C
/
sin.1
/
(I)
(I)
>
1
1
>
.C/.1
/
sin!.1
/=2
1
1
>
:
;
I
=S . D 0/
(I)
(I)
109
Mode I
Mode II
1.5
(II)
Srr
rr
(I)
0.5
0
/2
/2
(II)
0.5
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
0
in radians
/2
(II)
Sr
(I)
S r
/2
1.5
0.5
0.5
/2
0
in radians
/2
(II)
1.5
(I)
/2
A2 r 1
21(II)
8
sin.1 C 1(II) / C
<
7
4
Vnotch.
9
(II)
>
si
n.1
/
>
(II)
(II)
1
>
.C/.1C1 / sin!.11 /=2
>
>
>
II
=
=Sr . D 0/ >
:
>
(II)
(II)
>
C3C1 .C/ sin!.1C1 /=2
(II)
(II)
>
cos.1 C 1 / C
cos.1 1 / >
(II)
(II)
>
>
.C/.1C1 /
sin!.11 /=2
>
:
;
II
=Sr . D 0/
(II)
(II)
(5.53)
As an example we present in Figure 5.2 the eigenstresses and in Figure 5.3 the
eigendisplacements for mode I and mode II for a Vnotch with a solid angle of
! D 7
4 , and E D 1 and
D 0:36.
Remark 5.2. The expressions in (5.52)  (5.53) are valid under the assumption of
planestrain. These hold also for the planestress situation if one replaces the Lame
constant by Q D 2. C 2/1 .
Remark 5.3. The eigenstresses and eigendisplacements in a Cartesian coordinate
system are derived in [177] from an Airy stress function in terms of a complex
variable by the methods of Muskhelishvili [125].
110
Mode II
3
2
1.5
(II)
sr
sr
(I)
1
0
1
0.5
2
0
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
3
2
2
(II)
s (I)
1
0
1
2
3
4
/2
in radians
/2
/2
5
3
7
4
in radians
Vnotch.
.300 /
3
2
.270 /
4
3
.240 /
1/2
0.5014530
0.5050097
0.5122214
0.5444837
0.6157311
1/2
0.5981918
0.6597016
0.7309007
0.9085292
1.148913
Remark 5.4. The eigenstresses (for the TF/TF BCs) in (5.52) are independent
of the material properties and thus hold for both planestrain and planestress,
whereas the eigendisplacements in (5.53) depend on the material properties.
When ! 2 , then not all roots are real, and multiple roots may exist. From
the engineering viewpoint, Vnotch solid angles up to 4
(240) are of greatest
3
importance, and in these cases the smallest roots are real; see a summary in
Table 5.2.
For a Vnotch solid angle smaller than 1:43028 (257:45), then 1(II) > 1 and
the modeII stress components are bounded, whereas modeI stress components are
bounded for ! < .
111
i(I) D 12 i;
i D 0; 1; 2; 3; : : : ;
i(II) D 12 i;
i D 0; 1; 2; 3; : : :
(5.54)
For the TF/TF crack, the first two zero eigenvalues are associated with rigid body
motion, translation in the x1 and x2 directions. The first two nonzero eigenvalues are
1(I) D 1(II) D 1=2, and give rise to a singular stress field at the crack tip. The third
eigenvalue 2(I) D 1 is associated with the Tstress, a constant stress field parallel
to the crack, and the fourth eigenvalue 2(II) D 1 is associated with a rigidbody
rotation, producing a zero state of stress.
For i D 2; 4; 6 the first and third equations in (5.33) are used for the relations between C3i and C1i and between C4i and C2i . For a TF/TF crack one
obtains
C31 D
2
C11 ;
C
C22 D 0;
C41 D
C42 D const;
2
C21 ;
3. C /
C33 D
C32 D
2
C13 ;
. C /
1
C12 ;
2. C /
C43 D
(5.55)
2
C23 :
5. C /
Substituting i(I) D i=2, i(II) D i=2 and the various constants (5.47), (5.48), and
(5.55) in (5.28), the first three terms in the series expansion of the stresses in the
vicinity of a TF/TF crack tip are
8 9
8
9
>
: >
;
:
;
r
sin =2 C sin 3=2
8
9
8
9
cos 2 C 1>
5 sin =2 3 sin 3=2 >
<
=
<
=
1
C21 r 1=2 3 sin 3=2 C 3 sin =2 C 2C12 1 cos 2 C O.r 1=2 /:
>
>
3
:
;
:
;
sin 2
cos =2 3 cos 3=2
(5.56)
For consistency with the classical fracture mechanics literature, the notation for the
constants may be changed to obtain the expressions commonly used:
KI def
D C11 ;
p
4 2
KII def 1
D C C21 ;
p
3
4 2
def
T D 4C12 :
(5.57)
112
Table 5.3 First two terms in the asymptotic expansion of a TF/TF crack used in LEFM.
Quant.
Mode I
Mode II
p
p
KII r
KI r 1
3
p
p
.2
1/
cos
ur
cos
sin 2 2 C 3 cos
4
2
2
2
2 2
u
p
KI r 1
p
2 4
rr
pKI 1
2 r 4
pKI 1
2 r 4
r
u2
pKI 1
2 r 4
p
KI r
p
cos 2 1 C 2 sin2
2 2
p
KI r
p
sin 2 C 1 2 cos2
2 2
11
pKI
2 r
cos
2
22
pKI
2 r
cos
2
12
pKI
2 r
sin 2 cos
u1
.2 C 1/ sin
C sin 32
3
2
5 cos 2 cos 2
3 cos 2 C cos 3
2
sin 2 C sin 3
2
1 sin
2
.1 C sin
2
cos
sin
2
3
2
p
KII r
p
2 2
KII 1
p
2 r 4
KII 1
p
2 r 4
3
2
sin
2
2
3
2
cos 2 2 C 3 cos
5 sin 2 3 sin 3
2
3 sin 2 C 3 sin 32
cos 2 C 3 cos 32
pKII 1
2 r 4
p
KII r
p
sin 2 C 1 C 2 cos2
2 2
p
KII r
p
cos 2 1 2 sin2
2 2
KII
p
2 r
sin
pKII
2 r
sin
pKII
2 r
2
2 C cos
2
cos
3
2
2
2
2
where D 3 4
for planestrain, and D .3
/=.1 C
/ for planestress.
The Cartesian stress tensor in the vicinity of a TF/TF crack is obtained by (5.7),
using the notation in (5.57), the polar stress tensor (5.56), and trigonometrical
relations
9
8 9
8
cos 2 1 sin 2 sin 32 >
<11 >
<
=
=
KI
D 22 D p
cos 2 1 C sin 2 sin 32
>
2 r
: >
:
;
;
sin 2 cos 2 cos 32
12
9
8
sin 2 2 C cos 2 cos 32 >
<
=
KII
Cp
CT
sin 2 cos 2 cos 32
>
2 r
:
;
3
cos 2 1 sin 2 sin 2
8 9
<1>
=
0 C O.r 1=2 /
: >
;
0
(5.58)
The Cartesian singular stress field was first derived in [87] and [190]. The third term
is called the Tstress [148], and is a constant value independent of r; .
We summarize in Table 5.3 the first two eigendisplacements and eigenstresses
(mode I and mode II) in the asymptotic expansion as commonly used in linear elastic
fracture mechanics. The eigenstresses are normalized so that for mode I, . D
0/ D 11 . D 0/ D 1, and for mode II, r . D 0/ D 12 . D 0/ D 1. A
graphical representation of the mode I and mode II Cartesian eigenstresses is shown
in Figure 5.4 and polar eigenstresses in Figure 5.5.
113
Mode I
Mode II
2
11
S(II)
(I)
S11
0.5
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
0
in radians
/2
0.5
22
S(I)
22
S(II)
/2
/2
0.5
12
S(II)
S(I)
12
0.5
0.5
/2
0
in radians
/2
0.5
Fig. 5.4 Mode I and II Cartesian eigenstresses for the TF/TF crack.
Problem 5.3. For a TF/TF crack (! D 2 ) derive the Cartesian stress tensor in
(5.58) using (5.56).
Problem 5.4. A popular expression for the singular part of the stress tensor for a
TF/TF crack is
9
9
8
8
8 9
cos 2 1 C sin2 2 >
cos 2 32 sin 2 tan 2 >
=
=
<
<
=
< rr >
KII
KI
Cp
:
cos3 2
32 cos 2 sin
D p
>
>
2 r
2 r
;
;
: 1
: 1
;
: >
r
cos 2 sin
cos 2 .3 cos 1/
2
2
Show that the above expressions are identical to the ones in Table 5.3.
def
114
Mode II
1.5
Srr
(I)
rr
(II)
0.5
0
/2
/2
(II)
0.5
/2
/2
/2
/2
/2
(II)
Sr
(I)
Sr
/2
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
(I)
/2
/2
in radians
/2
/2
in radians
Fig. 5.5 Mode I and II polar eigenstresses for the TF/TF crack.
r i=2
i
i
i
.i 4/
i
u1 D
ai1
. C C .1/ / cos
cos
2
2
2
2
2
i D1
r i=2
i
i
i
.i 4/
i
. C .1/ / sin
sin
;
ai 2
2
2
2
2
2
1
X
r i=2
i
i
i
.i 4/
i
u2 D
ai1
. .1/ / sin
C sin
2
2
2
2
2
i D1
r i=2
i
i
i
.i 4/
i
. C .1/ / cos
C cos
:
C ai 2
2
2
2
2
2
1
X
(5.59)
115
fact that the eigenvalues are halfinteger exponents in all these cases does not imply
that the eigenfunctions are the same, and in fact these are different functions for the
different cases [43].
In the case that the boundary conditions on the two sides of the crack are not
the same, and in particular in mixed Dirichlet  Neumann (clamped  traction free)
BCs, the real part of the exponents of singularity have the form 1=4 C {q C n=2 with
real q and integer n. This is valid for general anisotropic elasticity too [42].
Some remarks on the Tstress
The third term in the series expansion (5.58), giving rise to a constant stress
parallel to the crack face, has an engineering relevance because it may affect the
path stability of slightly curved or kinked cracks [48, 108], and plays an important
role in determining the size and shape of a crack tip plastic zone. The displacements
associated with the Tstress (both planestrain and planestress) are
Tr
u1
.1
2 / cos
D
:
u2
2.1 C
/ .
C
2 / sin
(5.60)
In [48] a stability analysis of the path of a crack under mode I loading concludes
that the straight crack path is stable only if T < 0. More recent studies such as [108]
provide different conclusions, namely that the straight crack growth under mode I
loading remains stable up to a strictly positive threshold Tc > 0, as shown in several
experimental observations.
116
Material 1
x1
Material 2
0.417
0.322
0.314
0.175
0.345
0.207
0.392
0.220
1
cot2 .n/ C
4
"E
E2
.1
2 / .1
1 /
1C
#2
E1
E2
D 0:
(5.61)
n D n< C { = D
nC1
(5.62)
(5.63)
def p
with { D 1. The imaginary part = is determined by the material properties of
the two materials, and is also denoted in the engineering literature by ":
= " D
1 2 C 1
1
ln
;
2
2 1 C 2
(5.64)
where i D .3
i /=.1 C
i / for planestress and i D .3 4
i / for planestrain.
For a planestrain situation, typical values of " are presented in Table 5.4 for
six representative material combinations taken from [82]. Notice in (5.64) that "
reverses sign when materials 1 and 2 are interchanged (but this does not make
any difference in the solution, since the complex eigenvalues appear in conjugate
pairs).
117
For the nth and .n C 1/st complex eigenvalues, the corresponding eigenfunctions
are also complex conjugates sQ n ./ D sQ <
Q=
n ./ { s
n ./, and so are the generalized
stress intensity factors, denoted by An {AnC1 . We may therefore address these two
terms in the solution:
< C{=
n
.Qs<
Q=
n ./ C { s
n .//
< { =
n
C.An {AnC1 / r n
.Qs<
Q=
n ./ { s
n .//:
(5.65)
Notice that
< {=
n
r n
<
=
{n
<
<
/
D r n r {n D r n e ln.r
D r n e {n
<
D r n cos.n= ln.r// { sin.n= ln.r// :
ln.r/
(5.66)
def
(5.67)
<
<
=
<
=
C .An {AnC1 /r n 1{n .SQ n ./ { SQ n .//
i
h
<
<
=
DAn r n 1 2.SQ n ./ cos n SQ n ./ sin n /
i
h
<
.<
=
C AnC1 r n 1 2.SQ n ./ sin n C SQ n ./ cos n / :
(5.68)
r!0
118
x 105
r1/2 cos(8.0 ln(r))
r1/2
0.5
r1/2
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
r
1.5
1.6
x 108
x 104
r1/2 cos(8.0 ln(r))
r1/2
r1/2
0.5
ux
0
0.5
1
1.5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
x 108
Fig. 5.7 Typical behavior of stresses and displacements in the vicinity of a crack tip at a bimaterial
interface due to complex eigenpairs.
nC1
2
(5.69)
n1
2
(5.70)
nD0
D
X
nD0
1
1 .n C
C 4"2 cosh "
(
.n C 1/ sinh ". / 121 e ". / cos .nC1/
2
.nC1/
1 1 ". /
.n C 1/ cosh ". / C 2 e
sin 2
1/2
(5.71)
119
C 12 .n C 1/2 C 4"2 e ". / sin sin .n1/
2
". /
.n1/
1
2
2
2 .n C 1/ C 4" e
sin cos 2
)
C2" cosh ". / C 121 e ". / sin .nC1/
2
;
2" sinh ". / 121 e ". / cos .nC1/
2
sIIn ./ D
1
1 .n C 1/2 C 4"2 cosh "
(
.n C 1/ cosh ". / C 121 e ". / sin .nC1/
2
.n C 1/ sinh ". / 121 e ". / cos .nC1/
2
(5.72)
C 12 .n C 1/2 C 4"2 e ". / sin cos .n1/
2
12 .n C 1/2 C 4"2 e ". / sin sin .n1/
2
)
2" sinh ". / 121 e ". / cos .nC1/
2
;
C2" cosh ". / C 121 e ". / sin .nC1/
2
8
2
<
1
(5.73)
S In ./ D
sinh ". / C e ". / cos .n1/
2
cosh "
.n1/
8
cosh ". / C e ". / sin .n1/
2
<
1
.n1/
". /
S IIn ./ D
cosh ". / e
sin 2
cosh "
:
.n1/
cosh ". / cos 2
(5.74)
8
h
i9
.n3/
.n3/ >
1 ". /
C
e
sin
.n
1/
cos
C
2"
sin
>
2
2
2
>
<
=
h
i>
.n3/
.n3/
12 e ". / sin .n 1/ cos 2 C 2" sin 2
>
i>
h
1
>
120
1
D
1 .n C 1/.1 C /
sIIn ./ D
1
1 .n C 1/.1 C /
.1 C 1/ cos .1Cn/
.n C 1/ sin sin .n1/
2
2
)
;
.1 1/ sin .1Cn/
.n C 1/ sin cos .n1/
2
2
(
.1 1/ sin .1Cn/
C .n C 1/ sin cos
2
(5.75)
)
.n1/
2
.1 C 1/ cos .1Cn/
.n C 1/ sin sin .n1/
2
2
(5.76)
9
8
.n 1/ sin sin .n3/
4 cos .n1/
>
2
2
=
<
1
I
.n3/
S n ./ D
.n 1/ sin sin 2
>
1C
:
.n3/ ;
2 sin .n1/
.n
1/
sin
cos
2
2
(5.77)
8
9
C .n 1/ sin cos .n3/
2 sin .n1/
>
2
2
<
=
1
II
.n1/
.n3/
S n ./ D
;
2 sin 2 .n 1/ sin cos 2
>
1C
:
;
.n3/
.n 1/ sin sin 2
(5.78)
dimension of the amplitude jKj D K12 C K22 . The phase angle is a measure
of the relative proportion of shear to normal stresses at the characteristic length `
ahead of the crack tip. It is defined through the relation [149]
D arctan
= .K`{" /
:
< .K`{" /
(5.80)
121
1 C " ln
`2
`1
:
(5.81)
Remark 5.6. Unlike the treatment of cracks in isotropic materials, tension and
shear effects are inseparable in the vicinity of an interface crack tip.
(5.82)
(5.83)
The powerlogarithmic singularities may occur when repeated roots exist for the
eigenvalue equations (5.365.44), at transition loci separating regions of real and
complex eigenvalues, i.e., at the transition from two real roots to two roots that are
complex conjugates, or vice versa. This transition occurs when the opening angle
! is changed, for example. The existence of powerlogarithmic and logarithmic
singularities is associated with the rank deficiency of the matrix resulting from
satisfying the boundary conditions, shown for the TF/TF case in (5.31), i.e.,
when the geometric multiplicity is smaller than the algebraic multiplicity of an
eigenvalue.
Logarithmic singularities u / r ln r (with an eigenvalue D 1) are the weakest
stress singularities possible in elasticity, and consequently the hardest to detect.
Sinclair [165] summarizes the situation under which these occur, as provided in
Table 5.5.
Mathematical analysis on stable asymptotics in the neighborhood of angles
where powerlogarithmic singularities occur can be found in [116] for scalar
equations.
Powerlogarithmic singularities have been extensively investigated analytically
for isotropic bimaterial interfaces [28, 5254, 136] where the methods proposed are
mathematically cumbersome. There is also a vast literature on powerlogarithmic
singularities due to inhomogeneous BCs; interested readers are referred to the review
122
TF/TF
D 1 C 2 cos.2!/ 2
sin.2!/
,
!
C1
2
! ; 2
Note 1: For D 1 the TF/TF eigenvalues coincide with those for HC/HC eigenvalues.
Thus ! D 257:5 determines the angle for the termination of antisymmetric power
singularities with TF/TF BCs conditions.
by Sinclair [165] and the work by Chen [37], which discusses the powerlogarithmic
singularities due to surface tractions for isotropic bimaterial wedges.
Numerical algorithms that trigger the existence of powerlogarithmic singularities in twodimensional elasticity are provided in [44, 138, 154] and the modified
Steklov method, as will be demonstrated by a numerical example. Most numerical
methods that trigger the existence of powerlogarithmic singularities are based on
the mathematical observation that m multiple eigenvalues exist with fewer than m
corresponding eigenvectors (the algebraic multiplicity is higher than the geometric
multiplicity). For the modified Steklov method we use a routine that determines
whether the rank of the matrices KS and MR is the same as their dimension.
Following this step, one may look at the computed eigenvalues (assuming that the
eigenproblem is not singular and may be solved using generalized eigenproblem
routines) and associated eigenvectors and determine whether the algebraic multiplicity of the repeated eigenvalue is the same as the geometric multiplicity. Other
methods, such as the matrix method presented in [109, chapter VI.5], can also be
used.
123
ut D 0
Tn D 0;
Tt D 0
)
on i ; i D 1; 2:
(5.85)
s1C ./
:
s2C ./
(5.86)
(5.87)
(5.88)
@N
Tn
fvn ; vt g
Tt
1 [2
d D 0:
(5.89)
)
s1C . /
Under special circumstances, u may also have additional terms such as r ln.r/ C
, but
s2 . /
this case will be discussed later.
124
cos sin
A1 D
;
sin cos
sin2
2 sin cos
cos2
:
A3 D
sin cos sin cos cos2 sin2
Because on R and R the displacements are related to the derivatives of the
displacements with respect to r and , we express the differential operator D in
terms of r and :
3
2
0
cos @r@ sinr @@
7
6
(5.92)
D D .r; / D 6
0
sin @r@ C cosr @@ 7
5:
4
sin @r@ C cosr @@ cos @r@ sinr @@
Combining (5.91) and (5.92), one obtains
Tn
D A3 ED .r; / u:
Tt
(5.93)
<
cos
1
u1 sinr @u
r
@
sin
2
u2 C cosr @u
r
@
9
>
>
=
>
def
D @ujrDR :
rDR
(5.94)
Tn
D A3 E@u:
Tt
(5.95)
125
Z
F.v/ D
R [R
Z
Tn
vT A1 T A3 E@u d:
d D
fvn ; vt g
Tt
R [R
(5.96)
1 . /
A5 C D u;
r
r
(5.97)
3
3
2
cos 0
sin @@
0
A5 D 4 0 sin 5 ; D . / D 4
0
cos @@ 5 :
@
cos @ sin @@
sin cos
2
Z
vT A1 T A3 E@ud D
1 C!
vT A1 T A3 E@u
1
R
rDR
d
1 C!
vT A1 T A3 EA5 u
1
1 C!
vT A1 T A3 EA5 u
1
1 C!
rDR
rDR
vT A1 T A3 ED . / u
vT A1 T A3 ED . / u
1
(5.98)
d
rDR
1
1 C!
d;
d;
rDR
(5.99)
d;
Observe that MR .u; v/ and NR .u; v/ are similar to MR .u; v/ and NR .u; v/
except that the integrand is evaluated on r D R . We now can summarize and state
the modified Steklov weak form as follows:
Seek
2 C; 0 u 2 E.R / E.R /;
s: t: 8v 2 E.R / E.R /;
B.u; v/ .NR .u; v/ C NR .u; v// D .MR .u; v/ C MR .u; v// :
(5.100)
126
Remark 5.7. The bilinear form N .u; v/ is nonsymmetric with respect to u and v.
As a consequence, the symmetric properties of the weak form are destroyed. This
means that in general, complex eigenvalues and eigenvectors exist.
The weak form (5.100) is not a linear form, but a sesquilinear form, and the coefficient vectors that multiply the stiffness matrix can have complex entries. However,
from the practical point of view, the formulation of the matrices corresponding to
B; MR , and N is not affected by this fact.
Also note that the formulation of the weak form (5.100) has not limited the
domain R to be isotropic, and in fact, (5.100) can be applied to multimaterial
anisotropic interface, as will be demonstrated by a numerical example.
Remark 5.8. The weak form (5.100) does not exclude the existence of negative
eigenvalues. This is because solutions of the form r f ./ belong to the space
E.R /. Therefore both the positive and negative eigenpairs will be obtained using
formulation (5.100).
Remark 5.9. The domain R does not include singular points; hence no special
refinements of the finite element mesh is required. Furthermore, R is much smaller
in size than .
Remark 5.10. By formulating the weak form over R , the singular point is
excluded from the domain of interest such that the accuracy of the finite element
solution does not deteriorate in its vicinity. A small subdomain is obtained, over
which a finite element solution is smooth, and therefore the mesh does not have to
be refined toward the singular point.
PN
i D1 ai
PN
9
i .; / =
i D1 aN Ci i .; /
(5.101)
or
127
8
9
a1 >
>
>
:: >
>
>
>
:
>
>
<
=
1 N 0 0
u1
aN
def
D
D a;
aN C1 >
u2
0 0 1 N
>
>
:: >
>
>
: >
>
>
:
;
a2N
(5.102)
where ai are the amplitudes of the basis functions, and i are the shape functions.
Using (5.102), the unconstrained stiffness matrix corresponding to B.u; v/ is
given by
Z Z
def
K D
DT T EDd:
(5.103)
R
1 C ! C 1
!
21 C !
1 C ! 1
C
D C
;
2
2
2
2
!
d ,
2
(5.104)
sin @@
0
cos @@
7
cos @@ 5 d :
sin @@
(5.105)
On side 1, the basis and trial functions i .; / are nothing more than integrals
of Legendre polynomials Pi ./ for i > 3. The expression vT A1 T A3 in (5.99) is
therefore given by
2
P1 cos
0
6
:
::
6
::
6
:
6
6 P cos
0
6 N
fb1 b2N g 6
6
0
P1 sin
6
6
:
::
6
::
:
4
0
PN sin
3
P1 sin
7
::
7
7
:
7
PN sin 7
7 def T
7 D b P C :
P1 cos 7
7
7
::
7
:
5
PN cos
(5.106)
128
1
sin @P@N
sin @P
@
1
cos @P@N
cos @P
@
1
1
cos @P
cos @P@N sin @P
sin @P@N
@
@
38
7
<
7
7
7
7
9
a1 >
>
>
>
>
=
::
def
: > D @P a:
>
>
>
>
;
a2N
(5.107)
Substituting (5.106) and (5.107) into (5.99), we finally have an expression for
NR .u; v/:
Z
NR .u; v/ D b
T
1
def
P C E@P d a D bT NR a:
(5.108)
M
X
mD1
Wm
3
X
(5.109)
`;kD1
where Wm and m are the weights and abscissas of the Gauss quadrature points,
respectively.
Using the same arguments as above, the expression MR .u; v/ in (5.98) is
evaluated:
Z 1
!
def
MR .u; v/ D bT
P C EP C T d a D bT MR a
(5.110)
2
1
and
MR ij D
3
M
X
! X
Wm
P Ci ` .m / E`k P Cj k .m /:
2 mD1
(5.111)
`;kD1
The matrices NR and MR are computed similarly having nonzero entries that
correspond to DOFs on R .
Once K, NR , NR , MR , and MR have been evaluated, the eigenpairs can
be obtained using the same procedures described in Section 3.3.
Remark 5.11. Although we derived our matrices as if only one finite element
existed along the boundary R , the formulation for multiple finite elements is
identical, and the matrices K, NR , NR , MR , and MR are obtained by an
assembly procedure.
129
90
Epoxy
12
23
31
12 106 psi
Graphite
20.0
2.0
2.0
Adhesive
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.450
0.040
0.045
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
0.7
In [156] the Lekhnitskii stress potentials were used to solve the anisotropic problem
for the two materials. The first four exact nonzero eigenvalues obtained are given in
the following.
.1 /EX D 0:905 0:0000i;
.2 /EX D 1:000 0:0000i;
.3 /EX D 1:944 0:3051i;
.4 /EX D 2:475 0:9559i:
130
1.0
0.5
100.00
First eval (0.905)
Second eval (1.000)
Re[Third eval] (1.944)
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
10
100
DOF
The mesh used for this example problem has the minimum possible number of
finite elements, i.e., one element in each subdomain. See Figure 5.9. The exact
eigenvalues are given with an accuracy of up to the third digit, so that the accuracy
of the numerical results may be assessed up to about 0.01% relative error.
Convergence curves for the first three eigenvalues are shown in Figure 5.10. The
results demonstrate an excellent convergence rate for the coarsest mesh possible.
131
Clamped
132
Table 5.6 First two FE eigenvalues which collapse to a single value 1EX D 0:34254974.
DOF
pD1
20
pD2
46
pD3
72
pD4
106
pD5
148
pD6
198
pD7
256
pD8
322
1FE
2FE
0.29603441
0.38225179
0.31881456
0.36605285
0.33848389
0.34658798
0.34183181
0.34326833
0.34254967
0.34254967
0.34251766
0.34258184
0.34253064
0.34256885
0.34254449
0.34255499
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
Sx EigenStress
Sx EigenStress
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
Sx_1
Sx_2
0.30
0.40
90
180
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
Sx_1
Sx_2
0.30
0.40
0
270
Angle (Deg)
90
180
270
Angle (Deg)
.1/
.2/
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.10
Sy EigenStress
Sy EigenStress
Fig. 5.12 First and second S11 eigenstresses (S11 , S11 ) at p D 3 (left) and at p D 8 (right).
0.06
0.02
0.02
Sy_1
Sy_2
0.06
0.10
0
90
180
0.06
0.02
0.02
Sy_1
Sy_2
0.06
0.10
270
Angle (Deg)
90
180
270
Angle (Deg)
.1/
.2/
Fig. 5.13 First and second S22 eigenstresses (S22 , S22 ) at p D 3 (left) and at p D 8 (right).
Chapter 6
Two efficient methods for extracting GSIFs from FE solutions are detailed in this
chapter, and their performance is demonstrated by several numerical examples.
133
134
x2
x1
(6.1)
2
(6.2)
4
(6.3)
4
Since 3 and 4 are randomly selected, the righthand side as well as the lefthand
side of (6.4) is constant along any path c that starts at one edge of the crack (or
notch) and terminates at the other edge. Therefore the integral Ic defined by
Z
def
Ic .u./ ; u./ / D T ./ u./ T ./ u./ d D const;
c
(6.5)
135
called the reciprocal work contour, is a pathindependent integral. This pathindependent integral for isotropic elasticity is analogous to (1.18) introduced for
the Laplace problem.
uC
r
uC
D r i sQ C
i ./;
no summation on i:
(6.6)
8 C9
< rr =
C
D C
D r i 1 SQ i ./;
: C;
r i
no summation on i:
(6.7)
Similarly we may consider the displacements and stresses associated with a negative
eigenvalue j (the dual solution):
j
sQ j ./;
uQ
j Dr
no summation on j:
(6.8)
j 1 Q
S j ./;
Q
j D r
no summation on j:
(6.9)
Tr
T
D
i
C
rr
C
r
D r i 1
i
no summation on i; j:
C
Srr
C
Sr
;
i
j 1
T
j D r
Srr
Sr
;
j
(6.10)
136
DR
i j
!=2
!=2
i
C
Q Q C d;
SQ i sQ
j Sj s
i
no summation on i; j:
(6.11)
!=2
!=2
i
C
Q sQ C d D 0;
S
SQ i sQ
j i
j
for i j;
no summation on i; j:
(6.12)
i
C(I)
(II)
SQ i sQ C(I)
SQ i sQ (II)
d D 0;
i
i
no summation on i:
(6.13)
The value of the path integral for the i t h eigenpair and its dual:
Q
Ic .uQ C
i /D
i ;u
!=2
!=2
i
C
Q Q C d;
SQ i sQ
i Si s
i
no summation on i:
(6.14)
!=2
!=2
i
C
s
S
s
SC
d D 0;
j i
i j
Ic .uC
i ; ui / D
!=2
!=2
for i j;
C
SC
i si S i si d;
no summation on i; j;
no summation on i:
(6.15)
(6.16)
137
1
X
Ai r i sQ C
i ./:
(6.17)
i D1
Consider again the path independent integral along the circular arc of radius R in
Figure 6.1 centered at the singular point, so that the exact solution along it is given
by (6.17), and the stresses given by
Q D
1
X
Ai r i 1 SQ i ./
(6.18)
i D1
Q w D Cj r j 1 SQ j ./:
wQ D Cj r j sQ
j ./;
(6.19)
"Z
Cj D
!=2
!=2
!=2
!=2
i
C
Q Q C d:
SQ j sQ
j Sj s
j
i
C
Q Q C d
SQ j sQ
j Sj s
j
#1
;
(6.20)
138
one obtains
Q w/
Q D Aj ;
Ic .u;
(6.21)
where c is arbitrarily chosen. The exact solution, i.e., uQ and Q , is not known, but
one can use finite element methods to obtain an approximation, uQ FE and Q FE . Using
these approximations, together with the known auxiliary functions wQ and Q w , one
may easily compute numerically the value of
Ic .uQ FE ; w/
Q D AFE
j
and thus obtain a numerical approximation of Aj .
The CIM belongs to a class of methods that utilize a special functional defined
on the finite element solution and an auxiliary extraction function (the dual eigenfunction) in the postsolution phase. As such, the accuracy of the postprocessed
value AFE
j is related to how well the finite element space is able to simultaneously
approximate both the solution of the basic problem uQ FE and the solution wQ of an
auxiliary problem having the same characteristics as the basic problem. Babuska
and Miller proved in [12] that the convergence of AFE
j to the exact value is at least as
fast as the strain energy (twice as fast as the convergence measured in energy norm)
of the basic problem and therefore is superconvergent.
Another very important aspect of the CIM extraction technique is its insensitivity
to the size of the extraction path. This property is of special importance because
the quality of the FE solution is poor in the elements touching the singular point,
and therefore the CIM extraction path may be outside of these elements. The
superconvergence and robustness properties of the CIM will be demonstrated by
numerical examples in Section 6.3.
CA2
r 2
22
12 1
cos..1 C 1 //
cos.1 !/ 1 cos.!/
. 2 / sin..1 2 //
22 1
sin..1 C 2 // ;
cos.2 !/ 2 cos.!/
r 1
u D A1
21
139
. C 1 / sin..1 1 //
C
12 1
sin..1 C 1 //
cos.1 !/ 1 cos.!/
r 2
A2
. C 2 / cos..1 2 //
22
C
rr D A1 r
1 1
22 1
cos..1 C 2 // ;
cos.2 !/ 2 cos.!/
(6.22)
.3 1 / cos..1 1 //
12 1
cos..1 C 1 //
cos.1 !/ 1 cos.!/
CA2 r 2 1 .1 C 2 / sin..1 2 //
22 1
sin..1 C 2 // ;
cos.2 !/ 2 cos.!/
D A1 r 1 1
.1 C 1 / cos..1 1 //
12 1
cos..1 C 1 //
cos.1 !/ 1 cos.!/
CA2 r 2 1 .1 C 2 / sin..1 2 //
22 1
sin..1 C 2 // ;
cos.2 !/ 2 cos.!/
r D A1 r
1 1
.1 1 / sin..1 1 //
C
A2 r
2 1
12 1
sin..1 C 1 //
cos.1 !/ 1 cos.!/
.2 1/ cos..1 2 //
C
22 1
cos..1 C 2 // :
cos.2 !/ 2 cos.!/
(6.23)
140
The auxiliary displacement and stress fields for the extraction of A1 are associated
with the first negative eigenvalue 1 :
w(I) r D C1
r 1
. C 1 / cos..1 C 1 //
21
w(I) D C1
r 1
21
12 1
cos..1 1// ;
1 cos.!/ C cos.1 !/
. 1 / sin..1 C 1 //
12 1
sin..1 1// ;
1 cos.!/ C cos.1 !/
w
1 1
D
C
r
(I)
.3 C 1 / cos..1 C 1 //
1
rr
w
1 1
(I)
D C1 r
w
(I)
r
12 1
cos..1 1// ;
1 cos.!/ C cos.1 !/
.1 1 / cos..1 C 1 //
12 1
cos..1 1// ;
1 cos.!/ C cos.1 !/
1 1
D C1 r
.1 C 1 / sin..1 C 1 //
12 1
sin..1 1// :
1 cos.!/ C cos.1 !/
with C1 D
p
81 1 sin2 .!=2/Csin2 .1 !=2/
,
.1C/.sin.!/C! cos.1 !//
chosen to satisfy
X
w
ui nj Rd:
ij w(I)i (I)ij
A1 D
(6.24)
(6.25)
c i;j Dr;
The auxiliary displacement and stress fields for extractioning A2 are associated with
the second negative eigenvalue 2 :
w(II) r
r 2
D C2
22
. C 2 / sin..1 C 2 //
22 1
sin..1 2 // ;
C
2 cos.!/ cos.2 !/
w(II)
w
(II)
rr
141
r 2
D C2
. 2 / cos..1 C 2 //
22
22 1
cos..1 2 // ;
C
2 cos.!/ cos.2 !/
2 1
.3 C 2 / sin..1 C 2 //
D C2 r
22 1
sin..1 2 // ;
C
2 cos.!/ cos.2 !/
w
(II)
D C2 r
2 1
w
2 1
(II)
r D C2 r
.1 2 / sin..1 C 2 //
22 1
C
sin..1 2 // ;
2 cos.!/ cos.2 !/
.1 C 2 / cos..1 C 2 //
C
with C2 D
22 1
cos..1 2 // ;
2 cos.!/ cos.2 !/
p
82 2 sin2 .!=2/sin2 .2 !=2/
,
.1C/.sin.!/! cos.2 !//
Z
A2 D
(6.26)
chosen to satisfy
X
w
ij w(II) i (II)
nj Rd:
u
i
ij
(6.27)
c i;j Dr;
Because the integrals (6.25) and (6.27) are pathindependent, one may calculate
them along any path c using numerical methods. Once the first set of displacements
and stresses is replaced by finite element solution, numerical integration gives either
the GSIF A1 or A2 depending on the auxiliary displacements and stresses used.
The extraction method of the stress intensity factors using the reciprocal work
contour integral was independently developed by Carpenter for 2D Vnotched and
cracked domains in [33]. In a later work Carpenter and Byers [35] extended the
extraction method to 2D bimaterial domains. Extracting GSIFs associated with
highorder eigenvalues by the CIM was addressed by Carpenter in [34].
142
w(I) r
w(I)
w
(I)
rr
w
(I)
w
(I)
r
3
D p
.2 C 1/ cos
3 cos
;
2
2
2 2 r.1 C /
1
3
D p
.2 1/ sin
C 3 sin
;
2
2
2 2 r.1 C /
3
D p
3 cos
;
7 cos
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
3
D p
cos
C 3 cos
;
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
3
3
D p
C sin
;
sin
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
1
1
3
.2 C 1/ sin
sin
;
w(II) r D p
2
2
2 2 r.1 C /
1
3
cos
;
w(II) D p
.2 1/ cos
2
2
2 2 r.1 C /
3
w
(II)
D
sin
;
7
sin
p
rr
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
3
w
sin
C
sin
;
p
(II)
D
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
3
w
(II)
cos
p
D
C
cos
:
r
2
2
2 2 r 3 .1 C /
(6.28)
(6.29)
Here k kL2 ;
r
D
;
def
L2 ;
, where
;
1 L2 ;
143
def
W d D
One may notice that Ec and EQc are not linear spaces in the sense that the resulting
stress tensor from an addition of two stress tensors in the space does not belong to
the same space. We also define the space EcH by
n
o
oH
n
o
oH
8 1 2 Ec ./;
(6.30)
where
Bc . ; 1 / D
T E1 1 d;
(6.31)
Z
Fc . 1 / D
uT .n 1 /d:
.@/u
(6.32)
144
8 1 2 E c ./:
(6.33)
Equipped with the eigenfunctions, the CEM can be utilized to extract the GSIFs
as follows: First one solves the elastostatic problem over the entire domain by
means of the finite element method based on the displacement formulation thus
obtaining uFE . Second, a subdomain around the singular point is considered. Define
SR as the set of interior points of a circle of radius R, centered on the singular
point P. Then R is defined by \ SR , and R is the circular part of its boundary,
see Figure 4.1. The eigenpairs can be computed numerically to obtain i ; si ,
for each singular point in the domain . The trial and test statically admissible
spaces are chosen to be linear combinations of the eigenstresses (S i ), which are
computed from the eigenpairs, using the stressstrain relationship and Hookes law.
These eigenstresses automatically satisfy the equilibrium equations and boundary
conditions on the Vnotch faces. The unknowns are the series coefficients, i.e., the
GSIFs, which are extracted in the postsolution phase by postprocessing the FE
solution on R .
We represent the stress tensor in the vicinity of the singular point by (observe that
the eigenstresses S i in this representation may be normalized to have the maximum
value of 1)
D
Ai r i 1 S i ;
1 D
Cj r j 1 S j :
(6.34)
(6.35)
1 C!
1
S Ti E1 S j d:
(6.36)
Remark 6.1 For an isotropic material, the compliance matrix Bc is diagonal, e.g.,
.Bc /ij D 0; i j . See also .8:15/.
145
Remark 6.2 The elements of the compliance matrix Bc do not depend on the
FE solution over , and may be precomputed using the eigenpairs and material
properties in the vicinity of the singular point only.
The eigenstress tensor, being derived from the eigenpairs, automatically satisfies
the boundary conditions on all boundaries except R , so that the linear form (6.32)
degenerates to an integral over the circular boundary R alone.
Replacing the vector u in (6.32) with the approximated finite element solution
def
on R , uFE , then defining the vector u0 D . .u1 /FE cos ; .u2 /FE sin ; .u1 /FE sin C
.u2 /FE cos /T , the j th term of the load vector corresponding to the linear form
(6.32) becomes
Z
1 C!
.Fc /j D R
1
(6.37)
(6.38)
Solving (6.38), one obtains an approximation for the the GSIFs, .A1 ; A2 ; : : : ; AN /.
. R/
C{i
. R/
C{i
r i
.I /
.R/
.I/
si ./ C {si ./
r i
.I /
X .R/
.I/
ai m C {ai m m .. //:
pC1
(6.39)
mD1
.Bc /j i D
0
1 C!
1
. R/
r .i
. R/
Cj
1/
3
X
`;kD1
(6.40)
146
.R/
i being the real part of the eigenpair, and Dui a 3 1 vector corresponding to
the i th eigenfunction and is given by
PpC1 h
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
.Du/i1 D mD1 cos cos i i ai m i ai m
(6.41)
i
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
cos sin i i ai m C i ai m
m .. //
h
i
.R/
.I/
C ai m sin cos i C ai m sin sin i m0 . /
.Du/i2 D
PpC1 h
mD1
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
sin cos i i bi m i bi m
(6.42)
i
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
sin sin i i bi m C i bi m
m .. //
h
i
.R/
.I/
C bi m cos cos i bi m cos sin i m0 . /
.Du/i3 D
PpC1 h
mD1
2
;
! 1
2
;
! 1
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
sin cos i i ai m i ai m
(6.43)
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
sin sin i i ai m C i ai m
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
C cos cos i i bi m i bi m
i
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
m .. //
cos sin i i bi m C i bi m
h
.R/
.I/
C ai m cos cos i ai m cos sin i
i
.R/
.I/
bi m sin cos i C bi m sin sin i m0 . /
def
2
;
! 1
.I/
PpC1 h
mD1
2
;
! 1
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
sin cos i i bi m C i bi m
i
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
C sin sin i i bi m i bi m m .. //
h
i
.R/
.I/
C bi m cos sin i C bi m cos cos i m0 . /
(6.45)
2
;
! 1
.Du/i3C1 D
147
PpC1 h
mD1
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
sin cos i i ai m C i ai m
(6.46)
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
C sin sin i i ai m i ai m
.R/ .I/
.I/ .R/
C cos cos i i bi m C i bi m
i
.R/ .R/
.I/ .I/
C cos sin i i bi m i bi m m .. //
h
.R/
.I/
C ai m cos sin i C ai m cos cos i
i
.R/
.I/
bi m sin sin i bi m sin cos i m0 . /
2
:
! 1
1 C!
1
(6.47)
148
crack
0.0225a
0.15a
Fig. 6.2 Solution domain and mesh design for a crack in an isotropic material.
Table 6.1 First two GSIFs computed by the CEM for a crack in an isotropic material
pD2
pD3
pD4
pD5
pD6
pD7
pD1
DOF
53
155
273
439
653
915
1225
kekE .%/ 29.92
11.07
5.52
3.15
2.24
1.78
1.48
0.8144 0.9548 0.9912 0.99783 0.99795 0.99825 0.99862
AQ1
0.8317 0.9641 0.9946 0.99942 0.99888 0.99898 0.99926
AQ2
def
AQi D .Ai /FE =A;
i D 1; 2:
pD8
1583
1.26
0.99882
0.99943
(6.48)
In this way, both normalized GSIFs have to converge to 1 as the number of degrees
of freedom is increased.
The first two normalized GSIFs are computed with R D 0:5a, where 2a is the
length of the side of the square. The number of degrees of freedom, the error in
energy norm, and the computed values of the normalized GSIFs using the CEM
are listed in Table 6.1. The relative error in energy norm, the relative error in strain
energy, and the absolute value of the relative error in the first GSIF, computed by
the CEM and by the CIM, are plotted against the number of degrees of freedom
on a loglog scale in Figure 6.3. The same data for the second GSIF are shown in
Figure 6.4.
It is seen that the rate of convergence of the GSIFs is faster than the rate of convergence in the energy norm and both the CIM and CEM have similar convergence
patterns. Note that as the error in energy norm decreases, the CIM (based on the
exact eigenpairs) performs better than CEM (based on the approximate eigenpairs).
However, up to the relative error of approximately 0.1 percent, the performance
of both methods is virtually the same. Therefore, the proposed extraction methods
work well for levels of accuracy normally expected in engineering practice.
This example problem demonstrates the efficiency of the proposed extraction
methods applied to isotropic materials.
149
101
100
101
102
103
Energy norm
Strain energy.
CIM.
Compl. energy meth.
100
1000
DOF
(6.49)
Ignoring terms that remain bounded at the right crack tip, the asymptotic stress fields
in material 1 can be put into the form
1 n
KI cos." ln r/SQij< C sin." ln r/SQij=
Q ij D p
2 r
o
i; j D r; ; (6.50)
CKII sin." ln r/SQij< C cos." ln r/SQij= ;
The expressions for the displacements in [174] are not continuous across the interface at D 0.
Therefore they could not possibly be valid.
150
101
100
101
Energy norm
Strain energy.
CIM.
Compl. energy meth.
102
100
1000
DOF
y=1
x=1
Mat 1
E1=10,
x=1
1=0.3
2b
2a
Mat 2
x=0
E2=1,
2=0.3
y=1
x=0
151
where
<
D sinh ". / cos.3=2/
SQrr
(6.51)
The stress fields in material 2 can be obtained by replacing the combination " to
" and ". / to ". C / everywhere in (6.51). The first eigenvalues for
this crack problem is a complex number and its conjugate given by 1=2 i ". The
accuracy and convergence behavior of the CEM are demonstrated on a bimaterial
fracture mechanics problem.
Problem 6.1. The expression of the Cartesian eigenstresses for a bimaterial interface is given in a general setting in (5.70) and (5.73)(5.74). Using these with n D 1,
obtain expressions for the polar eigenstresses given by (6.50)(6.51).
The first eigenvalues obtained by the modified Steklov method using four
elements at p D 8 (the mesh is not shown) are 0:4999999990 i 0:07581177721.
These eigenvalues with their associated eigenvectors were used for computing the
stress intensity factors. Due to symmetry, only half of the domain was discretized.
The dimensions are taken to be a=b D 1=20 and a=b D 1=40, and h=b D 1.
The finite element mesh for this example problem is shown in Figure 6.6. The
polynomial level of the trial and test functions is increased over the shown mesh
from 1 to 8. In Table 6.2 we summarize the relative error in the energy norm, and
the stress intensity factors for the two values of a=b as the number of degrees
of freedom is increased. The computations of the stress intensity factors were
performed using an integration radius of 0.01a. As we consider more terms in the
asymptotic expansion, the influence of the integration radius is insignificant and one
can use a larger radius, as employed in the first and third example problems. For
example, using seven terms in the asymptotic expansion with an integration radius
of 0.5a, we obtain stress intensity factors that differ by less than 0:2% from those
reported in Table 6.2. If only two terms are considered, it is necessary to perform
152
Y
Z X
Y
Z X
the integration along a radius that is close to the singular point. This phenomenon
does not exist for isotropic materials where the Bc matrix is diagonal. It is seen
that the existence of complex eigenpairs has no influence on the performance of
the CEM, and we are able to compute the SIFs with high accuracy. Of course, as
a=b ! 0, the results become closer and closer to those presented in [150]. This
example demonstrates that an accurate and efficient numerical solution of fracture
mechanics problems even for complicated situations such as a crack at a bimaterial
interface is possible.
1 1
a=b D
1/20
kekE .%/
KI
KII
2.95
1.741420
0.444001
0.94
1.779560
0.210455
0.32
1.784096
0.181885
Table 6.2 First two GSIFs for crack between dissimilar materials.
pD2
pD3
pD1
DOF
105
387
845
a=b D
kekE .%/
1.5
0.52
0.21
1.724295
1.768182
1.777236
1/40
KI
KII
0.440176
0.209461
0.181435
0.14
1.783564
0.177378
pD4
1479
0.10
1.778712
0.177027
0.08
1.783591
0.176543
pD5
2289
0.06
1.779417
0.176215
0.06
1.785092
0.176377
pD6
3275
0.04
1.781130
0.176050
0.05
1.786663
0.176307
pD7
4437
0.02
1.782759
0.175979
0.04
1.787754
0.176269
pD8
5775
0.02
1.783864
0.175942
0.0
1.784123
0.175277
Exact
1
0.0
1.784123
0.175277
154
Z
X
155
3
10
4
10
5
10
6
10
7
10
8
10
9
10
10
10
10
6
5
4
10
3
10
0.5nu
2
10
10
Fig. 6.8 Influence of Poissons ratio on the accuracy of the eigenvalues computed by the modified
Steklov method at p D 8.
p=3
p=4
101
p=5
p=6
p=2
p=7
p=8
100
101
Energy norm
Strain energy
A_1
A_2
102
1000
DOF
Fig. 6.9 Convergence of kekE , the strain energy (kek2E ), and A1 , A2 for a nearly incompressible
( D 0:499999) Lshaped domain.
156
until the relative error drops below 0.1%. Below 0.1%, the contribution of the errors
of the approximate eigenpairs to the computation of the GSIFs become significant.
The coefficient A2 fails to converge before A1 fails, which is consistent with the fact
that the eigenpair associated with A2 is less accurate than that associated with A1 .
Nevertheless, an excellent accuracy below 0.1% relative error can be achieved using
the CEM, even when the material is nearly incompressible.
We may conclude that the CIM and CEM have four major advantages: (a) The
error in the GSIFs exhibits superconvergence. (b) The methods are general in
the sense that they are applicable to anisotropic materials and many types of
singularities, including those associated with multimaterial interfaces. (c) The
methods can be used in conjunction with any finite element analysis program.
(d) The methods are efficient and robust.
Chapter 7
Lately, methods that are capable of predicting failure initiation and propagation
in structural components subjected to thermal loads have been sought. It is
postulated, as in the theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics, that the methods
should correlate experimental observed failures to parameters characterizing the
thermoelastic stress field in the vicinity of failure initiation points. Failures due to
thermal loading occur, for example, in integrated circuits, which are assemblages of
dissimilar materials with different thermal and mechanical properties (addressed in
Chapter 9). The mismatch of elastic constants and thermal expansion coefficients
causes stress intensification at corners of interfaces and may lead to mechanical
failure.
New approaches to predicting the initiation and extension of delaminations
in plasticencapsulated LSI (large scale integrated circuit) devices, for example,
are based on the computation of the thermal generalized stress intensity factors
(TGSIFs) and the strength of the stress singularity [81, 85].
Although many studies have been reported in the past 30 years on thermoelastic
crack problems in isotropic twodimensional domains (see e.g [163, 173, 183]
and the references therein), very little has been done on multimaterial corner
interfaces. Especially, scant attention has been given to singularities affecting both
the temperature flux field and the stress tensor. Recent publications on TGSIFs for
a bonded interface between dissimilar materials, ignoring the singular behavior of
the temperature fluxes, can be found, for example, in [63, 81, 114, 119].
In this chapter we address the uncoupled twodimensional thermoelastic problem
in the vicinity of singular points, and develop numerical methods for the computation of TGSIFs. We first compute the steadystate temperature distribution in
the vicinity of the singularity, which is imposed in the elastic analysis as thermal
loading, exciting the socalled thermal generalized stress intensity factors (TGSIFs).
Both the temperature field and the stress tensor in the vicinity of the singular point
may exhibit singular behavior.
The temperature and displacement fields are computed by pFEMs, and the
CEM is utilized in the postprocessing stage in conjunction with Richardsons
Z. Yosibash, Singularities in Elliptic Boundary Value Problems and Elasticity
and Their Connection with Failure Initiation, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics 37,
DOI 10.1007/9781461415084 7, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
157
158
7.1 Classical (Strong) and Weak Formulations of the Linear Thermoelastic Problem
159
The other approach, i.e., when the faces 1 [ 2 are assumed to be either isolated
or the temperature is kept constant, the temperature field admits in the vicinity of
the singular point the wellknown expansion
.r; / D 0 C
K
1 X
X
(7.1)
i D1 kD0
on 1 [ 2 ;
(7.2)
Tn being the normal traction on the boundary, the elevated temperature field with
respect to the stressfree state,
( 2.1C/
; planestrain
12
D 2.1C/
1 ; planestress
and the coefficient of linear thermal expansion. Again, it is assumed that
the thermoelasticity problem can be solved analytically over for purposes of
mathematical analysis, but the pversion of the finiteelement method IS used
for performing the actual computations. On the boundary o D @ 1 2 ,
displacement, traction or spring boundary conditions may be applied. However, on
1 and 2 we assume homogeneous mechanical boundary conditions.
Since our focus is the solution of the thermoelasticity problem in the vicinity
of the singular point, we concentrate our attention in the subdomain R shown in
Figure 4.1, assuming that the displacement field on R is available. The classical
linear thermoelastic problem in an isotropic domain R described in terms of
stresses is
div D grad in R ;
(7.3)
Tn D D on 1 [ 2 ;
(7.4)
Tt D r D 0 on 1 [ 2 ;
(7.5)
u prescribed on R :
160
The stress tensor that is the solution to the thermoelastic problem in the vicinity of
the singular point consists of three parts:
: a particular stress tensor solution satisfying the partial differential equation
P
partial differential equation (7.3), and the boundary conditions (7.4) and (7.5).
: a homogeneous stress tensor defined by
H
Thus
D
N ;
P
following.
: The stress tensor that is the solution to the homogeneous equilibrium equations
H
M
1 X
X
Ai m r i 1 lnm r Si m ./;
(7.6)
i D1 mD0
1
X
Ai r i 1 Si ./:
(7.7)
i D1
and N
field in the vicinity of the singular point but do not have to be actually computed.
Their main role is the linkage to the theoretical framework providing the justification
for their removal in a systematic way in the numerical algorithm.
As mentioned in Section 7.1.1, the simplified approach is to assume that the
singular point has negligible influence on the distribution of the temperature in its
vicinity. Therefore, the temperature distribution in a closed vicinity of the crack tip
may be considered to be constant. In this case, the thermoelasticity problem to be
solved becomes
div D grad D 0
Tn D D D C
Tt D r D 0
in R ;
(7.8)
on 1 [ 2 ;
(7.9)
on 1 [ 2 :
The solution to the problem (7.8), (7.9), (7.10) consists of two parts only:
(7.10)
7.1 Classical (Strong) and Weak Formulations of the Linear Thermoelastic Problem
D
161
C N ;
(7.11)
The second approach to considering the temperature field assumes that the
temperature field is disturbed by the singular point. In this case, the temperature flux
possesses singular behavior in the vicinity of the singular point, and the temperature
field is given by (7.1). It is assumed that 1 i 1 for any i and 1 < 1.
By separation of variables, using the shift theorem for the equation in r, the stress
vector P in the vicinity of the singular point can be represented as follows:
P .r; / D o C Br 1 H./ C O.r 1 C /;
(7.12)
(7.13)
where B is chosen so as to satisfy Fredholms alternative (see [65, pp. 7880]). This
case is not addressed in the following.
Since vanishes on the boundaries 1 [ 2 , the stress tensor N can be any
P
tensor that produces only nonzero , and this could be a linear function of
multiplied by a function of r of the form r 1 C O.r 1 C /.
The displacement vector corresponding to C N is denoted by uP and can be
P
(7.14)
162
and its variants are presented in Section 6.2, together with the dual (complementary)
weak formulation for the (thermo) elasticity problem over the subdomain R (see
[128, pp. 103108]):
Seek 2 EQc .R / such that
Bc . ; 1 / D Fc . 1 /
8 1 2 E c .R /:
(7.15)
H 2 E c .R /;
(7.16)
. P C N P / 2 EQc .R /:
With this notation, the dual weak form (7.15) can be restated in a more convenient
manner
oH
(7.17)
oH
8 1 2 E c .R /:
7.1 Classical (Strong) and Weak Formulations of the Linear Thermoelastic Problem
163
The stress vectors H ; 1 in (7.17), being in the space E c ./, can be represented
by (7.7), and the elements of the compliance matrix corresponding to Bc . H ; 1 /
are given in (6.31). For isotropic materials, the compliance matrix is diagonal (see
Remark 6.1):
( 2i
R
Di ; i D j;
i; j D 1; 2; : : : ; N;
(7.18)
.Bc /ij D 2i
0;
i j;
and Di are constants that depend on the angle !, the inverse of the material matrix
E1 , and the eigenstresses, but independent of R.
The load vector corresponding to the linear form Fc is to be evaluated only along
oH
1
X
(7.19)
i D1
To obtain the j th component of the load vector, one has to substitute (7.19) and
the j th eigenstress in the series (7.7) in the expression for the linear form (6.32).
Because the homogeneous eigenstresses are orthogonal with respect to the integral
along R for isotropic materials, one obtains
.Fc /j D C1j R1 Cj C C3j Rj C1 C C4j Rj C1 C1 C h.o.t.
j D 1; 2; : : : ; N:
(7.20)
Here Cij are constants independent of R that may be zero and depend on material
properties, geometry, far field loading, and temperature field.
164
in (6.31), and having 1 2 E c , one obtains the j th element of the load vector
corresponding to Bc1 :
Z !
.Bc1 /j D Rj C1
To E1 S j ./d
0
CRj C1 C1
Z
0
D C5j R
j C1
C C6j Rj C1 C1 C h.o.t.
j D 1; 2; : : : ; N: (7.21)
The load vector corresponding to Bc2 is very similar to that given in (7.21), without
the first term, and we may add them together to obtain
.Bc1 /j C .Bc2 /j D C5j Rj C1 C C7j Rj C1 C1 C h.o.t.
j D 1; 2; : : : ; N:
(7.22)
In view of (7.18), (7.20), and (7.22), the TGSIF A1 , for example, can be
computed:
A1 D
21 21
R
C11 R21 C C31 R1 C1 C C41 R1 C1 C1
D1
C C51 R1 C1 C C71 R1 C1 C1 C h.o.t.
21
C11 C C81 R11 C C41 R1C1 1 C h.o.t. :
D1
(7.23)
Examining (7.23) as R ! 0, one notices that the influence of the particular stress
vector on A1 is of the order of magnitude of R11 or R1C1 1 (depending on
whether C81 is zero or not). The stress field in the neighborhood of a singular point
is singular only if 1 < 1, and because 1 0, the influence approaches zero as
R ! 0. This suggests that the terms associated with the particular stress vectors
could be neglected, contributing a relative error of order of magnitude O.R11 / or
O.R 1C1 1 / when computing A1 , for example. Using a finite subdomain of radius
R1 , .A1 /1 can be extracted by (7.23) neglecting the particular stress vector (only
the first term on the righthand side is considered). By repeating this extraction
procedure over a sequence of decreasing subdomains of radii Rj , Rj < Rj 1 <
< R1 , one obtains a sequence of approximations denoted by .A1 /j . Then,
employing Richardsons extrapolation [145, pp. 9495] with the error behaving as
R11 or R1C1 1 , A1 can be extrapolated at the limit R ! 0. We can generate a
table of A1 s, for example, by the recurrence relation
.mC1/
.m/
.A1 /j
.mC1/
.A1 /j 1
.m/
.A1 /j 1 .A1 /j 1
.Rj =Rj Cm /
1
(7.24)
7.1 Classical (Strong) and Weak Formulations of the Linear Thermoelastic Problem
165
where
is either 1 1 or 1 C 1 1 , and the accuracy of A1 improves as j
and m increase (j corresponds to the radius Rj of the subdomains R , which is the
row number in the generated table, and m corresponds to the column number; see
Table 7.2, for example).
Remark 7.1 If A2 is to be computed, for example, the same procedure holds with
either 1 2 or 1 C 1 2 in (7.24).
Remark 7.2 The situation described in (7.13) will affect the third term in (7.23),
and it seems that the leading term may sometimes be of the order of R1C1 i 1 C
ln.R/. However, this is not the case due to Fredholms alternative. This will be
demonstrated by numerical examples on cracked domains, where the temperature
field is proportional to r 1=2 and the homogeneous stress field is proportional
to r 1=2 .
Remark 7.3 For anisotropic materials or multmaterial interfaces, the matrix Bc
is fully populated, and an explicit equation like (7.23) is not obtainable. However,
computation of the TGSIFs neglecting the particular stress tensor, for several Rj s
and extrapolating to the limit, is still valid due to similar arguments (this will be
shown by a numerical example). The mathematical analysis of this case is more
cumbersome and is not provided here.
166
(b) Obtain a finite element solution of the thermal problem, then impose it as a
thermal loading and solve the elasticity problem to obtain the displacements
finite element solution uFE . Both the thermal and the elasticity solutions should
have a small relative error measured in the energy norm.
(c) Extract TGSIFs by the CEM for several values of integration radii Ri . The
radius of integration Ri should always be outside the first layer of elements that
have a vertex in the singular point. At each integration radius Ri , the TGSIFs
should be extracted using the finite element solutions corresponding to p D
1; 2; : : : ; 8, and estimated for p ! 1. This ensures that discretization errors
associated with replacing uEX by uFE are small.
(d) Use Richardsons extrapolation with the error behaving as either R1 C11 or
R11 to determine the first stress intensity factor and R1 C12 or R12 to
determine the second, as R ! 0.
(e) Examine the columns in the table generated by Richardsons extrapolation and
ensure that the elements in the columns have similar values. Also examine the
Richardsons extrapolation table for p ! 1 in comparison with the table
for p D 8 and ensure that the values are close (see the following example
problems).
(f) Redo step (c), with a larger statically admissible space, i.e., increased number of
homogeneous eigenstresses N , then redo steps (d)(e). Check that the obtained
TGSIFs are virtually independent of N . This ensures the reliability of the
results.
In all examples, the integration is performed along a circle of radius R greater than
the radius of the elements having a vertex at the singular point. This is because the
finite element solution in the first group of elements at the singular point is not of
high accuracy. Numerical examples are presented in the following to demonstrate
that the proposed method performs well, resulting in accurate TGSIFs.
167
qn=0
1=100
2=100
2L
2=100
1=0
qn=0
x
2a
2W
qn=0
2=100
2=100
Mode II Loading
2=100
Mode I Loading
Fig. 7.1 Geometry and boundary conditions of a rectangular plate with a central crack.
Fig. 7.2 The finite element
mesh for the rectangular plate
with a central crack.
trmo_elst_flx_n
96/03/13 16:02:47
central crack of length 2a D 2 with L=W D 1:0 and a=W D 0:2 is solved for two
different sets of thermal loadings representing pure mode I and pure mode II (see
Figure 7.1).
The heat conduction coefficients are taken to be k11 D k22 D 1, k12 D 0
(results are independent of the heat conductivity for isotropic materials), and the
mechanical material properties are Youngs modulus E D 1; Poisson ratio D 0:3;
and the coefficient of linear thermal expansion D 0:01. A planestrain condition
is assumed. Taking advantage of the symmetry of the problem, only half of the
model has been solved, imposing the following symmetry boundary conditions at
@
D 0, ux D 0. The finite element mesh surrounding the
jyj L; x D 0: qn D @x
crack tip contains only one layer graded in a geometric progression in the vicinity of
the singular point with the grading factor 0.15, as shown in Figure 7.2. The results
168
Table 7.1 Convergence of
the FE solution for mode I
loading; center crack.
Thermal Analysis
ThermoElastic Analysis
Estimated
Estimated
kekE ./ (%)
plevel DOF
kekE ./ (%) DOF
1
12
30.55
45
73.23
2
44
12.31
129
18.81
3
81
8.15
223
10.28
4
137
5.61
355
6.42
5
212
4.43
525
4.50
6
306
3.69
733
3.53
7
419
3.18
979
2.89
8
551
2.80
1263
2.42
(7.25)
1 C 1 2 D 1=2 C 1 1=2 D 1:
(7.26)
169
Table 7.2 .KI /FE at various values of R, p D 8, for mode I center crack
problem and the extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.9
.KI /FE D KI
1.7506058183
0.7
1.5436426511
.1/
.2/
KI
KI
.3/
KI
0.8192715659
0.8001684752
0.8107813034
0.5
1.3342536946
0.3
1.1206217081
0.7882428331
0.7922180471
0.8001737284
Table 7.3 .KI /FE at various values of R, p ! 1 , for mode I center crack
problem and the extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.9
.KI /FE D KI
1.7522014811
0.7
1.5460100080
.1/
KI
.2/
KI
0.8243398522
0.7997843595
0.8134262999
0.5
1.3367003771
The value at R D 0:3 was not considered because it was away from the value
obtained at p D 8. Therefore the extrapolated value is not accurate enough.
Tables 7.2 and 7.3 clearly demonstrate that the thermal stress intensity factor is
extrapolated with high accuracy, even though the relative errors at finite values of R
are very large. The significant reduction in the error already at the first step of the
Richardsons algorithm, and the similarity of the results in each column, strongly
support the mathematical analysis.
The extrapolated value is in excellent agreement with [142,173,201]. A summary
of results obtained by other numerical methods compared with the extrapolated KI
is given in Table 7.7.
Mode II Thermal Loading
This subsection summarizes the TSIFs obtained when the domain is loaded by
mode II thermal loading. The quality of the finite element solution is summarized in
Table 7.4. Extracted values of .KII /FE at p D 8 and as p ! 1 for different values
of R are listed in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 respectively, together with the Richardsons
extrapolated values as R ! 0. .KI /FE is 0.000000000 for all cases. Again, the
error in .KII /FE behaves like R1 as R ! 0. This power is used for Richardsons
extrapolation. Tables 7.5 and 7.6 are very similar to Tables 7.2 and 7.3 of the
previous mode I problem. Again one may notice the convergence achieved by
the extrapolation algorithm, although the TSIFs at the various Rs are of very
low accuracy. The very similar values in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 demonstrate that the
170
Thermal Analysis
Thermoelastic Analysis
Estimated
Estimated
kekE ./ (%)
plevel DOF
kekE ./ (%) DOF
1
21
8.98
45
669.68
2
62
4.44
129
35.11
3
108
2.72
223
30.03
4
173
2.02
355
7.72
5
257
1.58
525
5.65
6
360
1.32
733
4.39
7
482
1.13
979
3.66
8
623
0.99
1263
3.13
Table 7.5 .KII /FE at various values of R, p D 8, for mode II center crack
problem and the extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.9
0.7
0:0261998324
.1/
KII
.2/
.3/
KII
KII
0.1246962094
0.1219032328
0.1234548865
0.5
0.0165586587
0.3
0.0588589141
0.1212235415
0.1214501053
0.1223092972
Table 7.6 .KII /FE at various values of R, p ! 1, for mode II center crack problem
and the extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.9
0.7
0:0261705901
.1/
KII
.2/
KII
.3/
KII
0.1248325230
0.1229332211
0.1239883888
0.5
0.0167319753
0.3
0.0591041211
0.1210350940
0.1216678030
0.1226623398
numerical error in .KII /FE is small at the given radii, and thus high confidence in the
extrapolated results is achieved.
In Table 7.7 we summarize the results obtained, compared to these reported
previously for the mode I and mode II loadings.
The results obtained here show good accuracy compared with these reported
previously. The number of degrees of freedom in the FE model is half what was
needed in [201] for obtaining similar accuracy in the TSIFs.
171
Yosibash [201]
Compl. Enrg.
w/o Rich. Ext.
Present
Method
0.8593
0.1317
0.7759
0.1207
0.7759
0.1185
0.1324
0.7784
0.1214
0.7998
0.1210
2 =10
qn=0
2a
2L
60
qn=0
qn=0
1=10
2W
demonstrate that the number of terms used to represent E c has minor influence on
the extracted TSIFs. Also, we show that Richardsons extrapolation for KI assumes
172
trmo_slant_flx_r
96/06/04 11:12:34
that the error is O.R11 /, whereas for KII it is O.R1C1 2 /. For the slant crack
configuration we have 1 D 2 D 1 D 1=2, thus
in (7.24) is either 1=2 or 1.
Extracted values of .KI /FE at p ! 1 for different values of R are listed in Table 7.8
when N D 2; 4; 6 with
D 1=2, and in Table 7.9 with
D 1, together with the
Richardsons extrapolated values as R ! 0. This is to demonstrate that the error
in .KI /FE behaves like R1=2 as R ! 0. Table 7.9 demonstrates that the coefficient
C8 is nonzero in (7.23) for KI , whereas, as will be shown in Table 7.10, C8 D 0
for KII . This is possible because C8 represents an integral of the corresponding
eigenstress multiplied by the particular stress vector, and for some cases these are
orthogonal. The similarity of the results along the columns in Table 7.8, starting
.3/
at KI , and the convergence of Richardsons extrapolation to the same value for
N D 2; 4, and 6 ensures that accurate and reliable results are obtained. Although
at finite radii of integration Ri the extracted TSIFs are extremely inaccurate, the
extrapolated approximation KI D 0:0238; 0:0234 is in excellent agreement with the
value KI 0:023 given in [126] in a graph.
The value KII is extrapolated at the limit R ! 0 with
in (7.24) being 1.
Extracted values of .KII /FE at p ! 1 for different values of R are listed in
Table 7.10 when N D 2; 4; 6 together with the Richardsons extrapolated values
as R ! 0. The values in Table 7.10 clearly demonstrate the convergence of KII to
:642 which is in excellent agreement with the value 0:64 reported in [126].
.0/
N D2 N D4 N D6
2:995 2:536 1:962
R
0.085
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
.KI /FE D KI
def
N D2 N D4 N D6
.1/
KI
N D4
N D6
0.0171
0.0051
0.0167
0.0037
0.0235
0.0234
N D2
.2/
KI
N D2 N D4 N D6
.3/
KI
N D2 N D4 N D6
.4/
KI
.0/
N D2 N D4 N D6
2:995 2:536 1:962
R
0.085
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
.KI /FE D KI
def
N D2 N D4 N D6
.1/
KI
N D2 N D4 N D6
.2/
KI
N D2 N D4 N D6
.3/
KI
N D2 N D4 N D6
.4/
KI
174
7 Thermal Generalized Stress Intensity Factors in 2D Domains
.0/
N D2 N D4 N D6
0.318 0.318 0.345
R
0.085
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
def
N D2 N D4 N D6
.1/
KII
N D2 N D4 N D6
.2/
KII
N D2 N D4 N D6
.3/
KII
N D2 N D4 N D6
.4/
KII
Table 7.10 .KII /FE at various values of R, at p ! 1 for a plate with a slanted crack with N D 2; 4; 6, and extrapolated values as R ! 0.
176
2=100
2=100
2L
1=0
a
1=0
2
1=0
x
2=100
2W
2=100
Stress Check V2.0.b28
trmo_plt_hole
96/03/18 15:21:20
trmo_plt_hole
96/03/18 15:34:58
Fig. 7.6 Finite element meshes for the rectangular plate with a crack at an internal hole.
177
Table 7.11 Convergence of the FE solution for a plate with a crack at an internal hole.
=a D 0:25
=a D 0:75
Thermal
Analysis
Estimated kekE ./
plevel DOF
(%)
27
97
179
303
469
677
927
1219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
18:34
5:58
3:66
2:32
1:65
1:30
1:07
0:90
Thermoelastic
Analysis
Thermal
Analysis
Thermoelastic
Analysis
Estimated kekE ./
DOF
(%)
Estimated kekE ./
DOF
(%)
Estimated kekE ./
DOF
(%)
91
267
467
751
1119
1571
2107
2727
27
97
179
303
469
677
927
1219
91
267
467
751
1119
1571
2107
2727
73:09
15:18
11:31
4:70
3:00
2:15
1:62
1:26
19:83
6:56
5:15
2:11
1:28
0:95
0:76
0:63
102:20
33:31
21:71
9:94
4:60
2:38
1:47
0:96
Table 7.12 .KI /FE at various values of R, p D 8 and p ! 1 (in parentheses), for a plate
with a crack at an internal hole, =a D 0:25, and extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.5
.KI /FE D KI
1.4822 (1.4823)
0.3
1.2167 (1.2196)
.1/
KI
.2/
KI
.3/
KI
0.8184 (0.8255)
0.8018 (0.7997)
0.8051 (0.8049)
0.1
0.9423 (0.9431)
0.05
0.8698 (0.8724)
0.7950 (0.8011)
0.7957 (0.8010)
0.7973 (0.8016)
Table 7.13 .KI /FE at various values of R, p D 8 and p ! 1 (in parentheses), for a plate with a
crack at an internal hole, =a D 0:75, and extrapolated values as R ! 0.
def
.0/
R
0.35
.KI /FE D KI
1.4083 (1.4084)
0.15
1.1477 (1.1483)
.1/
KI
.2/
KI
.3/
KI
0.9523 (0.9532)
0.9381 (0.9428)
0.9414 (0.9452)
0.08
1.0514 (1.0535)
0.03
0.9781 (0.9807)
0.9317 (0.9342)
0.9322 (0.9349)
0.9341 (0.9370)
Table 7.13 for =a D 0:75 together with the Richardsons extrapolated values as
R ! 0. Again, the error in .KI /FE behaves like R1 as R ! 0, and this power
is used for Richardsons extrapolation. .KII /FE is 0.000000000 for all cases. The
approximated KI for the case =a D 0:25 obtained by the BEM and reported in
[142] is 0.806, which is in good agreement with our extrapolated value of 0.8011.
For the case =a D 0:75 we obtain KI D 0:9342 which is again in good agreement
with the value 0.941 reported in [142].
178
2
60o
179
where SQij(I) ./ and SQij(II) ./ are eigenstresses given by (see [36]):
5=6 5=6:
(I)
./ D 0:717604531 f0:401735588 cos.1 C 1 /
SQrr
SQ(I) ./
SQ(II)
./
(I)
./
SQr
(II)
./
SQr
5=6 7=6:
(I)
SQrr
./ D 0:000370516 f0:972611382 cos.1 C 1 /. /
180
inclusion_rr_t
96/06/05 11:34:01
(2474 dof) is less than 1:6%. Using two terms for spanning E c , N D 2, the error
in the first two TGSIFs for any given radius R converges to zero as p is increased,
with a relative error at p D 8 that is less than 0.01%.
The temperature distribution is first computed with the temperature boundary
condition applied to the boundary of 1 :
./ D 100
.5=6 jj/
;
5=6
5=6 5=6;
5=6 ; 5=6 :
:
181
Table 7.14 A
1 at various values of R, p ! 1, for inclusion problem, and the extrapolated
values as R ! 0.
def
R
0.9
.0/
.A
1 /FE D .A1 /
0.001209
0.5
0.010198
.1/
.A
1/
.2/
.A
1/
.3/
.A
1/
.4/
.A
1/
.5/
.A
1/
0.055176
0.101188
0.077903
0.1
0.036791
0.089350
0.094183
0.086209
0.05
0.046346
0.01
0.063177
0.005
0.068466
0.091774
0.091173
0.091785
0.092068
0.089198
0.091782
0.091636
0.091807
0.090529
N D2
0.091785
N D4
0.091510
N D6
0.091792
=100
E1=1, 1=0.3, 1=0.001
E2=10, 2=0.4, 2=0.01
h1
P
h2
182
joint
96/05/19 11:14:37
Figure 7.10, having several radial layers graded geometrically toward the singular
point P with a grading factor 0.15.
The eigenvalues and eigenstresses are extracted by the modified Steklov method.
Only the first eigenvalue associated with point P , 1 D 0:8446825, imposes a
weak singularity (2 1), and the x and y components of the homogeneous
first eigenstress vector (i.e., .S11 /1 ./ and .S22 /1 ./) are given in Figure 7.11.
A uniform temperature distribution over the whole domain, not being influenced by
the presence of the singular point P , results in a particular stress field as presented in
(7.11). Thus, we use for Richardsons extrapolation the power 1 1 D 0:1553175
for finding A1 .
183
def
Chapter 8
The successful use of linear elastic fracture mechanics theory in predicting brittle
fracture in isotropic domains with cracks is attributed to the successful correlation
of a single parameter, namely the stress intensity factor, with experimental observations for the determination of failure initiation or crack propagation. For cracks
in twodimensional domains made of isotropic materials, catastrophic fracture is
associated with the first coefficient in the expansion of the displacements/stress
p
field in the vicinity of a crack tip. Usually mode I SIF, KI D A1 2,
determines the onset of fracture, i.e., when it equals the fracture toughness (KIc
a materialdependent parameter), fracture occurs. This criterion was first suggested
by Irwin [87]. Typical values of KIc for metals and other brittle materials are
given in Table 8.1. The feasibility of using the single parameter, i.e., check whether
KI > KIc , to determine the onset of failure is a result of the universal nature of the
stress tensor in the vicinity of the crack tip. For crack tips under mode I loading,
a duality exists between the Irwin criterion and the Griffith criterion. The later is
based on a critical value Gc of the energy release rate G defined as the derivative of
the potential energy with respect to the crack length [70] (see also Appendix F).
Recently, failure laws for twodimensional domains containing Vnotches, multimaterial interfaces, or orthotropic materials have attracted major interest because
of the relation to composite materials and electronic devices. A sufficient simple
and reliable condition for predicting failure initiation (crack formation) in the above
mentionedcases, involving singular points, is still a topic of active research and
interest. In such points the stress tensor is infinite under the assumption of linear
elasticity. A typical example of a singular point is the reentrant Vnotch tip, for
which a crack tip is a particular case when the Vnotch opening angle is 2.
For Vnotches and multimaterial interfaces, a considerable amount of research
activity has been recently conducted for establishing a failure criterion applicable to
brittle materials. The works of Dunn et al. [58, 59] provide experimental correlation
of A1 (and possibly A2 ), see (5.53)(5.52), to fracture initiation in the case that the
first two eigenvalues 1(I) and 1(II) are real and the singular points are Vnotches in
isotropic materials. Hattori et al. [80, 81] propose a twoparameter failure law based
Z. Yosibash, Singularities in Elliptic Boundary Value Problems and Elasticity
and Their Connection with Failure Initiation, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics 37,
DOI 10.1007/9781461415084 8, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
185
186
Table 8.1 Typical KIc data
at room temperature.
Material
PMMA
Alumina7%Zirconia
4340 steel
6Al4V titanium
7075T651 aluminum
KIc
p
MPa mm
32.5
129.6
150
122
94
p
Ksi in
9.3
37
43
35
27
on A1 and the exponent 1(I) for Vnotch configurations, and demonstrated that a
good correlation is achieved with experimental results. Reedy et al. in [146] and the
references therein correlated failures of adhesivebonded butt tensile joints with A1 .
In all these cases a Vnotch configuration is addressed, and no special attention is
devoted to the connection of Ai , i , and s.i / ./. Novozhilov [130] proposed a simple
failure criterion based on the average normal stress along the anticipated path of
the crack formation. The validity of Novozhilovs criterion has been examined by
Seweryn [158] by experiments performed on Vnotch samples. Leguillon [106,107]
proposed a criterion for failure initiation at a sharp Vnotch based on a combination
of the Griffith energy criterion for a crack, and the strength criterion for a straight
edge. This approach provides a criterion similar to Novozhilovs criterion, and
shows good agreement with experimental observations in [59]. A recent work by
Seweryn and Lukaszewicz [159] addresses some of the failure criteria in the vicinity
of a Vnotch tip under mixed mode loading. Here, we examine two of the most
promising failure criteria (and discuss them in more detail in the sequel), the one
proposed by Leguillon based on the strain energy release rate and strength, and
the one based on averaged stress by NovoshilovSeweryn, and suggest a simplified
failure criterion based on the strainenergy density. This criterion was presented in
[3], called the SED criterion. It proposes as the failure criterion the critical value
of the average strain energy in a sector in the vicinity of the singular point over
the volume of this sector. The same criterion has also been studied by Lazzarin
and Zambardi in [101], there called the finitevolumeenergy criterion, and good
correlation to experimental data of other publications is demonstrated. The SED is
rigorously treated here from the mathematical point of view, bringing its formulation
to a contour integral using the expansion in (5.53), and validated by our own
experiments. Although we call this failure criterion the SED criterion, it is a different
criterion from the SED criterion of Sih (see, e.g., [162]), as will be explained in
Section 8.1.4. Other failure criteria have been proposed, among them the theory of
critical distances by Taylor [182] (which is not discussed here) and the cohesive
process zone model by Gomez and Elices [66, 67] which allows extension of
classical methods, based on linear elastic fracture mechanics, to rounded Vnotches
and contained plasticity. The cohesive process zone models predictive capability
has been demonstrated by many experimental results on brittle materials containing
V and Unotches.
Cases when 1 is complex are not addressed in this chapter. The complex representation of the displacement field in a neighborhood of a general twodimensional
187
188
1
d0
1
X
1D1
1
d0 X
Ai r i 1 S22 . D 0 /dx1
.i /
i D1
A1 i 1 .i /
d
S22 . D 0 /
i 0
.x1 r along x2 /
(8.1)
Assume that d0 1. Then all terms for i 2 are negligible in comparison with the
first term in the series, so that (8.1) simplifies to:
c D
A1 1 1 .1/
d
S22 . D 0 /:
1 0
(8.2)
(8.3)
where KIc is the fracture toughness. Eliminating A1 from (8.3), and substituting
1 D 1=2 in (8.2) for a crack, one obtains
d0 D
2 KIc2
:
c2
(8.4)
Returning to (8.2) and substituting d0 from (8.4), we finally obtain the NovoshilovSeweryn failure criterion stating that failure occurs at the instant when
189
280
260
240
220
200
1.960
2.167
1.892
2.436
1.752
3.059
1.561
4.347
1.594
8.861
2.493
28.60
56.67
60.53
56.24
66.34
56.10
80.15
53.40
102.00
49.62
150.44
53.18
291.81
A1 S22 . D 0 / D 1 c
.1/
def
p
m] computed by
2 KIc
p
2 c
221
:
(8.5)
KIc
.1/
A1 S22 . D 0 / D p ;
2
and the usual strength criterion for a straight edge (when ! D , so that 1 D 1),
A1 S22 . D 0 / D c :
.1/
Seweryn [158] examined the validity of Novozhilovs failure criterion by performing experiments on Vnotch samples made of Plexiglas and Duralumin having
Vnotch angles of ! D 2 to , with a tip radius D 0:01 mm. Using the critical
load at failure, the generalized stress intensity factor at failure can be computed, and
by using (8.5), one can predict the fracture toughness
p
2c
KIc D
2
A1 S22 . D 0 /
1 c
.1/
1
! 22
(8.6)
Because the KIc value is not known, it has been computed from the results obtained
for the various opening angles. Table 8.2 summarizes the results reported in [158].
As can be observed in Table 8.2, as the opening angle ! decreases, the criterions
validity deteriorates. Recently, the NovoshilovSeweryn failure criterion has been
extended to mixed mode failure by Seweryn and Lukaszewicz in [159], where its
validity compared to other failure criteria in predicting the failure load and direction
is demonstrated by comparison to experimental observations.
190
`0 D
2
.1/
S .0 / K 2
Ic
K.!/
c2
(8.7)
.1/
Gc
K.!/
11
c21 1 ;
(8.8)
where Gc is the fracture energy per unit surface and c is the 1D stress at brittle
failure (strength), both being material properties. The parameter K.!/ depends on
the local geometry and boundary conditions in a neighborhood of the Vnotch tip,
the eigenvalue and its corresponding eigenfunction, and the material properties
(E and in isotropic materials). It is important to realize that K.!/ is not the
generalized stress intensity factor for the Vnotch, but is computed by an integration
procedure as detailed in [144] and the appendix of [107]. For example, in Table 2 in
[107], the following values of K.!/ for a Vnotch in PMMA, which is an isotropic
homogeneous material with E D 2:3 GPa and D 0:36, are given; see Table 8.3.
Based on Table 8.3 and the expression for evaluating K.!/, for any tractionfree reentrant Vnotch configuration in an isotropic homogeneous material with new
material properties E new and new the new values of K.!/ may be easily obtained:
K new .!/ D K.!/
2:3 1 . new /2
;
1 0:362
E new
E new in GPa:
(8.9)
For example, for Alumina7%Zirconia with E 360 GPa and D 0:23, the new
values for K.!/ are given in Table 8.4.
Correlation of the current criterion with experimental observations in PMMA
Vnotched specimens as well as in bimaterial wedges shows good agreement.
191
240
1.22174E05
192
1
R
U.u/R D 12 b
" d;
(8.10)
(one should keep in mind that summation notation is implied unless otherwise
specified). For an isotropic material under the planestrain assumption, Hookes
law is
(8.11)
D "
C 2" :
Substituting (8.11) in (8.10), we use the kinematic connections between strains and
displacements " D 12 .@ u C @ u /. Then using Greens theorem, we transform
the area integral into a boundary integral on @R
Z
U.u/R D
1
b
2
@R
2" C "
n u d:
(8.12)
193
1 C!
n u
1
rDR
R d:
(8.13)
1 C!
1
.k/ .`/
.k/
i
.`/
.`/
.k/ .`/
s1 sin C s2 cos C S22 s2 sin d D 0
for k `;
(8.15)
1
b
2
X
k
Z
A2k R2k
1 C!
1
.k/ .k/
.k/
.k/
.k/
s1 sin C s2 cos
i
.k/ .k/
CS22 s2 sin d:
(8.16)
Problem 8.1. Demonstrate that (8.15) is valid for the following example: consider
a twodimensional isotropic domain in a state of planestrain containing a Vnotch
with a solid angle ! D 3=2 such that 1 D !=2 and 1 C ! D !=2. For this case
the stresses and displacements are explicitly given by (5.52)(5.53) with the first two
eigenvalues 1(I) D 0:5444837 and 1(II) D 0:9085292. Taking S (I) ./ corresponding
to 1(I) D 0:5444837 and s(II) ./ corresponding to 1(II) D 0:9085292, show that the
integral in (8.15) is zero.
We define the strain energy density (SED) as
def
SEDR D
U.u/R
:
b R
194
1
b
2
=2
=2
R
0
Z
" rddr D
1
b
2
=2
=2
c
0
c
b
rddr D
R2 c2 ;
E
4E
(8.18)
c2
:
2E
(8.19)
Under mode I loading, for a specimen containing a crack, the stress tensor at the
instance of fracture in the vicinity of a crack tip is given by
11
22
195
KIc
3
D p
cos
1 sin sin
;
2
2
2
2 r
KIc
3
D p
cos
1 C sin sin
;
2
2
2
2 r
3
KIc
sin cos cos :
12 D p
2
2
2
2 r
(8.20)
Expressing the strains in terms of stresses using the planestrain constitutive law,
(8.21) becomes
U.u/R D
1
2
.1 /b
E
2
2
2
C 22
.1 C / 11
211 22 C 212
rdrd:
(8.21)
(8.22)
.1 C /.5 8/ 2
KIc :
8RE
(8.23)
(8.24)
Equation (8.24) holds for a specific integration radius Rmat , which is given after
trivial algebraic manipulation:
Rmat D
.1 C /.5 8/
4
KIc
c
2
:
(8.25)
This integration radius Rmat must of course be larger than the plastic radius and the
Vnotch tip radius , and smaller than the Kdominance zone. In any case, given the
value of SEDR1 , one can easily determine the value of SED for a domain having
a different radius R2 by the following simple equation derived from (8.17)
SEDR2 D SEDR1
R1
R2
221
:
(8.26)
196
Finally, substituting (8.25) into (8.17), and in view of (8.19) we may state the
SED failure law:
2 X 2 .1 C /.5 8/ 2k 2 KIc 4k 4
Ak
!
4
c
k
1 C!
1
.k/ .k/
.k/
.k/
.k/
s1 sin C s2 cos
i
2
.k/ .k/
CS22 s2 sin d c :
2E
(8.27)
197
55
13.3
27.5
15
40
55
13.3
27.5
15
2
=0.03, 0.06, 0.1
90
40
Fig. 8.3 Specimen geometry and loading configuration (FPB type) for the Alumina7%Zirconia
case.
Fig. 8.4 Alumina7%Zirconia specimens with various radii and notch angles; (a) 0.06mm, 330
(b) 0.1 mm, 300 (c) 0.1 mm, 270 (d) 0.1 mm, 240 .
The specimens were subject to a quasistatic loading (crosshead velocity was 0.5
mm/min) using a computerized MTS servohydraulic machine, with sensitive load
cell of 10 kiloNewton full scale. Vnotch opening displacement was measured by
a crack opening displacement (COD) gauge (full scale of 0.25 mm), which was
mounted at the Vnotch intersection with the free edge. At microscopic scales,
acoustic emission (AE) techniques were used to monitor events during loading from
198
Table 8.5 Measured E,
density and for selected
specimens
Specimen
30FPB0.11
30FPB0.12
30FPB0.13
30TPB0.14
30FPB0.034
30FPB0.035
30FPB0.036
60FPB0.11
60FPB0.12
60FPB0.13
60FPB0.14
60FPB0.032
60FPB0.033
90FPB0.15
90FPB0.16
90FPB0.17
90FPB0.033
90FPB0.034
90FPB0.035
90FPB0.036
E [GPa]
356.52
356.89
355.30
357.90
360.24
359.85
357.31
354.00
367.31
369.53
355.20
357.71
356.50
355.50
358.70
356.06
354.50
355.40
338.50
349.70
density [g/cm3 ]
3.963
3.965
3.962
3.970
3.975
3.975
3.976
3.963
3.965
3.962
3.970
3.964
3.968
3.956
3.958
3.951
3.959
3.959
3.898
3.940
0.235
0.236
0.233
0.235
0.239
0.236
0.233
0.235
0.238
0.238
0.235
0.238
0.234
0.235
0.235
0.235
0.239
0.239
0.235
0.238
Average
356.63
3.960
0.236
160
FPB
FPB
160
Load (kg)
120
Load (kg)
200
80
40
120
80
40
0
0
Displacement (mm)
200
FPB
0.004
0.006
240
80
FPB
200
60
Load (kg)
Load (kg)
160
0.002
Displacement (mm)
120
80
160
120
40
80
Amplitude (dB)
199
20
40
40
0
0
0
0.002
0.004
Displacement (mm)
0.006
0
0
12
16
Time (sec)
Fig. 8.6 Load displacement curves for linearelastic behavior (a) and nonlinear response (bc).
(d) shows load and acoustic emission amplitude vs. time for the (c) case.
200
Fig. 8.7 The 0.1 mm notch tip radius profile for different notch angles; (a) 330 , (b) 300 ,
(c) 270 , (d) 240 .
Fig. 8.8 Crack initiation at the edge (a), or at the notch root (b).
For the remaining specimens (good results), the values of the notch tip radius ,
the fracture load P , and Young modulus E are listed in Table 8.6. The last four
columns in the table are computed values addressed in the next section. Specimens
denoted by TPB were loaded in threepointbending mode, at the middle of the
span.
0.031
0.040
0.041
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.100
15.4.02  11
15.4.02  12
15.4.02  15
15.4.02  18
A0600112
A0600113
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.100
0.100
! D 300 , 1 D 0:512221
AO3000316
30TPB0.033
AO3000311
AO3000613
30TPB0.14
30TPB0.15
AO300112
! D 330 , 1 D 0:501453
Specimen
mm
1753
1701
1603
1680
1785
1903
1815
1436
1628
1628
1439
1413
1844
P N
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
356.7
350
350
E
GPa
155625
148996
128253
137102
168763
196644
173547
164253
137811
140944
127912
103800
179506
N
m2
SED[0.062 mm]
1.859
1.859
1.859
1.859
1.859
1.859
1.643
1.643
1.643
1.643
1.627
1.643
1.643
Computed by (8.8)
.1/
A1 S22 .0 /
1.870
1.870
1.870
1.870
1.870
1.870
1.662
1.662
1.662
1.662
1.662
1.662
1.662
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.5)
MPa m11
.1/
.1/
(continued)
2.010
1.967
1.826
1.888
2.095
2.262
1.942
1.863
1.732
1.751
1.690
1.509
1.976
Table 8.6 Summary of the experiments for the good Alumina7%Zirconia specimens, and GSIFs at failure (kc ).
0.035
0.050
0.060
0.060
0.067
0.100
0.100
0.100
90FPB0.035
90TPB0.037
90TPB0.061
90TPB0.062
90TPB0.063
90FPB0.15
90FPB0.16
90TPB0.13
120TPB0.035
120TPB0.061
120TPB0.062
120TPB0.063
120FPB0.13
120FPB0.15
120TPB0.16
0.062
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.100
0.100
! D 240 , 1 D 0:6157311
mm
Specimen
1962
1927
1805
1958
2928
2892
2053
1853
1292
1523
1642
1461
2167
2244
1724
P N
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
338.5
350
350
350
350
356.7
356.7
350
E
GPa
171724
175779
157698
178687
255128
265188
236806
164962
132235
158707
184986
145375
183066
198267
197814
N
m2
SED[0.062 mm]
6.087
6.087
6.087
6.087
6.087
6.087
6.087
2.774
2.732
2.732
2.732
2.732
2.708
2.708
2.732
Computed by (8.8)
.1/
A1 S22 .0 /
5.688
5.688
5.688
5.688
5.688
5.688
5.688
2.655
2.655
2.655
2.655
2.655
2.655
2.655
2.655
.1/
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.5)
MPa m11
6.329
6.403
6.065
6.456
7.705
7.853
7.435
2.844
2.596
2.842
3.071
2.722
3.077
3.201
3.176
.1/
202
8 Failure Criteria for Brittle Elastic Materials
203
Table 8.7 Summary of the experimental results for PMMA. Results for ! D 315 are
from [206], whereas all others are from [59].
.1/
SED[0.0158 mm]
P
N
m2
N
! D 315 , 1 D 0:5050
376
379
5286756
5382800
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.8)
.1/
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.5)
.1/
MPa m11
0.427
0.427
0.432
0.432
0.586
0.591
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.469
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.471
0.563
0.578
0.578
0.576
0.600
0.624
0.591
0.579
0.502
0.534
0.534
0.521
0.586
0.560
0.547
0.571
! D 300 , 1 D 0:5122
597
613
613
611
457
475
450
441
296
316
316
308
268
256
250
261
5390215
5683008
5683008
5645982
6164536
6659708
5977146
5740440
4311136
4913610
4913610
4667772
5919545
5401490
5151263
5614547
0.1 to 0.4) and Vnotch tip radius less than 0.0254 mm. The material properties
of the PMMA reported in [59] are E D 2:3 GPa and D 0:36, with the failure
stress being c D 124 MPa. The failure load values are summarized in Tables 8.7
and 8.8 in the first column. These loads are for different Vnotch depths, but
using the load at failure and specific geometric dimensions, the GSIF at failure
is computed and reported in the last column of the tables. No results for the
angle ! D 315 are reported in [59]. We also tested similar PMMA specimens
with a= h D 0:235 and Vnotch tip radius 0:03 mm, which were loaded up to
fracture in threepoint bending. The results are reported in the first two rows of
Table 8.7.
204
Table 8.8 Summary of the experimental results for PMMA from Dunn et. al [59]
(continued).
.1/
SED[0.0158 mm]
P
N
m2
N
! D 270 , 1 D 0:5445
691
691
680
495
490
488
397
406
410
310
319
319
6369229
6369229
6168060
6072337
5950282
5901807
6355569
6646931
6778549
6431300
6810633
6810633
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.8)
.1/
A1 S22 .0 /
Computed by (8.5)
.1/
MPa m11
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.713
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.877
0.877
0.863
0.853
0.845
0.841
0.873
0.893
0.901
0.878
0.904
0.904
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.717
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
1.604
2.011
2.036
2.036
2.022
1.951
1.975
1.933
2.008
1.764
1.964
1.964
1.956
1.564
1.656
1.651
1.681
! D 240 , 1 D 0:6157
875
886
886
880
652
660
646
671
468
521
521
519
321
340
339
345
6326762
6486834
6486834
6400874
5971698
6119142
5862296
6324814
4881352
6049561
6049561
6003203
3830550
4297431
4272189
4424756
A geometric progression of the elements with a factor of 0.17 toward the singular
point ensures optimal convergence rates. The polynomial degree was increased over
each element from 1 to 8, and the numerical error measured in energy norm is
monitored. As a postsolution operation, the eigenpairs (` ; u.`/ ./) and the GSIFs
A` s were extracted.
205
Y
Z X
Y
Z X
206
Kc (rho=0.06)
Kc (rho=0.1)
Kc(Leguillon)
Kc [MPa*m^(1 )]
Kc(Novoshilov)
5
4
3
2
1
360
330
300
270
210
240
Fig. 8.10 Predicted GSIFs (kc ) at failure using Novoshilovs and Leguilons criteria, and GSIFs
in tested Alumina7%Zirconia specimens.
3.3
3.2
Kc
Kc [MPa*m^(1)]
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
Fig. 8.11 GSIFs as a function of for the ! D 3=2 at failure for Alumina7%Zirconia.
accuracy. SEDcr [0.062 mm] as a function of the Vnotch opening angle ! is shown
in Figure 8.12.
Because the SED is proportional to the square of A1 , the sensitivity of the
results to changes in this parameter is more pronounced. Computing SED[0.062
mm]crack =SED[0.062 mm]straight 1.201E5 [N/m2 ], it is clear that values of
SED[0.062 mm]cr obtained for all angles are within the anticipated range. Of
207
SED [N/m^2]
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
360
330
300
270
240
210
course, the Vnotch radius causes a higher SEDcr than the calculated SED (assuming
D 0). SED[Rcr at any R can be easily computed from the data presented
herein by
21 2
R
SED0:062 mmcr :
SEDRcr D
0:062 mm
The influence of on the critical SED was also examined and depicted for the
case ! D 3=2 in Figure 8.13. Because the values of are close to these of Rmat ,
its influence is pronounced.
208
2.5E+05
SED [N/m^2]
2.0E+05
1.5E+05
1.0E+05
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
Fig. 8.13 SEDcr [0.062 mm] for the ! D 3=2 Alumina7%Zirconia specimens as a function of .
PMMA
Kc(Dunn) a/h=0.1
Kc(Dunn) a/h=0.2
Kc(Dunn) a/h=0.3
Kc(Dunn) a/h=0.4
Kc(Yosibash) a/h=0.235
Kc(Leguillon)
Kc(Novoshilov)
Kc [MPa*m^(1a)]
0
360
330
300
270
240
210
Fig. 8.14 Predicted GSIFs at failure using Novoshilovs and Leguilons criteria, and GSIFs in
PMMA specimens.
209
7.0E+06
Dunn a/h=0.3
Dunn a/h=0.4
SED (N/m^2)
Yosibash a/h=0.235
6.0E+06
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
360
330
300
270
240
210
SED in the vicinity of the singular points was also computed and is summarized
in the second column of Tables 8.7 and 8.8. For the PMMA, the integration radius
computed by (8.25) and used in our computations is Rmat D 0:0158 mm. The
plastic radius for the PMMA is approximately rp D 0:0215 mm which is the same
order of magnitude as Rmat D 0:0158 mm. SEDcr [0.0158 mm] as a function of
the Vnotch opening angle ! is shown in Figure 8.15. The values of SED[0.0158
mm]crack = SED[0.0158 mm]straight 3.34E6 [N/m2 ], which is a lower bound to the
SED obtained in the experiments (again probably due to the VNotch radius).
In summary, the validity of four failure criteria for predicting failure initiation
at Vnotch sharp tips was examined and compared with experimental observations.
All assume a mathematical sharp tip, namely a small blunt tip, and thus a higher kc
is obtained in the experiments compared to the predicted values. Nevertheless, both
the NovoshilovSeweryn and Leguillon criteria seem to predict well the observed
failures, but as the opening angle increases, their validity deteriorates. This may be
attributed to the inexact measurement of c and the blunt tip radius. Leguillons
criterion outperforms the NovoshilovSeweryn criterion, and it has been refined to
include dependency so to match better the experimental observations  see [110].
Table 8.9 summarizes the assumed crack length increment `0 of Leguillon criterion,
the path over which the stress is averaged d0 in case of the NovoshilovSeweryn for
the two elastic brittle materials considered, and Rmat used in the SED computations.
The values show that indeed `0 , d0 , and Rmat are small and of comparable orders of
magnitude.
The SED criterion is more similar to the Dunn criteria in terms of the needed
values of the critical SED for a large range of !s. However, it is not unitdependent,
210
Table 8.9 Values of `0 , d0 and Rmat for PMMA and Al2 O3 7%ZrO2 .
`0 from (8.7) [mm]
d0 from (8.4) [mm]
PMMA
Al2 O3 7%ZrO2
!
PMMA
Al2 O3 7%ZrO2
330
0.0105
0.031
0.0431
0.127
0.0106
0.031
0.0431
0.127
315
300
0.0108
0.032
0.0431
0.127
0.121
0.036
0.0431
0.127
270
0.146
0.043
0.0431
0.127
240
and does not require the knowledge of KIc or c for the material of interest.
A practical application of the SED criterion for predicting failure initiation in
electronic devices under thermoelastic loading [205] is provided in the next chapter.
Using it, one can compute Rmat and obtain a SED that is independent of the
reentrant opening angle. We have seen that the predicted SEDcr is a lower estimate
of the experimental observations, and the scatter in SEDcr is wider.
The failure criteria were extended to mixed mode loading in [143]. The predicted
failure load and failure initiation angle by three mixed mode failure criteria for
brittle elastic Vnotched structures were computed. The validity of three failure
criteria for predicting failure initiation at sharp Vnotch tips under mixed mode
loading was examined and compared to experimental results. The experiments
included loading of specimens made of two different elastic materials (PMMA
and MACOR) under three and fourpoint bending conditions that induces a state
of mixed mode at the Vnotch tip. Mixed mode experimental results reported in
[159] for PMMA specimens with a large range of Vnotch solid angles ! and mode
mixity values were also examined. All criteria seem to predict well both the failure
load and crack initiation angle. For failure load prediction there is no definite best
criterion but the SED is easier to apply requiring only the calculation of the material
notch integration radius and the calculation of SED or the resulting A1c . The crack
initiation angle is best predicted using Leguillons criterion.
211
Fig. 8.16 Rounded Vnotched PMMA specimen  Zoom on notch tip area and coordinate system
212
2.5
12.82
3.0
15.66
3.5
18.49
4.0
21.31
intersection of the Vnotch faces. In reality Vnotches are never truly sharp but
contain a small notch tip radius. We presented in Section 8.1.2 the Leguillons
criterion for the prediction of fracture initiation at a sharp Vnotch tip. A correction
factor to the sharp notch prediction accounting for a small radius at the Vnotch tip
has been presented in [110, 144], bringing prediction results closer to the observed
experimental values. Because of this small radius at the Vnotch tip, a correction
factor
H11 .0 / can be computed (see [144]) that accounts for the change in the
energy release rate, and is a function of the ratio 0 D `0 =, where `0 is given in
(8.7). Under mode I loading, the critical GSIF can be computed [144] as
s
Ablunt
D
1c
Gc ` 0
;
2
1
H11 .0 /
(8.28)
where Gc is the critical ERR and 1 is the Vnotch mode I singularity exponent
(eigenvalue). Here
H11 .0 / depends on the local geometry (!) and boundary
conditions in a neighborhood of the rounded Vnotch tip and is computed by an
integration procedure as shown in [144]. Values of
H11 .0 / for ! D 315 are
tabulated in Table 8.10 and for other !s are provided in Figure 8.17, taken from
[144]. Figure 8.17 contains plots of
H11 ./ for different notch opening angles.
Remark 8.1 Given
H11 for E and , one may easily obtain
H11 for any Enew
and new by the following relationship
new
.!/ D
H11 .!/
H11
2
E 1 new
:
1 2 Enew
(8.29)
.1/
c
:
blunt 1 1
A1c
(8.30)
213
25
=3300
=3000
20
H11(,=0)
H11(,=0)
20
15
10
5
0
0
15
10
5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0
0
25
0.5
1.5
2.5
=2400
20
H11(,=0)
20
H11(,=0)
3.5
25
=2700
15
10
5
0
0
15
10
5
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
.1/
( in Figure 8.18 is independent of the elastic properties of the material and can
therefore be used for any pure mode I loading case, provided ! D 315 ). From
.1/
(8.30) after computing one may extract 0 from Figure 8.18 and then compute
`0 D 0 .
Once `0 is known, one can reformulate (8.28) in order to obtain
Gc D
+
KIc D
2
21
.Ablunt
1c / .
H11 .0 //
`0
s
2
21
.Ablunt
1c / .
H11 .0 //
`0
E
:
.1 2 /
(8.31)
214
=315
2.5
(1)
1.5
0.5
0
0
Using (8.31) one can compute the estimated value of the fracture toughness. In
summary, the fracture toughness determination process is conducted using the
following five steps:
(1) Obtain failure load from experiments on rounded Vnotched specimens.
(2) Generate an FEmodel of the experimental specimen with a sharp Vnotch and
extract the generalized stress intensity factor Ablunt
at failure.
1c
.1/
(3) From (8.30) compute the value of .
.1/
(4) Extract the value of 0 from graphs of versus for the relevant !.
(5) Compute the fracture toughness using (8.31).
In the following we demonstrate that the estimated values computed by (8.31) are
very close to those obtained from standard experimental procedures on precracked
specimens.
2 !
deg
30
60
90
120
215
216
notch depth
mm
1.78
3.56
5.33
7.11
! D 240
29:10 0:37
28:26 1:04
27:50 1:42
23:60 1:64
217
=3300
2.5
=3000
2.5
2
(1)
(1)
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
=2700
2.5
=2400
2.5
2
(1)
(1)
2
1.5
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
0.5
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Fig. 8.19 Rounded notch mode I stress curve for different opening angles [144].
Table 8.14 Analysis results for 4PB Alumina7%Zirconia specimens reported in [206].
p
.1/
0
KIcEstimated MPa m
p
2 ! D 0:06 D 0:1 D 0:06 D 0:1 D 0:06 D 0:1 KIc MPa m
deg
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Experimental
30
1.4489
1.5134
0.6
0.6
3.713
3.784
4:1 0:41
60
1.2879
1.5090
0.71
0.51
4.002
4.032
4:1 0:41
90
1.8097
1.7118
0.32
0.38
3.303
3.040
4:1 0:41
120
1.3674
1.2442
0.5
0.61
3.877
4.098
4:1 0:41
method [188]. As can be seen the estimated KIc s are well within the normal scatter
of experimental results. As expected, for reasons stated in the previous section, there
is an underestimation of KIc for ! D 270 .
218
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
Estimated value (=0.06 [mm])
Estimated value (=0.1 [mm])
Average Experimental Value
Experimental value Lower bound
Experimental value Upper bound
1
0.5
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Fig. 8.20 Experimental and estimated fracture toughness values for Alumina7%Zirconia
specimens [206]
results. A slight overestimation of the fracture toughness for some of the specimens
with ! D 270 ; 240 can be seen, but one must remember that the exact value of the
notch tip radius for that experimental batch were unknown and an overestimation of
the fracture toughness was expected.
Notch Depth
mm
1.78
3.56
5.33
7.11
! D 300
1.2267
1.1737
1.3396
1.2347
.1/
! D 270
1.1346
1.1676
1.1118
1.1034
! D 240
1.0389
1.0697
1.0993
1.2810
! D 240
1.05
1.05
1.05
0.6
p
KIcEstimated MPa m
! D 300 ! D 270
1.08
1.15
1.10
1.10
1.05
1.16
1.07
1.15
! D 240
1.18
1.14
1.12
1.27
p
KIc MPa m
Experimental
1:02 0:1
1:02 0:1
1:02 0:1
1:02 0:1
220
1.2
0.8
0.6
Estimated value (Notch depth=1.78 [mm])
Estimated value (Notch depth=3.56 [mm])
Estimated value (Notch depth=5.33 [mm])
Estimated value (Notch depth=7.11 [mm])
Average Experimetnal Value
Experimental value Lower bound
Experimental value Upper bound
0.4
0.2
0
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
Fig. 8.21 Experimental and estimated fracture toughness values for PMMA specimens [59]
Table 8.16 Analysis results for PMMA specimens [67] for ! D 270 .
p
p
.1/
Experimental
Notch depth mm
0
KIcEstimated MPa m KIc
MPa m
5
1.0938 0.94 1.77
1:7 0:1
10
1.1819 0.8
1.78
1:7 0:1
14
0.9994 1.11 1.68
1:7 0:1
20
1.1949 0.78 1.78
1:7 0:1
1.5
Estimated values
Average Experimental value
Experimental value Lower bound
Experimental value Upper bound
0.5
10
15
20
Fig. 8.22 Experimental and estimated fracture toughness values for PMMA specimens [67].
Chapter 9
221
222
Fig. 9.1 The layered structure of a typical chip. The first off white layer is the silicon substrate,
the red layers are insulators, the blue layers as well as the thin blue lines are made of metals, and
the passivation layer is green.
Fig. 9.2 Silicon wafer patterned with hundreds of square dies. The unpatterned areas are the
scribes. The three wide rectangular dies are the test chip arrays seen in the blowup.
In an attempt to predict and eventually prevent these failures the SED criterion
presented in chapter 8 is adopted. The typical feature dimension of the studied
electronic devices is 0.1 to 1 m, where the assumptions of linear elasticity still
hold; see, e.g., Brandt et al. [30]. In this case, the Vnotch tip, where failure
begins, is a singular line at which the elastic stress tensor tends to infinity. Because
failures are manifested by long planar cracks along reentrant Vnotch tip lines in the
passivation, a planestrain analysis of a crosssection represents the problem well.
223
Fig. 9.3 Cracks in the passivation layer: on the right a top view of the wafer, on the left a scanning
electron microscope image of the crosssection.
Fig. 9.4 Top view of a crack (right) and a zoomin at a crosssection (left) of typical failure
initiation sites in the passivation layer (SEM image).
224
(9.1)
on D 1 ; 1 C !: (9.2)
uH D
1
X
(
Ai r i
i D1
.i /
s1 . /
.i /
s2 . /
)
H) H
225
9
8
.i /
>
S
. /
>
11
1
=
<
X
.i /
i 1
D
Ai r
S22 . / :
>
i D1
;
: .i / >
S12 . /
(9.3)
"T h D ;
with
i; j D 1; 2:
(9.5)
The connection between the stress tensor and the elastic strain tensor is given for
an isotropic elastic material via Hookes law. For planestrain conditions, the stress
tensor is
El
D 2"El
C " :
(9.6)
R b
"El
d:
(9.7)
For a domain of constant thickness b and substituting (9.6) into (9.7), one obtains
1
b
2
U.u/R D
2
El
"
C
"El
2"El
d:
(9.8)
Using Greens theorem, the area integral is transformed into a boundary integral,
which is zero along
1 and
2 ; thus
U H R D
1
b
2
1
D b
2
Z
@R
El
C
"
2"El
n uH
dS
1 C!
1
h
i
El
H
2"El
C "kk n u
rDR
(9.9)
R d :
226
Inserting (9.3) in (9.9) and using the orthogonality property for isotropic materials
(8.15), the SED is given by
SEDR D
R
A2k
2k 2
h
.k/ .k/
.k/
.k/
.k/
S11 s1 cos C S12 s1 sin C s2 cos
1 C!
i
.k/ .k/
CS22 s2 sin d :
(9.10)
For the problems treated here, where a constant temperature change is imposed
( Dconst), the second thermal generalized stress intensity factor is zero, A2 0.
Thus, (9.10) can be written as
SEDR D A21
R21 2
R23 2
I1 C A23
I3 C O.R24 2 /;
!
!
(9.11)
where
def
Ik D
1 C!
1
.k/ .k/
.k/
i
.k/
.k/
.k/ .k/
s1 sin C s2 cos C S22 s2 sin d
is the integral of the kth eigenpair. To demonstrate that the second and further terms
in (9.11) are negligible in comparison with the first term, consider the ratio of the
second term to the first term in (9.11), called Ratio:
Ratio D
A3
A1
R2.3 1 /
I3
I1
(9.12)
For problems in which the opening angle is 3=2 ! 2, we have 1 0:5
and 3 1 to 1.5, so that 2.3 1 / is between 1 to 2. The ratio II31 is close to 1
because the eigenpairs are normalized so that the normalization factor is reflected
in the coefficients Ai . The values of A3 in all our numerical investigations are of the
3
same order of magnitude as A1 , and in most cases are smaller, so that A
A1 D O.1/.
Thus one obtains
R2 . Ratio . R1 :
(9.13)
If R 1 (we used in our computation R D 0:15 m), the terms in the series (9.10)
for which k > 1 are orders of magnitude smaller compared to the first term, thus
negligible, simplifying (9.10) to
SEDR
A21
R2.11 / !
1 C!
1
.1/ .1/
.1/
.1/
.1/
s1 sin C s2 cos
i
.1/ .1/
CS22 s2 sin d :
(9.14)
227
228
the figure) and the SiO2 dielectric shown in red. It has been observed that failures,
if they occur, begin at one of the reentrant corners above the gap in the wide metal
lines. Simulating a small portion as shown in the right part of Figure 9.5 does not
capture important details, and there is a need to simulate a larger portion, as shown
in the left part of Figure 9.5. There are several parameters that may contribute to the
failure initiation. However, the fabrication design rules allow three changes during
the fabrication process:
(a) the thickness of the passivation layer (denoted by h in Figure 9.5 right),
(b) the height of the metal lines (denoted by H in Figure 9.5 right and Figure 9.6),
(c) plasma power applied during the chemical vapor deposition of the passivation
layer.
Passivation thickness has two effects. First, the deposition PECVD process has
a relatively poor step coverage, and therefore tends to form overhangs resulting in
keyholes (e.g., [181, p. 95]) and singular points. Second, the reentrant angle tends
to zero as the passivation thickness increases until a given thickness, and the strength
of the singularity is more severe (see Figure 9.6); then, beyond h 6500 A, the
angle increases again slightly.
229
Fig. 9.7 Passivation material (Si3 N4 ) properties as a function of the plasma power.
4
GPa;
(9.15)
(9.16)
(where W stands for the plasma power in Watts). Figure 9.7 summarizes the results,
the exponential fit equations, and the table lists the material properties.
Equations (9.159.16) are used for evaluating the material properties associated
with each plasma power.
Because the material properties E and are temperaturedependent, the above
fit represents their averaged value between the deposition temperature (400C) and
room temperature.
A simplified finite element model as shown in the right side of Figure 9.5 was
used to investigate the influence of several other fabrication parameters on the
strength of the singularity. It was found that the height of the metal lines H has
a large influence, while the width seemed to have little to no influence. Therefore
230
0.35
0.36
.106 =C /
23.6
23:434 C 6:996=103 C 248:1. /2 =106
SiO2 diel.
71.7
72.9

Si3 N4 pass.
150
30

Ref.
[155]
[133]
[168]
0.16
0.17
0.25
0.22
[155]
[133]
0.55

1
1.1
[155]
[184]
H was chosen as the third parameter of investigation. The simplified finite element
model has also been used to verify that the plastic radius (the maximal length
measured from the Vnotch tip where the equivalent stress is above yielding) is
negligible compared to the passivation thickness.
Wafer #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
231
H [A]
7000
7000
7000
7000
11000
11000
11000
11000
9000
h [A]
5000
8000
5000
8000
5000
8000
5000
8000
6500
Plasma Power
[Watt]
305
305
485
485
305
305
305
305
305
Cracked?
Cracked
Cracked
Cracked
Not Cracked
Cracked
Cracked
Cracked
Not Cracked
Cracked
Past experience showed that the failure envelope resides within the following
extreme limits:
300 A.
3. Plasma power of 305 Watts p 485 Watts with the standard being 395 Watts
(E and for Si3 N4 computed by (9.15)).
A full factorial experiment was designed in the first phase (phase1) consisting
of nine wafers fabricated (3 parameters, 2 levels C 1 center point). The precise
manufacturing parameters of the nine wafers are listed in Table 9.2, and their
visualization, in a form of a test cube, is shown in Figure 9.8. The last column
of Table 9.2 indicates whether a crack was detected in the passivation layer after
fabrication.
Based on the results of phase1, at high plasma power and thick passivation ,
failure does not occur, regardless of the metal thickness.
For refining the failure envelope another fifteen wafers were fabricated in phase
2 and 3, with parameters that lie between any pair of cracked and intact wafers
from phase 1. Table 9.3 summarizes the phases 2 and 3 fabrication parameters. All
24 wafers were examined for cracks in an SEM by cross sectioning, and selected
pictures for six of the wafers are shown in Figure 9.9. In order to correlate the
experimental observations with the proposed failure criterion, one needs to compute
the SED associated with each tested wafer. This procedure is described in the
following subsection.
232
Fig. 9.8 The test cube illustrating the different fabrication parameters in the test plan. The full
balls are from phase1 experiment where the center represents the standard parameters.
Wafer #
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2224
H [A]
7000
7000
7000
11000
11000
11000
7000
7000
7000
9000
9000
9000
9000
h [A]
6500
6500
8000
5750
8000
5750
6500
8000
6500
8000
8000
6500
6500
Plasma Power
[Watt]
415
515
415
485
350
350
515
415
415
515
395
515
395
Cracked?
Not Cracked
Not Cracked
Not Cracked
Cracked
Cracked
Cracked
Not Cracked
Not Cracked
Not Cracked
Not Cracked
Crack roots
Not Cracked
Cracked
233
was constructed, as shown in the left picture of Figure 9.5. By varying these
parameters, each of the 24 tested wafers has been represented. These models consist
of two main designs:
(around 5000 A), a hill is built in the middle of the keyhole, having sharp angles
and therefore increasing the stress singularity. Continuation of the deposition and
the closing of the rooftop around h D 5750 to 6500A causes the sharp cracklike
tips to become no longer sharp. Figure 9.10 presents the finite element models used
for phase1 wafers.
Using the eigenpairs, the Ai and an integration radius of R D 0:15 m, the
SED in the vicinity of the singular points was computed for all test wafers, and is
summarized in Table 9.4. To visualize the failure envelope, all wafers are shown on
the test cube together with the SED values in Figure 9.11.
A semicylindrical failure envelope is observed, assessing the proposed criterion.
A single value of the SED distinguishes between the cracked and intact wafers: under a threshold value of SEDcr R D 0:15m 1000 J/m3 , all wafers manufactured
are intact.
234
It has been clearly shown that above the critical value of SEDcr R D 0:15 m
1000 J =m3 , all wafers manufactured were cracked, for the three tested parameters.
The proposed SED criterion correlates well with empirical observations, and may be
used as a standard tool for the mechanical design of failurefree electronic devices.
This has major advantages because it shortens time to market by using simulation
tools in place of trialanderror fabrication processes.
235
[GPa]
16.0
16.0
79.3
82.0
25.7
16.0
16.0
79.3
82.0
25.7
85.0
25.9
79.3
22.7
22.7
79.3
26.3
26.3
79.3
26.3
79.3
26.3
26.3
26.3
[1=C ]
8.40E06
8.40E06
2.37E07
2.10E07
1.25E06
8.40E06
8.40E06
2.37E07
2.10E07
2.1E06
2E07
1.9E06
2.37E07
4.94E06
4.94E06
2.4E07
1.7E06
1.7E06
2.37E07
1.68E06
2.37E07
1.68E06
1.68E06
1.68E06
SED R D 0:15 m
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
J/m3
114; 000
124; 000
1; 380
985
4; 430
108; 000
121; 000
1350
88:8
664
25:5
985
1; 260
54; 400
52; 400
25:5
985
664
13:6
612
39:2
4; 430
4; 430
4; 430
236
Fig. 9.11 Mapping of SEDs on the test cube (Units are J/m3 ). The variation of the SED appears
to reflect the mechanical status of the devices.
Chapter 10
2
r3D
D 43D D 0
i n ;
def
on D @;
(10.2)
@
D g2
@n
on N ; @
(10.3)
237
238
M
L X
N X
X
C
n Cm
@m
.ln r/` sn`m
./ C v.r; ; x3 /; (10.4)
3 An` .x3 / r
N X
M
X
n Cm C
@m
snm ./ C v.r; ; x3 /:
3 An .x3 / r
(10.5)
nD1 mD0
239
.; ; / D
P
L X
X
(10.6)
`D1 pD0
L
X
(10.7)
`D1
lD1
P
L X
X
lD1 pD0
(10.8)
240
where mks ./ are analytic in , gks ./ are analytic in , and hlp .; / are analytic in
and . The function v.; ; / belongs to H q .VE/, where q is as large as required
depending on L and K.
The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are associated pairs (eigenpairs) that depend
on the material properties, the geometry, and the boundary conditions in the vicinity
of the singular vertex/edge only.
Having obtained the eigenpairs for the 2D Laplacian, we wish to use them to
construct the full series expansion solution for the 3D Laplacian. Let r n snC ./
be an eigenpair of the 2D Laplacian (denoted by
2D ) over the x1 x2 plane
perpendicular to an edge along the x3 axis. Thus,
h
i
00
(10.10)
241
Let us then augment the 2D eigenfunction An .x3 /r n snC ./ by 4.1
@2 An .x3 /
n C1/ 3
r n C2 snC ./. Then substituting in the Laplace equation, one obtains
1
n C
2
n C2 C
sn ./
@ An .x3 /r
3D An .x3 /r sn ./
4.n C 1/ 3
D
1
@4 An .x3 /r n C2 snC ./ 0:
4.n C 1/ 3
(10.11)
1
@6 An .x3 /r n C4 snC ./:
32.n C 1/.n C 2/ 3
(10.12)
The residual now vanishes now if An .x3 / is a polynomial of degree less than or
equal to five. We may proceed in a similar fashion and obtain the following function
nC .r; ; x3 / associated with the 2D eigenpair r n snC ./:
nC .r; ; x3 / D r n snC ./
1
X
2i
@2i
3 An .x3 /r Qi
i D0
.0:25/i
j D1
j.n C j /
(10.13)
(10.14)
1
X
nC .r; ; x3 /
nD1
1
X
nD1
(10.15)
242
Remark 10.1 We have shown that the 3D solution in the vicinity of a straight
edge can be obtained using the 2D eigenfunctions of and the edgefluxintensity
function, complemented by additional functions called shadow functions, which
are multiplied by derivatives of the associated edge flux intensity function.
Remark 10.2 For the Laplacian, the shadow functions coincide with the 2D
eigenfunctions multiplied by a constant. As will be shown in the sequel, for a general
scalar operator with different kij s, the shadow functions are different.
Remark 10.3 We proved in Chapter 1 (see (1.21)) that the eigenfunctions snC ./
and their duals are orthogonal in the sense that
Z
!ij
D0
snC sm
d D 0
for m n:
We have exploited this orthogonality condition when devising the dual function
method for extracting efficiently the flux intensity factors in 2D domains. However,
in 3D domains, since higherorder terms (r n C2 , r n C4 ; : : : ) in the expansion
(10.14) consist of the same functions snC ./ as other lowerorder terms, then
terms in the series expansion are no longer orthogonal. This imposes difficulties
in implementing the contour integral method for 3D domains, and remedies are
provided in the next chapter.
The asymptotic expansion of the solution in a neighborhood of an edge presented
above can be brought to the classical expansion of the 3D solution in terms
of Bessel functions, as shown in the following. Let us first recall the classical
solution of the Laplace equation, obtained by separation of variables. In cylindrical
coordinates, the Laplace equation is
1 @
r @r
@
1 @2
@2
r
C 2 2 C 2 D 0:
@r
r @
@x3
(10.16)
(10.17)
(10.18)
243
Again, the second term in (10.18) is dependent while other terms are
00
rdependent, so that the expression has to be a negative constant if an oscillatory
00
solution in is sought, i.e., D 2 . Therefore, the solution to ./ is of the
form,
./ D e i :
(10.19)
The values of are determined by satisfying boundary conditions at D 0 and
D !12 , i.e., these are exactly the eigenpairs for the 2D problem, and there is an
infinite number of distinct eigenpairs n ./ sn ./. n ./ is given by a linear
combination of sin.n / and cos.n /.
00
The case D C2 is excluded because it produces a solution that is exponential in , and thus cannot satisfy boundary conditions. Returning to equation (10.18),
r 2 R00 C rR0 C .Dr 2 n2 /R D 0;
(10.20)
(10.21)
Equation (10.21) is the modified Bessel equation, and its solution for a domain
where r D 0 is included is the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order n
(see [102, pp. 108110]):
R.r/ D In .q/ D
1
X
.q=2/2kCn
;
.k C 1/ .n C k C 1/
kD0
(10.22)
.q/ D
e t t q1 dt
(10.23)
0
00
1
X
n;mD1
(10.24)
244
0 > D D C 2 :
def
(10.25)
Equation (10.25) is the Bessel equation, and its solution for a domain where r D 0
is included is the Bessel function of the first kind of order n (see [102, p. 102]):
def
Jn .q/ D
1
X
kD0
.1/k .q=2/2kCn
:
.k C 1/ .n C k C 1/
(10.26)
00
1
X
(10.27)
nD1
(10.28)
k
Y
.q C `/;
k 2 N:
(10.29)
`D1
Having in mind that .j / D j , for any positive integer j , let us consider the
following expression:
.j C 1/ .q C j C 1/ D j .j / .q C j / .q C j /
D j.j 1/ .j 1/ .q C j /.q C j 1/ .q C j 1
D D .q C 1/
j
Y
kD1
k.q C k/;
j 2 N;
(10.30)
245
kD1 k.q
C k/
.q C 1/
:
.j C 1/ .q C j C 1/
(10.31)
.0:25/k
:
.k C 1/ .n C k C 1/
kD0
(10.32)
Assume that An .x3 / has an exponential behavior in x3 , i.e., it may be represented
as follows:
2k x3
An .x3 / D e x3 ; H) @2k
:
(10.33)
3 An .x3 / D e
nC .r; ; x3 / D r n snC ./ .n C 1/
2k
@2k
3 An .x3 /r
X
.1/k .r=2/2kCn
2 .n C 1/ x3
:
e
s
./
n
n
.k C 1/ .n C k C 1/
(10.34)
kD0
Notice the definition of the Bessel function of the first kind of order in (10.26);
nC .r; ; x3 / can be represented in terms of the Bessel function:
nC .r; ; x3 / D
2 .n C 1/ x3
e
Jn . r/snC ./:
n
(10.35)
n C1/
Because 2 .
is a constant, we can include it in the constant appearing in snC ./,
n
so that (10.15) is identical to the classical solution (10.27).
If instead An .x3 / has oscillatory behavior in x3 , i.e. it may be represented as
k 2k i x3
An .x3 / D e i x3 ; H) @2k
;
3 an .x3 / D .1/ e
(10.36)
X
.r=2/2kCn
2 .n C 1/ i x3 C
D
e
s
./
: (10.37)
n
n
.k C 1/ .n C k C 1/
kD0
Notice the definition of the modified Bessel function of the first kind of order in
(10.22); nC .r; ; x3 / can be represented in terms of the modified Bessel function:
nC .r; ; x3 / D
2 .n C 1/ i x3
e
In . r/snC ./:
n
(10.38)
246
The constant 2 .nnC1/ is included in the constant appearing in snC ./, and 1 is
included in the constant of the oscillatory function in x3 , so that (10.15) is again
identical to the classical solution (10.24).
R WD x 2 R3 j r D R; 2 .0; !/; x3 2 I :
The homogeneous general scalar elliptic PDE in (1.35) is considered, i.e.,
def
L./ D @i kij @j D 0
in ;
(10.39)
x1
r
x2
The Edge
x3
Fig. 10.4 The subdomain
in the vicinity of an edge.
247
!
3=2
3=2
2
2
2
k11
1
5
1
5
1
k22
1
4
1
4
1
k33
1
1
1
1
1
k12
0
4
0
4
0
k13
0
0
0
0
1=2
k23
0
0
0
0
0
and without loss of generality, k33 is set as k33 D 1.In this section we consider
homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on 1 and 2 , i.e.,
.r; 0; x3 / D .r; !; x3 / D 0:
(10.40)
All methods presented here carry over to homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, as detailed in Section 10.3, and may also be extended to homogeneous
mixed boundary conditions. For demonstration purposes three specific operators
are considered: the Laplace operator kij D ij , a general operator with k11 D
5; k22 D 4, k12 D 4 and k13 D k23 D 0, and a general operator having also mixed
derivatives in the x3 direction with k11 D k22 D 1, k13 D 1, and k12 D k23 D 0.
Two domains are considered, one having ! D 3=2 and the other a cracked domain,
! D 2. Combination of the two different domains and three different operators
provide five specific cases according to Table 10.1.
M1 D 2k13 @1 C 2k23 @2 ;
(10.42)
def
M2 D k33 :
(10.43)
X
j 0
@3 A.x3 /j .x1 ; x2 /:
(10.44)
248
@3 A.x3 /M0 j C
j 0
j C1
@3
A.x3 /M1 j C
j 0
j C2
@3
j 0
Equation (10.46) has to hold for any smooth function A.x3 /. Thus, the functions j
must satisfy the three equations below:
8
<M0 0 D 0;
M0 1 C M1 0 D 0;
:M
0 j C2 C M1 j C1 C M2 j D 0; j 0;
.x1 ; x2 / 2 G; (10.47)
(10.48)
(10.49)
All j , where j 1, are called the shadow eigenfunctions associated with the
primal leading function 0 . There is an infinite number of functions j associated
with positive eigenvalues i , and therefore
.i /
D r i Cj 'j i ./;
. /
j D 0; 1; : : :
(10.50)
X
j 0
. /
(10.51)
249
(10.52)
i 1 j 0
where A.i / .x3 / is the edgeflux intensity function (EFIF) associated with the i th
eigenvalue.
Solutions associated with the negative eigenvalues are called dual solutions, and
are denoted by
. For example,
.i /
0
.i /
where 0
D c0 i r i
. /
.i /
0 ./;
(10.53)
D c0 i r i Cj
. /
.i /
j ./;
(10.54)
. /
are the shadow dual eigensolutions. The constant c0 i can be arbitrarily chosen,
and is chosen to satisfy an orthonormal condition, as will be explained; see (10.65).
Theoretical details and a rigorous mathematical formulation are provided in [46].
Remark 10.4 Operators for which M1 D 0 (such as the Laplacian, for example)
. /
. /
imply that j and
j of odd rank are zero: j i D
j i D 0; j D 1; 3; 5; : : : .
M1 D 0;
M2 D 1:
(10.55)
s
k22
x
2 1
k11 k22 k12
1
x2 ;
k22
2
k12
x2 ;
2
k22 .k11 k22 k12
/
(10.56)
(10.57)
250
x2
x1
Fig. 10.5 The plane domain G before and after change of variables.
(10.58)
over a plane domain G 0 , as illustrated in Figure 10.5. The straight lines defined by
D 0 and D ! in the original domain G are transformed into the two lines
defined by D 0 and D ! in the transformed domain G 0 , where
0q
1
2
k
k
k
sin
!
11 22
12
B
C
! D arctan @
(10.59)
A:
k22 cos ! k12 sin !
Both 0 and
0 have to satisfy homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on
D 0; ! in the original domain, which become in the transformed domain
0 .; 0/ D 0 .; ! / D
0 .; 0/ D
0 .; ! / D 0:
(10.60)
(10.61)
Equation (10.60) results in (here we provide the equations for 0 , although the same
ones are obtained for
0 )
A
0
D
:
B
0
1
0
cos.! / sin.! /
(10.62)
251
For a nontrivial solution, the determinant of the matrix in (10.62) must vanish, i.e.,
has to satisfy
sin.! / D 0
i D
i
;
!
i D 1; 2; : : : ;
(10.63)
.i /
and
The generic constant is omitted, since it is added to the EFIF in the asymptotic
expansion. To obtain the solution in the original domain G, a reverse transformation
. /
. /
of variables is performed and the functions 0 i and
0 i are obtained in the
coordinates r; :
. /
. /
.i /
where
. /
'0 i ./
2i
.r; / D c0 i r i
. /
.i /
0 ./;
p
2 sin
k11 k22 k12
sin i arctan k22 cos k12 sin
and
.i /
0 ./
2i
p
2
k11 k22 k12
sin
sin i arctan k22 cos
:
k12 sin
One may observe that for the Laplace operator kij D ij . Then ! D !, and the
eigenfunctions and their duals are the well known expressions
(
. /
. /
. /
c0 i r i
.i /
0 ./
. /
c0 i r i
sin.i /;
i D
i
:
!
. /
The value of the constant c0 i is chosen such that the primal and the dual
. /
. /
eigenfunctions, 0 i and
0 i satisfy the orthonormal condition
Z
!
0
.i /
T .R/0
.i /
0
.i /
0
.i /
T .R/ 0
R d D 1;
(10.64)
252
and c0
!
1:5
1:1476
2
2
Case #
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
1
2/3
0.87139
0.5
0.5
. /
c0 1
0.31831
0.26903
0.31831
0.23533
.i /
Further details about (10.64) are given in [46]. The value of the constant c0
extracted from equation (10.64):
(Z
. /
c0 i
D
0
h
. /
T .R/ r i 0 i r i
. /
r i 0 i T .R/ r i
is
.i /
0
) 1
.i /
0
R d
(10.65)
One may observe that for the Laplace operator kij D ij , the Neumann trace
. /
operator simplifies to T D @r@ , and c0 i D i1! , which is the known coefficient of
.1 /
for cases
M0 3
.i /
D M2 1
D 0:
(10.67)
D 0;
k D 3; 5; 7; : : :
.i /
D0
(10.68)
k D 3; 5; 7; : : :
(10.69)
253
. /
The shadow function 2 i and its dual
2 i are the solution of (10.47)3 with
j D 0. It is an inhomogeneous differential equation with homogeneous Dirichlet
boundary conditions. Its explicit form in coordinates ; is,
@2
1 @
1 @2
C
C 2 2
2
@
@
@
.i /
D i sin.i /:
(10.70)
.i /H
(10.71)
1
i C2 sin.i /:
4.i C 1/
(10.72)
. /
.i /H
2 i .; 0/ D 2
. /
2 i .; ! /
.i /P
.; 0/ C 2
. /H
2 i .; ! /
. /H
.; 0/ D 2 i .; 0/ D 0;
.i /P
. /H
2
.; ! / D 2 i .; ! /
D 0:
(10.73)
. /
(10.74)
where
. /
i C2
2
n
p
o
2
k11 k22 k12
sin
sin i arctan k22 cos
:
k12 sin
.i /
Computing 2
.r; / D c0 i r i C2
. /
.i /
2 ./;
(10.75)
where
.i /
2 ./
1
4.i 1/
i2C2
o
n
p
2
k11 k22 k12
sin
:
sin i arctan k22 cos
k12 sin
254
@2
1 @
1 @2
C
C
@2
@
2 @ 2
.i /
1
i C2 sin.i /:
4.i C 1/
(10.76)
. /
The solution of 4 i is based on the particular solution alone, since the homogeneous solution vanishes under the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. The
. /
shadow function 4 i in r; polar coordinates is
4 i .r; / D r i C4 '4 i ./;
. /
. /
(10.77)
where
. /
'4 i ./ D
1
32.i C1/.i C2/
i C4
2
n
p
o
2
k11 k22 k12
sin
sin i arctan k22 cos
:
k12 sin
M1 D @1 ;
M2 D 1:
2
4
0.3
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.4
255
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0
0.2
90
180
0.3
0
270
90
Degrees
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 10.6 Eigenfunctions and dual eigenfunctions associated with 1 D 2=3 for case 1.
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
Eigen Functions
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
2
4
0.8
0.4
0.5
0
90
180
270
90
180
270
Degrees
Degrees
Fig. 10.7 Eigenfunctions and dual eigenfunctions associated with 1 D 0:87139 for case 2.
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2
4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0
0.2
0
0.5
Eigen Functions
1.2
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.2
0
90
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 10.8 Eigenfunctions and dual eigenfunctions associated with 1 D 1=2 for case 3.
360
Eigen Functions
0.3
0
2
4
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
0
2
4
0.2
Eigen Functions
256
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
90
180
270
360
0.4
0
90
Degrees
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 10.9 Eigenfunctions and dual eigenfunctions associated with 1 D 1=2 for case 4.
.i /
.i /
and 0
. /
(10.78)
(10.79)
1 i C1
r
sin.i 1/ C sin.i C 1/ ;
4
. /
1 i C2
2.i 2/
r
sin i ;
sin.i 2/ C sin.i C 2/ C
32
i C 1
1 i .r; / D
2 i .r; / D
. /
3 i .r; / D
1 i C3
3.i 5/
r
sin.i 3/ C sin.i C 3/ C
384
i C 1
n
o
sin.i C 1/ C sin.i 1/ :
. /
The dual shadow function
1 i is the solution of (10.47)2 with Dirichlet boundary
. /
. /
conditions. The shadow functions
2 i and
3 i are the solutions of (10.47)3 with
j D 0 and j D 1 respectively:
10.3 Eigenfunctions, Shadows & Duals, Cases 15, Homogeneous Neumann BCs
0
1
2
3
4
Eigen Functions
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.35
0.2
0.4
0
0
1
2
3
4
0.3
Eigen Functions
257
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
90
180
270
360
0.15
0
Degrees
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 10.10 Eigenfunctions and dual eigenfunctions associated with the first eigenvalue 1 D 1=2
for case 5.
1 .i / i C1
c0 r
sin.i 1/ C sin.i C 1/ ;
4
1 .i / i C2
2.i C 2/
. /
sin.i 2/ C sin.i C 2/ C
2 i .r; / D
c0 r
sin i ;
32
i 1
1 .i / i C3
3.i C 5/
. /
c0 r
sin.i 3/ C sin.i C 3/ C
3 i .r; / D
384
i 1
o
n
sin.i C 1/ C sin.i 1/ :
.i /
.r; / D
Figure 10.10 presents the eigenfunctions, their shadows, and their duals associated
with the first eigenvalue for case 5 (again, up to a constant compared to the explicit
functions above).
on 1 ; 2 :
(10.80)
The primal and dual eigenfunctions and their shadows are computed analytically
following the methods in Section 10.2. Here, the derivatives in the x1 and x2
directions on the boundaries 1 and 2 have to be transformed to derivatives in
terms of and on 10 and 20 in the transformed domain G 0 .
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
2
4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
1
0
0.4
Eigen Functions
258
90
180
270
0.4
0
90
Degrees
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 10.11 Case 1. (Left): Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with first eigenvalue D
(Right): Dual eigenfunctions and shadows associated with D 23 .
2
.
3
@21 C @22 C @23 D 0 in G;
@2 D 0
on 1 ;
@1 D 0
on 2 ;
(10.81)
(10.82)
The dual and shadow functions associated with the first nonzero eigenvalue D 23
are (c0 is included)
1 2
3 4
2
2
r 3 cos
;
2 .r; / D r 3 cos
;
3
4
3
9
2
10
4 .r; / D
r 3 cos
;
128
3
0 .r; / D
(10.83)
10.3 Eigenfunctions, Shadows & Duals, Cases 15, Homogeneous Neumann BCs
259
5@21 8@1 @2 C 4@22 C @23 D 0;
4.@1 @2 / D 0
on 1 ;
in G;
5@1 4@2 D 0
on 2 ;
(10.84)
(10.85)
The dual and shadow functions associated with the first nonzero eigenvalue D
0:871396 are (c0 is included)
0:435698
0 .r; / D 0:352057 r 0:871396 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2//
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
;
C1:442944 sin 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
90
180
270
1.5
Eigen Functions
260
0
2
4
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
90
Degrees
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 10.12 Case 2. (Left): Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with first eigenvalue D
0:871396. (Right): Dual eigenfunctions and shadows associated with D 0:871396.
0:564302
2 .r; / D 0:085548 r 1:128604 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2//
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
;
C1:442944 sin 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
1:564302
4 .r; / D 0:009174 r 3:128604 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2//
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
;
C1:442944 sin 0:871396 arctan
0:4 cos./
1 .r; / D
3 .r; / D
5 .r; / D 0:
(10.86)
@21 C @22 C @23 D 0 in G;
@2 D 0
on 1 ;
@2 D 0
on 2 ;
(10.87)
1
2 .r; / D ;
4
1 .r; / D 3 .r; / D 0:
(10.88)
10.3 Eigenfunctions, Shadows & Duals, Cases 15, Homogeneous Neumann BCs
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
2
4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
1
0
0.4
Eigen Functions
1
0.8
261
90
180
270
360
0.4
0
Degrees
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 10.13 Case 3. (Left): Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with first nonzero eigenvalue
D 12 . (Right): Dual eigenfunctions and shadows associated with D 12 .
1
2
are
1 5
; 2 .r; / D r 2 cos
;
2
6
2
1 9
r 2 cos
;
4 .r; / D
120
2
1
0 .r; / D r 2 cos
(10.89)
The dual and shadow functions associated with the eigenvalue D 12 are (c0 is
included)
1 1
1 3
r 2 cos
;
2 .r; / D r 2 cos
;
2
2
2
1 7
2
r cos
;
4 .r; / D
24
2
0 .r; / D
(10.90)
on 1 ;
in G;
4.@1 C @2 / D 0
on 2 ; (10.91)
262
The primal and shadow functions associated with the first nonzero eigenvalue
D 12 are
h 1
i 14
0 .r; / D 0:562341 r 2 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2//
1
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos
arctan
2
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
;
C0:618034 sin
2
0:4 cos./
5
2 .r; / D 0:011715 r 2:5 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2// 4
1
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos
arctan
2
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
;
C0:618034 sin
2
0:4 cos./
9
4 .r; / D 0:000073 r 4:5 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2// 4
1
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos
arctan
2
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
;
C0:618034 sin
2
0:4 cos./
1 .r; / D 3 .r; / D 5 .r; / D 0:
(10.92a)
The dual and shadow functions associated with the first nonzero eigenvalue D 12
are (c0 is included)
1
14
0 .r; / D 1:02398 r 2 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2//
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
cos
2
0:4 cos./
1
0:8 cos./ C sin./
C0:618034 sin
arctan
;
2
0:4 cos./
3
2 .r; / D 0:063999 r 1:5 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2// 4
1
0:8 cos./ C sin./
cos
arctan
2
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
;
C0:618034 sin
2
0:4 cos./
10.3 Eigenfunctions, Shadows & Duals, Cases 15, Homogeneous Neumann BCs
0
2
4
Eigen Functions
1
0.5
0
0.5
Eigen Functions
1.5
1
1.5
90
180
270
263
360
0
2
4
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
90
Degrees
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 10.14 Case 4. (Left): Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with first eigenvalue D
(Right): Dual eigenfunctions and shadows associated with D 12 .
1
.
2
7
4 .r; / D 0:000667 r 3:5 .9 cos.2/ C 8 sin.2// 4
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
cos
2
0:4 cos./
0:8 cos./ C sin./
1
arctan
;
C0:618034 sin
2
0:4 cos./
1 .r; / D
3 .r; / D
5 .r; / D 0:
(10.92b)
@21 C @22 @1 @3 C @23 D 0
@2 D 0
on 1 ;
@2 D 0
in G;
on 2 ;
(10.93)
0
1
2
3
4
Eigen Functions
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4
0
1
2
3
4
0.3
Eigen Functions
264
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.8
1
0
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.4
0
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 10.15 Case 5. (Left): Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with first eigenvalue D
(Right): Dual Eigenfunctions and shadows associated with D 12 .
1
.
2
1
1
1
3
5
cos
C
cos
;
cos
32
2
80
2
384
2
1
1
3
5
1
9
cos
cos
cos
4 .r; / D r 2
64
2
256
2
1120
2
1
7
C
cos
:
(10.94)
6144
2
7
3 .r; / D r 2
The dual and shadow functions associated with the first nonzero eigenvalue D 12
are (c0 is included)
0 .r; / D
2 .r; / D
3 .r; / D
4 .r; / D
1 1
1 1
3
2
2
r cos
;
1 .r; / D
r cos
;
2
4
2
1
12
5
3
2
r
cos
C
cos
;
32
2
32
2
3
1
1
3
7
5
cos
cos
C
cos
;
r2
16
2
16
2
384
2
1
3
3
5
1
7
2
cos
cos
cos
r
128
2
160
2
256
2
1
9
cos
:
(10.95)
6144
2
Chapter 11
@
D 0 on planes intersecting at the edge :
@n
(11.1)
We wish to L2 project the solution of the 3D Laplace equation in the vicinity of an
edge in the plane perpendicular to the edge, intersecting it at a given point x3 into
N
a subspace SN
2D S2D . This subspace S2D is spanned by the first N eigenpairs.
N
N
Therefore, each 2 S2D is a linear combination of functions in SN
2D :
N
X
(11.2)
i D1
265
266
The projection operation is aimed at finding these AQi .x3 / so that the error .x3 /
N .x3 / is orthogonal to the space SN
2D at the point x3 ; i.e., it must be orthogonal to
N
N
any .x3 / 2 S2D :
Z Z
r
. N /N x3 Dx rdrd D 0
3
8N .x3 / 2 SN
2D :
(11.3)
N
x3 Dx rdrd D
N N x3 Dx rdrd
r
8N .x3 / 2 SN
2D ;
(11.4)
where N being in SN
2D allows the representation
N .x3 / D
N
X
Bi .x3 /r i si ./:
(11.5)
i D1
Z Z
r
Z Z
Z Z
(11.6)
The eigenfunctions of the Laplace equation with homogeneous boundary conditions in the vicinity of the edge are orthogonal (see (1.21)), so that (11.6) after
integration in the radial direction from r D 0 to r D R becomes
RHS D
N
X
R2i C2
AQi .x3 /Bi .x3 /
2i C 2
i D1
Z
si2 ./d:
(11.7)
Let us now consider the lefthandside (LHS). Although is given (and may
hereinafter be replaced by FE if not known), we will use its full expansion given
by (10.15). Substituting (10.15) and (11.5) in the LHS of (11.4), one obtains
Z Z
r
r 21 C1 s12 ./drd
Cc11 @23 A1 .x3 / B1 .x3 /
Cc12 @43 A1 .x3 / B1 .x3 /
CA2 .x3 /B2 .x3 /
Z Z
r
Cc22 @43 A2 .x3 / B2 .x3 /
D
i D1
si2 ./d
Z Z
r
Z Z
r 21 C3 s12 ./drd
r 21 C5 s12 ./drd C
r 22 C1 s22 ./drd
Cc21 @23 A2 .x3 / B2 .x3 /
1 Z
X
267
2i C2
Z Z
Z Z
r 22 C3 s22 ./drd
r 22 C5 s22 ./drd C
R
Ai .x3 /Bi .x3 /
2i C 2
ci1 .i C 1/ 2
@3 Ai .x3 / Bi .x3 /
i C 2
ci 2 .i C 1/ 4
@3 Ai .x3 / Bi .x3 /
CR4
i C 3
6
6 ci 3 .i C 1/
CR
@3 Ai .x3 / Bi .x3 / C : (11.8)
i C 4
CR2
Since RHS has to be equal to the LHS for every Bi .x3 /, by substituting (11.7) and
(11.8) in (11.4) one obtains a set of equations for the coefficients AQi .x3 /:
ci1 .i C 1/ 2
ci 2 .i C 1/ 4
@3 Ai .x3 / C R4
@3 Ai .x3 / C O.R6 /:
AQi .x3 / D Ai .x3 / C R2
i C 2
i C 3
(11.9)
Examining (11.9) one may observe that the AQi .x3 / are not equal to Ai .x3 / as
desired, but include additional terms. These are associated with R2n @2n
x3 Ai .x3 /,
n D 1; 2; : : : . To eliminate these higher order terms, one needs to compute the
AQi .x3 /s at decreasing values of R < 1, followed by Richardsons extrapolation
in a manner similar to that shown in [203]. The accuracy of the method will be
demonstrated by numerical examples. It is clear that when the loading is constant or
depends linearly on x3 , then Ai .x3 / are at most linear in x3 , so that (11.9) simplifies
to AQi .x3 / D Ai .x3 /, and extracted values are independent of R. This will be
demonstrated by numerical examples in Section 11.1.2.
268
r 1 s1 ./ >
>
>
>
2
>
r
s
./
=
<
2
def
QT
Q
Q
Q
D A1 A2 AN
DA
:
>
>
>
:
>
;
:r N s ./>
N
N
9
8
r 1 s1 ./ >
>
>
>
=
< r 2 s2 ./ >
;
:
>
>
>
:
>
;
:r N s ./>
N
(11.10)
and similarly,
N D fr 1 s1 ./ r 2 s2 ./ r N sN ./g B:
(11.11)
Substituting (11.10) and (11.11) in (11.4), with replaced by FE , one obtains the
following system:
Q such that 8B.x /;
Find A
3
Z R Z !
FE fr 1 s1 ./ r 2 s2 ./ r N sN ./g B.x3 /rdrd
(11.12)
rD0 D0
9
8
r 1 s1 ./ >
>
>
>
Z R Z !
=
< r 2 s2 ./ >
T
Q
A .x3 /
D
fr 1 s1 ./ r 2 s2 ./ r N sN ./g B.x3 /rdrd:
:
>
rD0 D0
>
>
:
>
>
;
: N
r sN ./
(11.13)
where
Z
Kij D
R
rD0
D0
r i Cj si ./sj ./rdrd D
Ri Cj C2
i C j C 2
!
D0
si ./sj ./d;
(11.14)
R2i C2
2i C2
R!
2
D0 si ./d;
i D j;
i j:
(11.15)
269
Li D
rD0
D0
(11.16)
(11.17)
R2i C2
2i C 2
D0
si2 ./d
:
(11.18)
Notice that the numerical error caused by replacing with FE is reflected in Li .
However, it is smaller than the pointwise error. This is due to the integration, which
has a smoothing nature, and thus it decreases the relative error in Li compared to
the pointwise relative error of FE .
Because the quality of the finite element solution FE in the elements touching
the singular edge is known to be low, and therefore the accuracy of computed AQi s
may deteriorate, the following strategy is adopted in the practical implementation.
Instead of integrating on a sector from r D 0 to r D R, the integration in (11.14)
and (11.16) is performed over a circular ring, r D 0:9R to r D R. Thus instead of
using (11.18) for the practical computation of the AQi s, we use the following:
AQi .x3 / D
0:9R
D0
.1 0:92i C2 /R2i C2
2i C 2
D0
si2 ./d :
(11.19)
The numerical error in FE can be controlled by an adaptive finite element solution
using pextension.
A different extraction procedure, based on the energy projection method shown in
Section 11.2, eliminates the need of extracting FE in the elements at the singularity.
Q / has to be extracted with a tight control of the numerical error
The vector A.x
3
using (11.18) at various Rs of decreasing order. Then Richardsons extrapolating
method has to be applied for obtaining the exact value at R ! 0. The overall
algorithm is presented in the following on a model problem for which the exact
solution is known.
270
x1
A
E
x2
D x3
B
C
r=2
L
(11.20)
1
2.1 C 1/
1
22 C2 cos.2 /;
2.2 C 1/
(11.21)
where i D i =!. One may observe that the fluxfree boundary conditions on
ODEA and ODCB are identically satisfied by (11.21). On the face x3 D 0 of the
domain we impose the Dirichlet boundary conditions
.r; ; x3 D 0/ D a11 r 1 cos.1 / a13
1
r 1 C2 cos.1 /
2.1 C 1/
1
r 2 C2 cos.2 /:
2.2 C 1/
(11.22)
271
1
2.1 C 1/
1
r 2 C2 cos.2 /:
2.2 C 1/
(11.23)
A2 .x3 / D 1 C 0:5x3 :
272
R D 0:1
R D 0:01
AEX
i
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.499
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.500
1.250
1.500
For this case one should clearly see a strong dependence of the extracted EFIFs on
the radius of the integration area R, and that the extracted values converge to the
exact solution as R ! 0.
Since the finite element solution is used in the numerical procedure described in
Section 11.1.1, the error of approximation must be determined before computing the
EFIFs. Figure 11.3 shows the estimated relative error in energy norm as a function
of the number of degrees of freedom (DOF) for the second analysis. The DOF were
systematically increased by pextension on the fixed mesh shown in Figure 11.2.
The first two nonzero EFIFs extracted using different radii at x3 D 1 and x3 D
0:5, for the first analysis, are summarized in Table 11.1
As predicted by the mathematical analysis, the extracted EFIFs are independent
of the radius R (outer radius of integration for L2 projection).
For the second analysis, with ai 3 0, the extracted EFIFs are expected to be
Rdependent. We summarize in Table 11.2 the first two nonzero EFIFs extracted
using different radii at x3 D 1 and x3 D 0:5. It is seen that the extracted EFIFs
in this case have a strong dependence on the radius of the domain on which the
extraction is performed, and indeed as R ! 0, the extracted value approaches the
exact EFIFs. However, based on the mathematical analysis, it is possible to use
273
Table 11.2 Values of AQ1 and AQ2 for the second analysis,
A1 .x3 / D 1 C 0:5x3 C 2x32 ; A2 .x3 / D 1 C 0:5x3 C 2x32 .
R D 1 R D 0:2 R D 0:1 R D 0:01
AQ1 .x3 D 0:5/ 1.206
1.729
1.745
1.750
3.476
3.492
3.499
AQ1 .x3 D 1:0/ 2.955
1.735
1.747
1.750
AQ2 .x3 D 0:5/ 1.360
AQ2 .x3 D 1:0/ 3.109
3.483
3.494
3.499
R
1.0
def .0/
AQ1 .x3 D 0:5/ D AQ1
1.206
0.75
1.443
where
AEX
i
1.750
3.500
1.750
3.500
.1/
AQ1
.2/
AQ1
1.7477
1.7494
1.7490
0.5
1.613
R
1.0
def .0/
AQ2 .x3 D 0:5/ D AQ2
1.360
0.75
1.530
.1/
AQ2
.2/
AQ2
1.7485
1.7499
1.7496
0.5
1.652
274
Z Z
D
r
8N .x3 / 2 SN
2D :
(11.24)
Here grad should be understood as the gradient in the plane perpendicular to the
edge at the point x3 . Using Greens theorem, (11.24) becomes
Find N .x3 / 2 SN
2D such that
Z
Z Z
N
N @
Rd
N 2D N x3 Dx rdrd
3
@r rDR;x3 Dx3
r
Z Z
Z
@N
Rd
2D N x3 Dx rdrd
D
3
@r rDR;x3 Dx3
r
N
Because N .x3 / 2 SN
D 0, so that (11.25)
2D , it satisfies identically 2D
simplifies to
Find N .x3 / 2 SN
2D such that
Z
Z
N
@N
@
Rd D
Rd;
N
@r rDR;x3 Dx3
@r rDR;x3 Dx3
8N .x3 / 2 SN
2D :
(11.26)
Inserting equations (10.15), (11.2), and (11.5) into (11.26), and noting the
orthogonality of the eigenfunctions si ./, one obtains after similar steps as in
Section 11.1,
AQi .x3 / D Ai .x3 / C R2 ci1 @23 Ai .x3 / C R4 ci 2 @43 Ai .x3 / C O.R6 /:
(11.27)
This equation is very similar to (11.9) obtained by the L2 projection method, except
that the coefficients multiplying the powers of R2i are somewhat simpler. Therefore,
from the theoretical point of view, the application of the energy projection method
is expected to provide exactly the same behavior as the L2 projection method.
However, the practical use of the energy projection method may be more efficient
compared to the previous one for two main reasons:
275
The energy projection method requires integration over a 1D circular arc, as
opposed to 2D integration required for the L2 projection method.
The circular arc can be taken outside the first row of elements, where numerical
errors are much lower, a benefit that cannot always be realized using the L2
projection method.
It is important to note that for a general scalar secondorder boundary value
problem (anisotropic heat transfer equation), the conclusions of the aforementioned
analysis are similar. The mathematical analysis is more complicated because
R
si ./sj ./d 0 for i j ; thus an explicit equation for each AQi cannot be
obtained.
The numerical implementation of the energy projection method is along the lines
outlined in Section 11.1.1, so that we provide the final formulation
AQi .x3 /
R!
D0 FE .R; ; x3 /si ./d
R! 2
Ri D0 si ./d
(11.28)
276
Using the quasidual functions, one can extract a scalar product of Ai .x3 / with
Bm .x3 / on the edge. This is accomplished with the help of the antisymmetric
boundary integral J R over the surface R (13.1). We define J R.u; v/ to be,
Z
Z Z w
def
J R.u; v/ D
.T u v u T v/ dS D
.T u v u T v/jrDR R d dx3 ;
R
(11.30)
where I the edge E along the x3 axis (Figure 13.1, and T is the radial Neumann
trace operator related to the operator L:
80
1
1 0 19 T 0
cos
@1 =
< k11 k12 k13
def
@ sin A :
T D @k21 k22 k23 A @@2 A
:
;
0
k31 k32 1
@3
(11.31)
@3 Bm .x3 / D 0
for j D 0; : : : ; m 1
on @I:
(11.32)
Then if the EFIFs Ai in the expansion (10.52) are smooth enough, we have
Z
.i /
J R.; Km Bm / D Ai .x3 / Bm .x3 / dx3 C O.R1 i CmC1 / as R ! 0:
I
(11.33)
R
Theorem 11.1 allows a precise determination of I Ai .x3 / Bm .x3 / dx3 by computing (11.33) for two or three R values and using Richardsons extrapolation as
R ! 0.
Remark 11.1. For the first EFIF A1 , we obtain the highest convergence rate
O.R mC1 /. If, moreover, the j and j of odd rank are zero, we have the following
improvement of Theorem 11.1: For any even integer m, condition (11.32) implies
that the asymptotic equality (11.33) holds modulo a remainder in O.RmC2 / instead
of O.RmC1 /.
D B0 .x3 /0
.1 /
D B1 .x3 /0
.1 /
D B2 .x3 /0
K0
K1
K2
.1 /
.r; /;
.1 /
.1 /
.1 /
.r; /;
.1 /
.1 /
.r; /;
K3
.1 /
D B3 .x3 /0
C
.1 /
277
.1 /
.r; /
. /
@33 B3 .x3 /3 1 .r; /:
. /
According to Theorem
J R.; Km i
R 11.1, the difference between the integral
Bm / and the moment I Ai .x3 / Bm .x3 / dx3 should be of order RmC1 , which is the
convergence rate with respect to R.
The higher the order of the extraction function, the higher is the convergence rate
with respect to R. The following conditions should be satisfied for the extraction
polynomials B0 , B1 , B2 , and B3 according to (11.32):
B0 W
No condition required.
(11.34)
B1 W
B1 .C1/ D B1 .1/ D 0I
(11.35)
B2 W
(11.36)
B3 W
(11.37)
The exact solution being unknown in general, we use instead a finite element
approximation FE , and the integral (11.30) is performed numerically using a
Gaussian quadrature of order nG :
nG X
nG
X
!
wk w` T FE Km.i / Bm FE TKm.i / Bm
;
k ;`
2
kD1 `D1
(11.38)
where wk are the weights and
k and ` are the abscissas of the Gaussian quadrature.
. /
The Neumann trace operator, T , operates on both and Km i Bm . For T we
use the numerical approximations T FE computed by finite elements. We extract in
the postsolution phase of the FE analysis FE , @1 FE , @2 FE , and @3 FE , whereas
. /
TKm i Bm is computed analytically. These values are evaluated at the specific
Gaussian points when the integral is computed numerically.
The numerical errors associated with the numerical integration and with replacing the exact solution by the finite element solution are negligible, as shown in [134].
J R.; Km.i / Bm / D
278
(11.39)
.k/
where Jm is the Jacobi polynomial of degree k and order m, i.e., associated with
.m;m/
. We
the weight w.x3 / D .1 x32 /m , which is denoted in the literature by Pk
have the following important orthogonality property [2, pp. 773774]
Z 1
.1 x32 /m Jm.n/ .x3 /Jm.k/ .x3 / dx3 D nk hk
(11.40)
1
Thus, by virtue of Theorem 11.1, the J R integral evaluated for the quasidual
. /
.k/
functions Km i BJm with the extraction polynomials BJm , k D 0; 1; : : : ; N ,
provide approximations of the coefficients aQ k .
Of course in general, Ai .x3 / is an unknown function, and we wish to find a
projection of it into spaces of polynomials. It is expected that as we increase the
polynomial space, the approximation is better.
.k/
The EFIF Ai .x3 / has an infinite Fourier expansion in the basis Jm with a
sequence of coefficients aQ k ,
Ai .x3 / D
aQ k Jm.k/ ;
(11.43)
k0
279
.k/
J2 .x3 /
(11.44)
lD0
25 .k C 1/.k C 2/
:
.2k C 5/.k C 3/.k C 4/
(11.45)
BJ2 .x3 / D
k
X
lD0
.k C l C 4/
.x3 1/l :
l/ .2 C l/
(11.46)
2l l .k
EXi D
.i /
@3 Ai .x3 / j
.r; /:
(11.47)
j 0
EXi D
N
X
.i /
@3 Ai .x3 / j
.r; /:
(11.48)
j D0
. /
. /
280
(11.49)
(11.50)
. /
.1 /
.1 /
C .18 C 24x3 / 3
.r; /
. /
4x33 / 1 1 .r; /
.r; /
.1 /
.r; / C 244
.r; /:
By the uniqueness of solutions, the solution of the problem with the boundary
. /
conditions .BC2 / and .BC4 / coincides with EX1 for the choice (11.49) and (11.50)
of A1 , respectively. This means that our exact solution contains only one edge
singularity (and no vertex singularities).
The domains have been discretized using a pFEM mesh, with geometric
progression toward the singular edge with a factor of 0.15, having four layers of
elements. In the x3 direction, a uniform discretization using five elements has been
adopted. In Figure 11.4 we present the meshes used for opening angles of ! D 3=2
and ! D 2 (crack).
.1 /
For the benchmark problem with boundary conditions .BC4 / for which the exact
EFIF is the polynomial (11.50) of degree 4 and using the extraction polynomials
.0/
.N /
BJ2 .x3 /; : : : ; BJ2 .x3 /, where 0 N 4, we extract the EFIF for case 2 at
R D 0:05: We performed the computation with 15 integration points and p D 8 in
the finite element mesh, and present in Figure 11.5 the relative error as a percentage
between the extracted EFIF and the exact one. As may be seen for the family of
degree 4, we indeed fully recover the exact EFIF.
281
100
Polynomial Degree: 0
Polynomial Degree: 1
Polynomial Degree: 2
Polynomial Degree: 3
Polynomial Degree: 4
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
.1 /
Fig. 11.5 Relative error (%) of the extracted EFIF at R D 0:05 using K2
.k/
family BJ2 .x3 /, k N , for N D 0; 1; 2; 3; 4.
0.8
Of course, if N > 4, we should fully recover the EFIF. As one increases the order
of the hierarchical family, the results do not improve, but we obtain an oscillatory
behavior of the solution due to numerical errors (the finite element solution is not
exact), with a very small amplitude as demonstrated in Figure 11.6.
To illustrate the convergence of the extracted values as a function of R, we
present in Table 11.5 the monomial coefficients of the extracted polynomial at
R D 0:9, 0.5, 0.2, 0.05. Then we use Richardsons extrapolation, knowing that
282
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x3
.1 /
Fig. 11.6 Relative error (%) of the extracted EFIF at R D 0:05 using K2
.k/
family BJ2 .x3 /, k N , for N D 4; 7; 11; 11; 15.
.1 /
a0
a1
a2
a3
a4
Exact
5
4
9
3
1
R D 0:9
5.920806968
4.004545148
9.047407703
2.985298783
0.904830390
R D 0:5
5.089253508
4.002303539
9.008253090
2.995871625
0.983905020
R D 0:2
5.005993235
4.002751475
9.001724824
3.001625541
1.007098452
.k/
Extrapolated using
R D 0:9, 0:5
5.001699446
4.002067521
9.004130510
2.996984837
0.992230769
the error behaves as O.R4 /, cf. Remark 11.1, and the coefficients at R D 0:9, 0.5
to extrapolate to R D 0. These extrapolation results are shown in the last column of
Table 11.5. The relative error in the extrapolated EFIF using the data at R D 0:9,
0.5 is compared with that obtained at R D 0:5 and 0.05 in Figure 11.7.
By extracting the EFIF from the FE solution away from the singular edge
(where usually the numerical data are polluted), we demonstrate that a very good
approximation is obtained by Richardsons extrapolation, taking into consideration
that the error behaves as O.R4 /. Practically, the relative error in the extrapolated
EFIF is as obtained very close to the singular edge (R D 0:05), and much better
than the values obtained when extraction is performed at R D 0:5.
283
0.5
0.5
1
R = 0.5
R = 0.05
Extrapolated
1.5
2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 11.7 Relative error (%) of the extracted EFIF at R D0.5, 0.05 and extrapolating from data at
. /
.k/
R D0.9, 0.5. EFIF computed using K2 1 and the hierarchical family BJ2 .x3 /, k 4.
We investigate the performance of such hierarchical space enrichment for the case
that the exact EFIF is a general function, and furthermore, it contains high gradients
at the ends of the edge. For example, consider case 2, where the EFIF is a function
of the form
sin x3
A1 .x3 / D
;
(11.51)
.d x32 /
where d is a given number. As d approaches 1, the EFIF approaches infinity at the
vertices x3 D 1. We choose three values of d D 2; 1:5; 1:05.
Consider the following problem:
(
.1 /
. /
A1 .x3 /0 1 .r; /
.r; /
in ;
on @;
.1 /
(11.52)
.r; /.
Remark 11.2. Theorem 11.1 does not apply stricto sensu to the solution of
. /
problem (11.52). Nevertheless, it can be proved that J R.; Km i B/ yields an
approximation of the moment of A1 modulo a positive power of R.
A refined finite element model graded toward x3 D 1 was generated as shown
in Figure 11.8. It has 25 elements in the x3 direction and a total of 800 solid finite
elements.
To evaluate the accuracy of the extracted EFIFs, one has first to examine the
numerical results, FE and its derivatives, especially for solutions having large
gradients. The graphs in Figure 11.9 present the relative error in FE and @r FE as a
284
percentage, extracted from the finite element solution at p D 8 for d D 2; 1:5; 1:05.
These graphs are along the line R D 0:05, D 135 , and 1 x3 1.
The FE results have a relative error of about 3% for 0:8 x3 0:8, and
around 17% for 0:8 < jx3 j < 1 for the case d D 1:05. This, in turn, will perturb the
extraction of the EFIF by that order of magnitude when the QDFM is used, as we
show in the sequel. We will also observe that the EFIFs are computed with similar
accuracy and the extraction technique does not magnify the numerical error, but the
opposite. For d D 2, 1:5, the relative error in the function and its derivatives is
very small (less than 0.7%) in all the range. Therefore, the extraction of the EFIFs
is expected to provide excellent results.
Using K2.1 / and the hierarchical family BJ2.k/ .x3 /, we extract the EFIFs at R D
0:05 using the solution at p D 8 and 54 Gauss integration points (due to the strong
gradients of the solutions we used a higher integration scheme). We also checked
with 94 Gauss integration points that the integration error in evaluating J R is
negligible.
.k/
Figure 11.10 presents the exact EFIF and the extracted EFIF using BJ2 .x3 /,
k N , of increasing order N obtained at R D 0:05. Notice the different ordinate
scales inside the three graphs. One may easily observe the strong gradients of the
EFIF at x3 D 1, especially for the case d D 1:05.
Relative errors between the extracted EFIF and the exact value are presented in
Figure 11.11 (here again, the ordinate scales are different from each other). For all
cases of d , the EFIF is progressively better approximated away from the large
gradients ( 0:85 x3 0:85) as the order of the extraction polynomials
.n/ is increased.
At N D 19, the extracted EFIF has less than 3% relative error for the case
d D 1:05 and less than 0.5% relative error for the cases d D 1:5 and d D 2.
The large pointwise errors in a close neighborhood of the high gradients are
expected.
285
18
16
d = 1.05
d = 1.5
d=2
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
14
d = 1.05
d = 1.5
d=2
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
Fig. 11.9 Relative error in the FE solution and its derivatives (%) at p D 8 for r D 0:05, D
135 , x3 2 1; 1 for the three problems defined by d D 2, 1:5, and 1:05.
286
20
EFIF
10
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
Polynomial Degree = 19
EFIFEX
d = 1.05
10
20
30
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
2
1.5
1
EFIF
0.5
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
Polynomial Degree = 19
EFIFEX
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
d = 1.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
Polynomial Degree = 19
EFIFEX
0.2
d=2
EFIF
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
.1 /
0.2
287
100
80
d = 1.05
60
40
20
0
20
Polynomial Degree: 4
Polynomial Degree: 7
Polynomial Degree: 11
Polynomial Degree: 15
Polynomial Degree: 19
40
60
80
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
25
0.2
Polynomial Degree: 4
Polynomial Degree: 7
Polynomial Degree: 11
Polynomial Degree: 15
Polynomial Degree: 19
20
15
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
d = 1.5
10
5
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
14
0
x3
0.2
Polynomial Degree: 4
Polynomial Degree: 7
Polynomial Degree: 11
Polynomial Degree: 15
Polynomial Degree: 19
12
100*(EFIFEX EFIF)/EFIFEX (%)
0
x3
10
d=2
8
6
4
2
0
2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
.1 /
288
x2
x3
The Edge E
on ;
on 1 [ 2 ;
(11.53)
(11.54)
where
(11.55)
289
2
2.5
3
EFIF
3.5
4
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
4.5
5
5.5
6
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.5
3
EFIF
3.5
4
4.5
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
5
5.5
6
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
2.5
3
EFIF
3.5
4
4.5
Polynomial Degree = 4
Polynomial Degree = 7
Polynomial Degree = 11
Polynomial Degree = 15
5
5.5
6
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
Fig. 11.14 Top: EFIF extracted on 1 < x3 < 1. Middle: EFIF extracted on 0:9 < x3 < 0:9.
Bottom: EFIF extracted on 0:8 < x3 < 0:8. All use the hierarchical extraction polynomials of
. /
degree k D 4; 7; 11; 15, with K2 1 at R D 0:05.
290
.k/
Using the extraction polynomials BJ2 ; : : : ; BJ2 , where 4 < k < 15, we
extract the EFIF for case 1 at R D 0:05 on three intervals on the edge 1 < x3 < 1,
0:9 < x3 < 0:9, and 0:8 < x3 < 0:8. These are presented in Figure 11.14. It can
be observed that the EFIFs extracted on 1 < x3 < 1 are influenced by the vertex
singularities at x3 D 1.
Chapter 12
Although singular points in 2D domains have been extensively investigated, the
vertex singularities in 3D domains have received scant attention due to their
complexity. To the best of our knowledge, numerical methods for the investigation
of vertices of conical notches, specifically the exponents of the singularity, were first
introduced in [23]. Stephan and Whiteman [170] and Beagles and Whiteman [25]
investigated analytically several vertices for the Laplace equation in 3D, mainly
with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, and analyzed a finite element
method for the computation of eigenvalues by discretizing the LaplaceBeltrami
equation (error estimates provided but no numerical results).
Analytical methods for the computation of the singularity exponents for homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions are provided in [25] and in [26, pp. 4548] for
axisymmetric cases. In [50] the Laplace equation in the vicinity of a conical point
with Neumann boundary conditions is also discussed, with a graph describing the
behavior of the eigenvalues for different opening angles !.
In this chapter we derive explicit analytical expressions for the eigenpairs i and
si .; '/ associated with conical points and extend the modified Steklov method for
the computation of eigenpairs associated with vertex singularities of the Laplace
equation [213]. The analytical solutions for conical vertices for simplified problems
are given in Section 12.1, against which our numerical methods are compared to
demonstrate their convergence rate and accuracy. In Section 12.2 we formulate
the weak eigenproblem, i.e., the modified Steklov formulation, and cast it in a
form suitable for spectral/p finite element discretization. This method is aimed
at computing the eigenpairs in a very efficient and accurate manner, and may be
generalized to multimaterial interfaces and elasticity operators. Numerical examples
are considered in Section 12.3. We first consider two problems for which analytical
eigenpairs are provided in Section 12.1 to demonstrate the accuracy and efficiency
of the proposed numerical methods, followed by two morecomplicated example
problems for which analytical results are unavailable.
291
292
in ;
(12.1)
(12.2)
(12.3)
where @c D c is the surface of the cone insert. Following [102], the solution is
sought by separation of variables:
.; ; '/ D R./ ./F .'/:
(12.4)
F C F D 0;
2
(12.5)
(12.6)
(12.8)
293
where A is a generic constant. The restriction > 1=2 has to hold to obtain
solutions that are in H 1 ./. The solution to (12.6) has to be periodic in ' so that
F .'/ D B sin.'/ C C cos.'/;
(12.9)
d 2
d
m2
2z
C
.
C
1/
D 0;
d z2
dz
1 z2
(12.10)
.cos !=2/ D 0;
(12.11)
d .cos !=2/
D 0:
d
(12.12)
In general z may be a complex variable, and m; are parameters that may take
arbitrary real or complex values, called spherical harmonics.
The solution to (12.10) consists of a linear combination of associated Legendre
functions of degree and order m of the first and second kind, denoted by Pm .z/
and Qm .z/ respectively, i.e.,
.z/ D DPm .z/ C EQm .z/
Because Legendre functions of the second kind for m D 0 tend to 1 along the axis
of symmetry of the domain, then E 0. Furthermore, for m > 0 the leading term
of Qm .z/ is
2m=21 .m/ cos.m/.1 z/m=2 :
Then at D 0, i.e., z D 1, Qm .cos 0/ is unbounded, and thus one must choose
E D 0, which reduces the solution (12.13) to
.cos / D DPm .cos /;
(12.14)
where Pm .cos.!=2// is the associated Legendre function of the first kind. For
example, for the case m D 0, the Legendre function P can be computed using
the MehlerDirichlet formula [102, (7.4.10)]:
p Z !=2
cos C 12 t
2
P .cos !=2/ D
p
dt:
0
cos t cos.!=2/
(12.15)
294
(12.16)
which has an important implication on the solution, i.e., if a given Pm is a solution,
m
then also P1
, i.e., if a given is found to satisfy the BCs, so will 1 .
Because there is an infinite number of s that are determined by the boundary
conditions (detailed in the next subsection), each being a root of the Legendre
.m/
function Pm` , we denote them by two indices ` , so the overall solution can be
represented by
.; ; / D
XX
.m/
(12.17)
mD0 `D1
2 D 1:81322787311022;
.0/
4 D 4:48976080342872:
1 D 0:463098561780106;
3 D 3:153048711303707;
.0/
.0/
The associated Legendre functions of the first kind are shown in Figure 12.2.
.0/
For each of the i s a solution is obtained of the form
.0/
X
i
.0/
(12.19)
295
P1.81323(cos )
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.2
3
8
5
8
3
4
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.4
P4.48976(cos )
1
P3.15305(cos )
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.4
0.2
0.4
Fig. 12.2 First four eigenfunctions, Dirichlet BCs for a conical point having a solid angle 3=4.
Table 12.1 First four s for m D 0; 1; 2; 3 for Dirichlet BCs associated with ! D 6=4.
.m/
mD0
mD1
mD2
mD3
.m/
.m/
.m/
1
2
3
4
0.46309856178010
1.24507709100149
2.13656665895361
3.07712950983885
1.81322787311022
2.54898557133218
3.37380855301073
4.25338593246190
3.153048711303707
3.868541068328044
4.655359106556064
5.492126885263152
4.48976080342872
5.19403335518201
5.95715662710399
6.76456426448560
.0/
Remark 12.1 Notice that since 1 < 1, the first derivative is unbounded as
! 0.
m D 1; 2; 3; : : : . For an arbitrary m, the solution of Pm .cos 3=4/ D 0 can be
obtained. We summarize in Table 12.1 the first four s for m D 0; 1; 2; 3.
.0/
.1/
In Figure 12.3 we plot the variation of the smallest eigenvalues 1 , 1 , and
.2/
1 as a function of ! starting from a flat plate !=2 D =2 up to a reentrant line
!=2 D .
296
.1/
.1/
(0)
1
(1)
1
(2)
1
2.5
1.5
0.5
10
18
11
18
12
18
13
18
14
18
15
18
16
18
17
18
/2 in radians
1 dPm .cos /
D0
d
D3=4
dPm .cos /
sin
d cos
D3=4
D 0:
(12.20)
(12.21)
(12.22)
2 D 2:548985521168983;
.0/
4 D 5:194033355182022:
1 D 1:24507709100149;
3 D 3:86854093155942;
.0/
.0/
12.2 The Modified Steklov Weak Form and Finite Element Discretization
P2.54899(cos )
1
P1.24508(cos )
1
0.75
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.25
0.4
0.25
297
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.2
0.2
0.5
3
8
5
8
3
4
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.4
P5.19403(cos )
1
P3.86854(cos )
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
3
8
5
8
3
4
0.2
0.4
Fig. 12.4 First four eigenfunctions associated with m D 0, Neumann BCs, ! D 6=4.
Table 12.2 First four s for m D 0; 1; 2; 3 for Neumann BCs associated with
! D 6=4.
.m/
mD0
mD1
m D 2
m D 3
1
1.2450770910
0.8571676765
1.8742536963
2.9130094418
.m/
2
2.54898552117
2.00000000000
2.88678057132
3.84636536605
.m/
3
3.86854093156
3.27090467124
4.08498821549
4.96120003163
.m/
4
5.19403335518
4.57561722130
5.35319993628
6.18222599268
298
R 2
R1
R1
=/2
R2
vicinity of the vertex is of the form D s.; '/, on the surface of the sphere R1
one obtains
@
@
1
. D R1 / D . D R1 / D R1 s.; '/ D .R1 ; ; '/:
@n
@
R1
(12.23)
(12.24)
(12.25)
@
. D R1 / D .R1 ; ; '/ on R1 ;
@n
R1
@
.R2 ; ; '/
. D R2 / D
@n
R2
def
on c D @c ;
on R2 :
(12.26)
(12.27)
(12.28)
@
d;
(12.29)
.r/ .r/d D
R
@R @n
12.2 The Modified Steklov Weak Form and Finite Element Discretization
299
(12.30)
where
def
B.; / D
R2
DR1
!
2
D0
@ @
@ @
C sin
2 sin
@ @
@ @
'D0
1 @ @
C
d d d';
sin @' @'
2
"
def
!
2
D0
Z
R1
2
'D0
!
2
D0
(12.31)
2
'D0
Remark 12.2 Notice that in 2D [210], the RHS of the weak form is independent
of the radius of the circular domain, whereas in 3D there is an explicit dependency
on R1 and R2 .
Remark 12.3 For homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions, the energy space
E.R / is restricted to functions that automatically satisfy these, i.e., to Eo .R /.
Remark 12.4 The third term in the integrand in (12.31) is singular sin1 . A remedy
for this difficulty may be obtained if an asymmetric weak formulation is considered.
Remark 12.5 The weak formulation (12.30) may be generalized to cases that
involve a Vnotch or a crack front (see e.g. Figures 12.812.10). In these cases
the integral on the variable ' is to be performed from 0 to '2 (the solid angle of
the Vnotch opening; a crack is a Vnotch for which '2 D 2). We generalize the
formulation for these latter cases in the following.
(12.33)
300
where
@ @
@ @
@ @
C sin2
C
2 sin2
@ @
@ @
@' @'
DR1 D0 'D0
sin.2/ @
d d d';
(12.34)
C
2 @
" Z ! Z
'2
2
def
Q R2 .; v/ M
Q R1 .; v/ D R2
M
jR2 sin2 d d'
Q / def
B.;
D
R2
!
2
'2
D0
Z
R1
'D0
!
2
D0
'2
'D0
#
jR1 sin2 d d' :
(12.35)
For convenience of numerical application (and for future use of the pFE
method), we perform a change of variables in (12.3412.35) as follows:
D
1C
1
R1 C
R1
2
2
1C!
D
2 2
1C
'D
'2
2
R 2 R1
d
;
2
!
d D d;
4
'2
d' D d ;
2
d D
!
!
(12.36)
(12.37)
(12.38)
!'2
4.R2 R1 /
1
1
2 . / sin2 ./
@ @
d
d d
@
@
1
.R2 R1 /'2
@ @
C
sin2 ./
d
d d
!
@ @
1
"
1
@ @
.R2 R1 / !
d
d d
C
4
'2
1 @ @
C'2
Q R2 .; v/ M
Q R1 .; v/ D !'2
M
8
1
1
"
sin.2.// @
d
d d
2
@
1
(12.39)
R2 . /j D1 R1 . /j D1
#
2
sin ./ d d
(12.40)
12.2 The Modified Steklov Weak Form and Finite Element Discretization
301
(12.43)
where:
KS D KR KRi n Ki n 1 Ki nR :
For the solution of (12.43), it is important to note that KS is, in general, a full
matrix. However, since the order of the matrices is relatively small, the solution is
inexpensive.
Remark 12.6 For conical vertices the solution in R is regular and the p/spectral
FEM will converge exponentially [178], and furthermore the dual eigenpairs are
obtained, since solutions of the form 1 belong to E.R /.
Remark 12.7 Implementation of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on
one or more of the boundaries is realized by the substitution of 0 in the rows
302
and columns of the matrices K; MRi that correspond to unknown values on the
boundaries, except the diagonal term which is set equal to one in K and 0:01 in
MRi . This is numerically equivalent to restricting the space in which the functions
belong to Eo .R /, and produces artificial eigenvalues of 100.
'2 /
cos.k 1C
4
k D 0; 2; 4; 6; : : : ;
sin..k C
k D 1; 3; 5; 7; : : : :
'2 /
1/ 1C
4
(12.44)
303
Otherwise, for aperiodic solutions such as the vertices in the domains shown in
Figures 12.8 and 12.10, the polynomial basis is chosen to represent the solution in
the ' variable.
Therefore, the basis functions are defined as
i C.sC1/.j 1/C.sC1/.qC1/.k1/.
; ; /
(
Pi .
/Pj ./Qk ./ periodic solutions;
D
Pi .
/Pj ./Pk ./ aperiodic solutions;
i D 1; : : : ; p C 1;
j D 1; : : : ; q C 1;
(12.45)
k D 1; : : : ; s C 1
304
10
0.1
0.01
0.857167677
0.001
1.24507709
1.87425370
0.0001
2.00000000
0.00001
1
10
100
1,000
DOFs
Fig. 12.6 Convergence of the first four nonzero eigenvalues for the conical vertex with !=2 D
3=4 and homogeneous Neumann BCs.
100.iFE iEX /
:
iEX
To better demonstrate the accuracy and fast convergence rate of the modified
asymmetric Steklov method, we plot in Figure 12.6 the relative error as a percentage
of the first five eigenvalues as the number of DOFs is increased. A clear high rate
of convergence for the first eigenvalues is observed, yielding an accuracy of order
104 % relative error with fewer than 300 DOFs but only 200 DOFs in the condensed
eigenproblem.
D 2:91300944
D 2:88678057
D 2:54898552
2.72871 (7.05 %)
2.914 (3.4E2 %)
2.88773 (3.3E2 %)
2.54832 (2.6E2 %)
2.00018 (9.0E3 %)
1.87439 (7.0E3 %)
1.24441 (5.4E2 %)
0.857172 (1.0E3 %)
2.91401 (3.4E2 %)
2.88774 (3.3E2 %)
2.54971 (2.8E2 %)
2.00018 (9.0E3 %)
1.87438 (6.7E3 %)
1.24503 (3.8E3 %)
0.857169 (1.5E4 %)
2.91301 (2E5 %)
2.88678 (2E5 %)
2.54915 (6.4E3 %)
2.000001 (5E5 %)
1.87425 (2E4 %)
1.24503 (3.8E3 %)
0.857168 (4.0E5 %)
D 0:463098562
D 1:24507709
D 1:813227873
D 2:136566659
D 2:54551186
0.452786 (2.2E0 %)
1.24374 (1.1E1 %)
1.69437 (6.6E0 %)
2.55054 (2.0E1%)
0.483284 (4.4E0 %)
1.24489 (1.5E2 %)
2.97811 (1.7E1 %)
1
.1/
1
.0/
2
.2/
1
.1/
2
.0/
0.46808 (1.1E0 %)
1.2453 (1.8E2 %)
1.87592 (3.5E0 %)
2.13683 (1.2E2 %)
2.55029 (1.9E1 %)
0.463774 (1.5E1 %)
1.24509 (1.0E3 %)
1.8105 (1.5E1 %)
2.13683 (1.2E2 %)
2.54961 (1.6E1 %)
0.463204 (2.3E2 %)
1.24508 (2.3E4 %)
1.81333 (5.6E3%)
2.13681 (1.1E2%)
2.54954 (1.6E1 %)
Table 12.4 Conical point with !=2 D 3=4 and homogeneous Dirichlet BCs. Convergence of first five eigenvalues for R1 D 0:95 as the approximation
functional space is enriched.
p; q; s DOFs
1,2,2 18 DOFs
1,3,3 32 DOFs
1,4,4 50 DOFs
1,6,6 98 DOFs
1,8,8 162 DOFs
2.89257 (2.0E1%)
2.57948 (1.19 %)
1.87508 (4.4E2 %)
2.0664 (3.32 %)
2.00036 (1.8E2 %)
2.09971 (4.99 %)
1.25547 (8.3E1 %)
0.85728 (1.3E2 %)
D 2:00000000
1.21102 (2.73 %)
0.85812 (0.11 %)
D 1:87425369
D 1:24507709
0.83175 (2.96 %)
.0/
1
.2/
1
.1/
2
.0/
2
.2/
2
.3/
1
1 D 0:85716767
.1/
Table 12.3 Conical point with !=2 D 3=4 and homogeneous Neumann BCs. Convergence of first seven eigenvalues (except first eigenvalue which is 0) for
R1 D 0:95 as the approximation functional space is enriched.
p; q; s DOFs
1,1,1 8 DOFs
1,2,2 18 DOFs
1,4,4 50 DOFs
1,6,6 98 DOFs
1,8,8 162 DOFs
2,8,8 243 DOFs
306
10
0.1
0.01
0.463098562
0.001
1.24507709
1.81322787
0.0001
10
100
1,000
DOFs
Fig. 12.7 Convergence of the first four nonzero eigenvalues for the conical vertex with !=2 D
3=4 and homogeneous Dirichlet BCs.
Fig. 12.8 A crack front intersecting a free face. Right: The 3D domain with the crack. Left: The
artificial subdomain used for the computation of the eigenpairs.
12.4
307
D 0:5
D 1:0
D 1:5
D 2:0
0.48559691 (2.9E0 %)
1.23250596 (2.3E1 %)
2.07592021 (3.8E0 %)
0.475752 (4.8E0 %)
2.31019 (1.6E1 %)
2.03081227 (1.5E0 %)
0.49063114 (1.9E0 %)
1.00362152 (3.6E1 %)
0.49505940 (9.9E1 %)
1.00001671 (1.7E1 %)
1.49506022 (3.3E1 %)
1.99928949 (3.6E2 %)
0.49757218 (4.9E1 %)
1.00000002 (2.5E6 %)
1.50000103 (6.9E5 %)
1.99998322 (8.4E4 %)
12
Est
Est
Est
Est
Table 12.5 Vertex at the intersection of a crack front with a free face. Convergence of first five eigenvalues (except first eigenvalue which is 0) for R1 D 0:95
as the approximation functional space is enriched.
p; q; s DOFs
1,1,1 8 DOFs
2,3,3 48 DOFs
2,4,4 75 DOFs
2,6,6 147 DOFs
2,9,9 300 DOFs
308
Vertex Singularities for the 3D Laplace Equation
12.4
309
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.5
1.00000000
0.001
1.50000000
2.00000000
0.0001
0.00001
1
10
100
1,000
DOFs
Fig. 12.9 Convergence of the first five nonzero eigenvalues for the crack front with a free face.
Fig. 12.10 A Vnotch intersecting a conical reentrant corner. Right: The 3D domain. Left: The
artificial subdomain used for the computation of the eigenpairs.
Table 12.6 Vertex at the intersection of a Vnotch front with a conical reentrant
corner, homogeneous Neumann BCs, !=2 D 3=4, '2 D 6=4. Convergence
of first four eigenvalues (except first eigenvalue, which is 0) for R1 D 0:95 as
the approximation functional space is enriched.
p; q; s D 1; 2; 2
p; q; s D 1; 4; 4
p; q; s D 1; 6; 6
p; q; s D 1; 8; 8
18 DOFs
50 DOFs
98 DOFs
162 DOFs
0.600442
0.535591
0.536327
0.536642
1.068311
1.195313
1.19021
1.190185
1.503901
1.255467
1.24441
1.245032
1.741498
1.730020
1.72647
1.727616
310
12
Consider the weak form of the Laplace equation given in (12.29), being defined
over the infinite cone 0 < < 1; 0 < < !=2; 0 < ' < 2:
Z 1
@
@
.r/ .r/d D
d C
d:
D0
D!=2
D1
'
;' @
;' @
(12.46)
By choosing the special test function
.; ; '/ D F ./.;
Q '/
such that F ./ has finite support on 2 .0; 1/, the last integral in the RHS vanishes, and because homogeneous boundary conditions are prescribed on
D !=2, the first integral in the RHS also vanishes, so that (12.46) is simplified to
Z 1
.r/ .r/d D 0:
(12.47)
D0
'
The sought function in the vicinity of the vertex allows the representation
Q '/.
.; ; '/ D r .;
The gradient operator in a spherical coordinate system is
def
r D @ O C
1
1 O
O
@ C
@' ':
sin
(12.48)
(12.49)
(12.50)
Inserting (12.4912.50) into (12.47), and recalling that d D 2 sin ddd', one
obtains
Z 1
C1 F
Q 0 Q sin ddd'
(12.51)
D0
'
Z
C
F @ @
Q Q C
D0
'
1
@' @
Q ' Q
sin2
sin ddd' D 0:
Integrating the first integral in (12.51) by parts (in the coordinate) leads to
Z
1
D0
C1 F 0 d
'
D1
Q Q sin dd' D C1 F ./D0
Z
1
D0
. C 1/ F d
Q Q sin dd'
'
Q Q sin dd':
'
(12.52)
12.4
311
Q Q
. C 1/Q Q C @ @
F ./d
D0
'
1
sin2
@' @
Q ' Q
sin dd' D 0:
(12.53)
The weak formulation above has to hold for any F ./. Therefore, (12.53) reduces to
a quadratic eigenproblem over the twodimensional manifold spanned by and ':
Z
!=2
D0
2
'D0
@ @
Q Q C
sin2
Z
D . C 1/
@' @
Q ' Q
!=2
D0
2
sin d'd
Q Q sin d'd:
(12.54)
'D0
(12.55)
312
12
with
a.s; v/ D
'
b.s; v/ D
Cij k` Dj B` @ si vN k C Gj B` @' si vN k sin dd';
'
c.s; v/ D
Cij k` Bj D` si @ vN k C Bj G` si @' vN k sin dd';
'
d.s; v/ D
'
Cij k` Dj D` @ si @ vN k C Dj G` @ si @' vN k C Gj D` @' si @ vN k
CGj G` @' si @' vN k sin dd';
where Cij k` is the elasticity tensor defined for an isotropic material in (1.43), N is the
complex conjugate (eigenfunctions may be complex), and
8
9
<cos ' sin =
B D sin ' sin ;
:
;
cos
8
9
<cos ' cos =
D D sin ' cos ;
:
;
sin
8
9
< sin '= sin =
G D cos '= sin :
:
;
0
(12.56)
The quadratic weak eigenproblem can be cast in a finite element framework and
numerically solved; details are provided in Section 13.3.1.
Vertex eigenvalues for isotropic as well as anisotropic materials have been widely
studied numerically by methods similar to that presented above in several works in
addition to those already cited [7, 22, 56, 64].
Some exact vertex eigenvalues.
Computation of exact vertex eigenpairs is in most cases a tedious, if not an
impossible task. However, there are some special cases for which these can be
explicitly given. For example, the eigenvalues for a rotationally symmetric conical
vertex in an isotropic material can be computed almost analytically out of a
transcendental equation.
For Dirichlet homogeneous boundary conditions (u D 0), the exact eigenvalues
are the solutions of the equation [24]
D1
. C 1/ h 2
!
; D
P cos . C 4 3/
2
sin !2
2
!
CP P C1 3 4 .2 C 1/ cos2
2
i
!
2
C PC1
D 0;
(12.57)
. C 1/ cos
2
12.4
313
h !
i
!
; D 2. C 1/ D1
; 4.1 / sin P P0
2
2
2
! 0 2
(12.58)
C2..1 / sin 2 .P / D 0:
2
Here P P .cos !2 / are Legendre functions of the first kind, which can be
calculated using the MehlerDirichlet formula (12.15). The integrand is singular
for t D !2 , so that special techniques have to be applied for the numerical treatment.
The integrand denominator is expressed as
s
sin
tC
2
!
2
sin
t !2
2
2
t !2
!
;
t
2
(12.59)
so that
p Z !
cos C 12 t
2 2
1
!
P .cos / D
p!
r
!
dt:
2
0
t
t C !2
2
2 t
2
sin 2
!
t sin
2
(12.60)
The product of the last two terms in the denominator can be computed for
. !2 t/ 1 by expanding the sin in a Taylor series. If we now perform a change of
variables
! 2
x Dt
2
and define
p
t cos. C 1=2/t
G.x/ D r
!
;
t C !2
t
2
sin 2 2
sin 2
!
t
2
p nC1
2
!
2 2 X
P .cos / D
G.xj /;
2
j D1
(12.61)
1/
. The expression P0 in (12.58) can be computed using the
where xj D cos .2j 2n
following relationship:
sin2
!
!
!
!
! 0
P cos
D P 1 cos
cos P cos
2
2
2
2
2
(12.62)
314
Table 12.7 1 for clamped
and tractionfree boundary
conditions, in isotropic
materials.
12
!
2
D 0:51
!
2
D 23
!
2
D 56
!
2
D 0:97
0.0
0.3
0.49
Clamped BCs.
0.9793
0.6886
0.9861
0.7528
0.9988
0.9309
0.4014
0.4334
0.4846
0.1760
0.1827
0.1916
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.9411
0.8978
0.8755
0.9983
0.9973
0.9971
The above equations were solved numerically in [23], and in Table 12.7 the values
for 1 (smallest eigenvalue) are reported from Table 1 in [23].
Chapter 13
From the engineering perspective, Ai .x3 / for i < 1 are of major importance
because these are correlated to failure initiation. In many situations, i < 1 when
the opening at the edge is nonconvex. For example, i is equal to 12 in the presence
of cracks.
Z. Yosibash, Singularities in Elliptic Boundary Value Problems and Elasticity
and Their Connection with Failure Initiation, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics 37,
DOI 10.1007/9781461415084 13, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
315
316
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
317
318
x1
x2
The Edge
x3
that intersect at the edge E are denoted by 1 and 2 : For any R; 0 < R < 1;
the cylindrical surface R is defined as follows:
R WD x 2 R3 j r D R; 2 .0; !/; x3 2 I :
(13.1)
Remark 13.1. The methods presented are restricted to geometries for which the
edges are straight lines and the angle ! is fixed along x3 .
Remark 13.2. In general, the eigenpairs associated with the elasticity operator may
be complex. However, in most practical cases the eigenvalues smaller than 1 are of
interest, and these are usually real. Here we address real eigenpairs only, whereas
the general case will be addressed in Section 13.3.
As usual, u D fu1 ; u2 ; u3 gT and uQ D fur ; u ; u3 gT ; and we use either of them
when convenient.
The NavierLame (NL) equations that describe the elastic isotropic problem in
cylindrical coordinates are
. C 2/@2r ur C . C 2/ 1r @r ur . C 2/ r12 ur C r12 @2 ur C @23 ur
. C 3/ r12 @ u C . C / 1r @r @ u C . C /@r @3 u3 D 0;
(13.2)
(13.3)
. C /@r @3 ur C . C / 1r @3 ur C . C / 1r @3 @ u C @2r u3
C 1r @r u3 C r12 @2 u3 C . C 2/@23 u3 D 0:
(13.4)
(13.5)
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
319
with
0
. C 2/ @2r C 1r @r
1
r2
C r12 @2
B
M0 D @ . C / 1r @r @ C . C 3/ r12 @
0
1
0
0
@2r
1
@
r r
1 2
@
r2
. C /@r
C
C;
A
C
0
0
. C / 1r @ A ;
. C / @r C 1r . C / 1r @
0
B
M1 D @
0
0
B
M2 D @ 0
(13.6)
(13.7)
1
C
A:
(13.8)
0 0 . C 2/
The splitting allows the consideration of a solution uQ of the form
X j
uQ D
@3 A.x3 / j .r; /:
(13.9)
j 0
@3 A.x3 /M0 j C
j 0
j C1
@3
A.x3 /M1 j C
j 0
j C2
@3
A.x3 /M2 j D 0;
j 0
(13.10)
and after rearranging,
A.x3 /M0 0 C @3 A.x3 /.M0 1 C M1 0 /
X j C2
C
@3 A.x3 /.M0 j C2 C M1 j C1 C M2 j / D 0:
(13.11)
j 0
Equation (13.11) has to hold for any smooth function A.x3 / . Thus, the functions j must satisfy the equations below, each defined on a twodimensional
domain G :
8
<M0 0 D 0;
.r; / 2 G;
M0 1 C M1 0 D 0;
:M
C M
C M D 0; j 0;
0
j C2
j C1
(13.12)
320
(13.13)
(13.14)
The terms of the sequence j (where j 2 ) are the solutions of the third
equation of (13.12). These are of the form
j D r Cj 'j ./:
(13.15)
D r i Cj 'j i ./;
. /
j D 0; 1; : : :
(13.16)
Thus, for each eigenvalue i ; the 3D solution in the vicinity of an edge is
uQ .i / D
. /
(13.17)
j 0
(13.18)
i 1 j 0
linking j
.i /
.i /
D r i
with j
0
.i /
0 ./
D c0 i r i '0
. /
.i /
./
(13.19)
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
321
and
.i /
j
D r i Cj
.i /
j ./
D c0 i r i Cj 'j
. /
.i /
./:
(13.20)
D 0;
. / j
< r D0;!
. / j D0;! D 0;
:
. 3 / j D0;! D 0:
8
1
1
r @ ur C @r u r u j D0;! D 0
C@3 u3 j D0;! D 0
: @3 u C 1 @ u3 j D0;! D 0
r
1r @
@r 1r
B
T0 D @. C 2/ 1r C @r . C 2/ 1r @
C
0 A;
1r @
1
0 0 0
C
B
T1 D @0 0 A ;
0 0
(13.21)
0
(13.22)
j C1
@3
A.x3 / T0 j C1 C T1 j j1 ;2 D 0:
(13.23)
j 0
Equation (13.23) has to hold for any smooth function A.x3 / , and therefore the
boundary conditions for the primal and shadow eigenfunctions are
(
T0 0 D 0;
(13.24)
on 1 ; 2 :
T0 j C1 D T1 j ; j 0;
322
The first equation in (13.24) expresses the boundary conditions for 0 , which
are identical to the twodimensional boundary conditions. The second equation in
(13.24) contains the boundary conditions for each j , for j 1:
(13.25)
j 0
Equation (13.25) has to hold for any smooth function A.x3 / , and therefore the
clamped boundary conditions for the eigenfunctions are
j .r; / D 0
on 1 ; 2 :
(13.26)
Explicit expressions for the primal and dual eigenfunctions and their shadows for
a tractionfree crack and a clamped 3=2 Vnotch are presented in the following
sections.
. /
. /
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
. /
323
. /
The shadow function 2 i and the dual shadow function 2 i are the solution
of the third equation in (13.12), with the second equation of (13.24) as the boundary
conditions.
. /
The primal solution 0 1 in the case of a crack is known as a mode I solution.
The eigenvalue in this case is 1 D 1=2 , and the primal and shadow functions
for D 0:5769 and D 0:3846 , for example (corresponding to the engineering
material properties E D 1 and D 0:3 ), are
0
1
2:6 sin. 21 / C sin. 32 /
1 B
C
. /
0 1 .r; / D r 2 @4:6 cos. 21 / C cos. 32 /A ;
0
0
3 B
C
. /
1 1 .r; / D r 2 @
0
A;
1
3
2 sin. 2 / 3:06667 sin. 2 /
0
1
0:23333 sin. 12 / C 0:65644 sin. 32 /
5 B
C
. /
2 1 .r; / D r 2 @0:76667 cos. 12 / C 0:03244 cos. 32 /A ;
(13.28)
0
and the dual shadow functions are
0
1 B
C
. /
0 1 .r; / D 0:05542r 2 @cos. 12 / C 0:86667 cos. 32 /A ;
0
0
0
1 B
.1 /
2
1 .r; / D 0:05542r @
0
1
C
A;
324
0.025
(1)()
0
(1)()
0
(1)()
0
0.8
(1)()
0
(1)()
0
(1)()
0
0.02
0.6
0.015
0.4
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.01
0.2
0.2
0.005
0.005
0.4
0.01
0.6
0.015
0.8
0.02
90
180
270
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Degrees
1
0.005
(1)()
1
(1)()
1
(1)()
1
0.8
( 1)()
1
(1)()
1
(1)()
1
0.6
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.005
0.4
0.2
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.2
0.4
0.025
90
180
270
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Degrees
3
8
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
0.15
x 10
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.1
0.05
0.05
4
0.1
90
180
270
Degrees
360
8
0
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 13.2 The eigenfunctions (left) and the dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with 1 D
in the case of a cracked domain ( ! D 2 ), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
. /
1
2
1 B
C
. /
0 2 .r; / D r 2 @1:53333 sin. 12 / sin. 32 /A ;
0
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
3 B
. /
1 2 .r; / D r 2 @
325
C
A;
0
0:66667 cos. 12 /
1
0:07778 cos. 12 / 0:07956 cos. 32 /
5 B
C
. /
2 2 .r; / D r 2 @ 0:25556 sin. 12 / C 0:10775 sin. 32 / A ;
0
(13.30)
1
cos. 12 / C 4:6 cos. 23 /
1 B
C
. /
0 2 .r; / D 0:05542r 2 @ sin. 12 / 2:6 sin. 32 / A ;
0
0
1
0
1 B
C
. /
1 2 .r; / D 0:05542r 2 @
0
A;
2 cos. 32 /
1
0:27067 cos. 12 / 0:3 cos. 32 /
3 B
C
. /
2 2 .r; / D 0:05542r 2 @ 0:31067 sin. 12 / C 1:3 sin. 32 / A : (13.31)
0
0
Problem 13.2. For D 0:5769 and D 0:3846 and a state of planestrain show
that the eigenfunctions ur and u for mode II in 2D (see Table 5.3) are identical
. /
to the r and components of 0 2 .r; / in (13.30). Notice that the angle here
is measured from the crack surface, whereas in Chapter 5 it is measured from the
bisector of the crack face.
The primal and dual eigenfunctions and shadow functions associated with
2 D 1=2 are presented in Figure 13.3.
The third eigenvalue in the case of a cracked domain with traction free boundary
conditions is 3 D 1=2 , and the primal and shadow functions for D 0:5769 and
D 0:3846 are
0
1 B
. /
0 3 .r; / D r 2 @
0
0
1
C
A;
cos. 12 /
1
0:29333 cos. 12 /
3 B
C
. /
1 3 .r; / D r 2 @ 0:10667 sin. 12 / A ;
0
326
0.2
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
0.8
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
0.15
0.6
0.1
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.05
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.15
0.8
0.2
90
180
270
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Degrees
1.5
0.08
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
0.06
0.04
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.5
0.02
0.02
0.5
0.04
1
0.06
1.5
90
180
270
0.08
0
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Degrees
0.4
0.04
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
0.3
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
0.03
0.02
0.2
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.2
0.03
0.3
0.4
0.04
90
180
270
360
0.05
0
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Degrees
Fig. 13.3 The eigenfunctions (left) and the dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with 2 D
in the case of a cracked domain ( ! D 2 ), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
5 B
. /
2 3 .r; / D r 2 @
C
A;
0
0:3 cos. 12 /
1
2
0
0
cos. 12 /
1
C
A;
(13.32)
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
0:13333 cos. 12 /
327
1 B
C
. /
1 3 .r; / D 0:82760r 2 @ 0:53333 sin. 12 / A ;
0
0
1
0
3 B
C
. /
2 3 .r; / D 0:82760r 2 @
0
A:
(13.33)
1:16667 cos. 12 /
The primal and dual eigenfunctions and shadowfunctions associated with
3 D 1=2 , are presented in Figure 13.4.
Similarly to the first three 12 eigenvalues, the fourth to sixth eigenvalues are
4 D 5 D 6 D 1 , and the corresponding primal and shadow eigenfunctions are
0
B
. /
0 4 .r; / D r @
cos.2/ C
1
C
sin.2/
C
A;
B
. /
1 4 .r; / D r 2 @
0
B
. /
2 4 .r; / D r 3 B
@
C26C12
cos.2/ C
15 48.C/
2
2
.3C2/.2C3/
48.C/2
8.C/
sin.2/
C
A;
cos.2/
0
1
2
1
C
C;
A
(13.34)
0
0
1
0 1
0
0
B
C
B C
. /
. /
0 5 .r; / D r @1A ; 1 5 .r; / D r 2 @
0
A;
1
2 sin.2/
0
1
0 3C2
sin.2/
24.C/
C
.5 /
3B
2 .r; / D r @ 24.C/ cos.2/ 18 A ;
(13.35)
0
0
B
C
. /
0 6 .r; / D r @ 0 A ;
cos
0
B
. /
2 6 .r; / D r 3 B
@
38 C
3C2
cos
C
B
. /
22
1 6 .r; / D r 2 @ ./.3C2/
sin A ;
0
1
0
0
2
62 242
C
C:
A
cos
(13.36)
328
1
(3)()
0
(3)()
0
(3)()
0
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
90
180
270
(3)()
0
(3)()
0
(3)()
0
0.8
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.8
360
90
Degrees
180
270
360
Degrees
0.2
(3)()
1
(3)()
1
(3)()
1
0.3
Eigen  Functions
0.2
Eigen  Functions
(3)()
1
(3)()
1
(3)()
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.5
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
1
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
0.3
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
0.8
0.6
0.4
Eigen  Functions
Eigen  Functions
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.8
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
270
360
Degrees
Fig. 13.4 The eigenfunctions (left) and the dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with 3 D
in the case of a cracked domain ( ! D 2 ), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
1
2
The stresses in the vicinity of the crack edge can be easily obtained after the eigenfunctions and shadows are computed. Considering the first six nonzero eigenvalues,
the primal eigenfunctions and their shadows (13.28), (13.30), (13.32), (13.34),
(13.35), (13.36), and using the kinematic conditions (1.49) and Hookes law (1.43),
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
2A4 .z/ D T2 ;
def KII .z/
A2 .z/ D p ;
3
4 2
329
p
r ). To be consistent with
def KIII .z/
;
A3 .z/ D p
2
2
def
A6 .z/ D T6 :
(13.37)
To compare with the classical 2D stresses we use the angle denoted here by D
, which is measured as in Chapter 5 from the bisector of the crack. The stress
tensor in polar coordinates reads:
3
KII .z/ 1
3
KI .z/ 1
5 cos
cos
Cp
5 sin
C 3 sin
rr D p
2
2
2
2
2 r 4
2 r 4
p
C T4 .z/ 1 C cos 2 C O. r/;
3
KII .z/ 3
3
KI .z/ 1
3 cos
C cos
p
sin
C sin
D p
4
2
2
4
2
2
2 r
2 r
p
C T4 .z/ 1 cos 2 C O. r/;
zz D
p
2 KI .z/
KII .z/
p
p
C T4 .z/ C O. r/;
cos
sin
5
2
2
2 r
2 r
(13.38)
p
KIII .z/
z D p
cos
C T6 .z/ sin C O. r/;
2
2 r
rz
r
p
KIII .z/
D p
sin
T6 .z/ cos C O. r/;
2
2 r
KI .z/ 1
3
KII .z/ 1
3
D p
sin
C sin
Cp
cos
C 3 cos
2
2
2
2
2 r 4
2 r 4
p
T4 .z/ sin 2 C O. r/:
330
B
C
C sin.0:40484/ 1:98793 sin.1:59516/
B
C
B
C
0:59516 B
C
Dr
B 1:98794 cos.0:40484/ 1:98794 cos.1:59516/ C ;
B
C
@ C2:80286 sin.0:40484/ 1:40993 sin.1:59516/A
0
0
C
B
C
B
0
. /
C
1 1 .r; / D r 1:59516 B
B 1:17022 cos.0:40484/ 1:17022 cos.1:59516/ C ;
A
@
0:82998 sin.0:40484/ C 1:64996 sin.1:59516/
0
1
0:14583 cos.0:40484/ C 0:14583 cos.1:59516/
B
C
B C0:10343 sin.0:40484/ 0:20562 sin.1:59516/C
B
C
. /
C
2 1 .r; / D r 2:59516 B
B 0:31156 cos.0:40484/ C 0:31156 cos.1:59516/ C ;
B
C
@ 0:43928 sin.0:40484/ C 0:22097 sin.1:59516/A
0
(13.39)
and the dual shadow functions are
0
B
C
B
C
0:50303 sin.0:40484/ C sin.1:59516/
B
C
C
.1 /
0:59516 B
0 .r; / D 0:05898r
B0:50303 cos.0:404844/ C 0:50303 cos.1:59516/C ;
B
C
B 0:70924 sin.0:40484/ C 0:35677 sin.1:59516/ C
@
A
0
0
1
0
B
C
B
C
0
.1 /
0:40484 B
C;
1 .r; / D 0:05898r
B
C
@0:296125 cos.0:40484/ C 0:29612 cos.1:59516/A
C0:21002 sin.0:40484/ 0:41751 sin.1:59516/
13.1 The Elastic Solution for an Isotropic Material in the Vicinity of an Edge
6
3
(1 )()
0
(1 )()
0
( 1)()
0
0.4
(1)()
1
(1)()
1
(1)()
1
331
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
0.2
4
0
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
1
2
0.2
0.4
1
1
0.6
2
2
0.8
90
180
3
0
270
90
Degrees
180
270
90
Degrees
0.1
0.04
(1 )()
0
(1 )()
0
(1 )()
0
0.08
0.03
Degrees
180
270
0.01
(1)()
1
(1)
()
1
(1)()
1
(1)()
2
(1)()
2
(1 )
()
2
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.05
0.03
90
Degrees
180
270
0.04
90
Degrees
180
270
0.06
90
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 13.5 Eigenfunctions (top) and the dual eigenfunctions (bottom) associated with
), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
1 D 0:595156 for a clamped Vnotched domain ( ! D 3
2
C
B
B C0:15980 sin.0:40484/ 0:11044 sin.1:59516/ C
C
B
C
B
. /
2 1 .r; / D 0:05898r 1:40484 B 0:32312 cos.0:40484/ 0:32312 cos.1:59516/ C :
C
B
BC0:02033 sin.0:40484/ C 0:20608 sin.1:59516/C
A
@
0
(13.40)
The primal and dual eigenfunction and shadow functions associated with
1 D 0:595156 are presented in Figure 13.5.
. /
The primal and shadow functions 0 i for 2 D 0:759042 , where D 0:5769
and D 0:3846 are
0
C
B
C sin.0:24096/ 2:45835 sin.1:75904/
C
B
C
B
. /
C
0 2 .r; / D r 0:75904 B
B 2:45835 cos.0:24096/ 2:45835 cos.1:75904/ C ;
C
B
@3:85448 sin.0:24096/ C 1:56791 sin.1:75904/A
0
. /
1 2 .r; /
Dr
1:75904
0
0
B
C
B
C
0
B
C
B1:50622 cos.0:24096/ C 1:50622 cos.1:75904/C ;
@
A
0:96065 sin.0:24096/ C 2:36163 sin.1:75904/
332
B
C
B C0:10782 sin.0:24096/ C 0:03358 sin.1:75904/C
B
C
. /
C
2 2 .r; / D r 2:75904 B
B 0:27837 cos.0:24096/ C 0:27837 cos.1:75904/ C :
B
C
@ 0:39248 sin.0:24096/ C 0:65140 sin.1:75904/A
0
(13.41)
and the dual shadow functions are
0
C
B
C
B
0:40678 sin.0:24096/ C Si n.1:75904/
C
B
C
.2 /
0:75904 B
B 0:40678 cos.0:24096/ C 0:40678 cos.1:75904/ C ;
0 .r; / D 0:05520r
C
B
B C0:63779 sin.0:24096/ 0:25944 sin.1:75904/ C
A
@
0
1
0
0
C
B
C
B
0
. /
C;
1 2 .r; / D 0:05520r 0:24096 B
C
B
@ 0:24923 cos.0:24096/ 0:24923 cos.1:75904/ A
0
B
C
B C0:00016 sin.0:24096/ C 0:00034 sin.1:75904/ C
B
C
B
C
. /
2 2 .r; / D 0:05520r 1:24096 B 0:17120 cos.0:24096/ 0:17120 cos.1:75904/ C :
B
C
B 0:42767 sin.0:24096/ C 0:26843 sin.1:75904/ C
@
A
0
(13.42)
The primal and dual eigenfunction and shadow functions associated with
2 D 0:759042 are presented in Figure 13.6.
The primal and shadow functions for 3 D 0:666667 , where D 0:5769 and
D 0:3846 are
0
1
0
A;
D r 0:66667 @
0
sin.0:66667/
0
1
0:28846 sin.0:66667/
. /
A;
1 3 .r; / D r 1:66667 @
0
0
0
1
0
.3 /
A;
2 .r; / D r 2:66667 @
0
0:23654 sin.0:66667/
. /
0 3 .r; /
(13.43)
333
5
( 2)()
0
( 2)()
0
( 2)()
0
0.8
( 2)()
1
(2 )()
1
( 2)()
1
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
0.6
3
0
0.4
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.2
1
3
0.2
0.4
90
180
5
0
270
90
180
Degrees
0.6
270
90
Degrees
0.02
0.12
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
(2)()
0
0.1
Degrees
180
270
0.04
(2 )()
1
(2)()
1
(2)()
1
0.01
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
(2)()
2
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.02
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.05
90
Degrees
180
270
90
180
270
0.04
Degrees
90
Degrees
180
270
Fig. 13.6 Eigenfunctions (top) and dual eigenfunctions (bottom) associated with 2 D 0:759042
for a clamped Vnotched domain ( ! D 3
), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
2
1
0
. /
A;
0 3 .r; / D 0:82760r 0:66667 @
0
sin.0:66667/
0
1
0:46875 sin.0:66667/
.3 /
A;
1 .r; / D 0:82760r 0:33333 @
0
0
0
1
0
. /
A:
2 3 .r; / D 0:82760r 1:33333 @
0
1:45313 sin.0:66667/
(13.44)
The primal and dual eigenfunction and shadow functions associated with 3 D
0:666667 are presented in Figure 13.7.
334
(3 )()
0
(3)()
0
(3 )()
0
0.9
0
( 3)()
1
( 3)()
1
(3)()
1
0.05
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
0.8
0.05
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Eigen Functions
0.1
0.7
0.15
0.2
0.1
0.15
0.25
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
90
180
0.35
0
270
90
Degrees
0.9
180
0.25
270
90
Degrees
180
270
(3 )()
0
(3 )()
0
(3 )()
0
0.8
Degrees
(3 )()
1
(3 )()
1
(3 )()
1
0.05
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
(3)()
2
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.6
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.6
0.8
0.3
1
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.35
0.1
0.4
90
180
270
90
180
270
1.4
Degrees
Degrees
90
180
270
Degrees
Fig. 13.7 Eigenfunctions (top) and dual eigenfunctions (bottom) associated with 3 D 0:666667
), D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
for a clamped Vnotched domain ( ! D 3
2
. /
.i /
BJ D
Km
m
X
. /
@3 BJ.x3 / j i :
(13.45)
j D0
Using the quasidual functions, we have shown that we can extract a scalar product
of Ai .x3 / with BJ.x3 / on E . This is accomplished with the help of the
antisymmetric boundary integral J R , over the surface R (13.1) defined for the
elasticity system as
Z
def
J R.u; v/ D
.T jR u v u T jR v/ d
R
Z Z
D
I
(13.46)
where I E (the edge) along the x3 axis (Figure 13.1) and T jR is the radial
Neumann trace operator related to the operator L on the surface R :
0
0
10 1
. C 2/@r C 1r
1r @
@3
ur
C
B
def B
B
C@ A
C
1
1
T jR uQ D @r A D @
r @
r C @r 0 A u : (13.47)
u3
0
@r
@
3
r3
rr
335
@3 BJ.x3 / D 0
for j D 0; : : : ; m 1
on @I:
(13.48)
(13.49)
Here 1 is the smallest of the positive real eigenvalues i , i 2 N , and we assume
that any other complex eigenvalue with positive real part satisfies < 1 , as
mentioned in Remark 13.2.
R
Theorem 13.1 allows a precise determination of I Ai .x3 / BJ.x3 / dx3 by
computing (13.49) for two or three R values and using Richardsons extrapolation
as R ! 0 .
The construction of the BJ.x3 / extraction functions based on the Jacobi
polynomials is explained in Section 11.3.1, so if Ai .x3 / is a polynomial of degree
N represented by a linear combination of Jacobi polynomials as
Ai .x3 / D aQ 0 Jn.0/ C aQ 1 Jn.1/ .x3 / C C aQ N Jn.N / .x3 /;
(13.50)
then
.k/
Jm .x3 /
;
hk
(13.51)
k D 0; 1; : : : ; N:
(13.52)
so that
Z
1
. /
For the sake of simplicity, the first three dual singular functions K0 i ; K1 i ; and
. /
K2 i are considered here. Thus, according to Theorem 13.1, it is necessary that the
Jacobi extraction polynomials satisfy the conditions in (13.48) at least to m D 2:
In [134] it was observed that if the minimal condition is satisfied, one does indeed
recover the expected rate of convergence with respect to R . However, poor results
are evident at the two ends of the edge (this behavior was observed also if the edge
portion along which EFIFs was extracted was entirely within the domain and away
from the vertices, i.e., 0:6 < x3 < 0:6 ). This phenomenon is attributed to the
336
large values of the derivatives of the Jacobi polynomials at the endpoints (interested
readers are referred to [134, Appendix C]. Therefore we select the Jacobi extraction
.k/
polynomials BJ4 , which satisfy (13.48) up to m D 4 . The Jacobi extraction
.k/
polynomials BJ4 are used for the construction of the dual singular functions
. /
. /
. /
K0 i , K1 i , and K2 i . We have [2, pp. 773774]
.k C l C 8/
.k C 4/ X
.x3 1/l ;
l
.k C 8/
2 l .k l/ .4 C l/
k
.k/
J4 .x3 / D
(13.53)
lD0
29 .k C 4/.k C 4/
:
.2k C 9/.k C 8/
(13.54)
BJ4 .x3 / D
k
.2k C 9/.1 x32 /4 X
.k C l C 8/
.x3 1/l :
29 .k C 4/
2l l .k l/ .4 C l/
(13.55)
lD0
nG
nG X
X
!
.k/
.i /
i/
Q FE T Km
BJn.k/
;
wk w` T uQ FE K.
m BJn u
k ;`
2
kD1 `D1
(13.56)
337
2
X
. /
(13.57)
j 0
3
X
i D1
uQ
.i /
2
3 X
X
. /
(13.59)
i D1 j 0
The domain has been discretized using a p FEM mesh, with geometric progression
toward the singular edge with a factor of 0.15, having four layers of elements. In
the x3 direction, a uniform discretization using five elements has been adopted. In
Figure 13.8 we present the mesh used for the cracked domain.
We specify on the entire boundary @ Dirichlet boundary conditions according
to the exact solution uQ (13.59). In this way, the exact solution at any point
338
12
10
0.04
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
0.02
100*(A1 A1)/A1 (%)
11
8
7
0.02
ex
A1(x3)
ex
6
5
4
0.04
0.06
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
3
2
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.08
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13.9 A1 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 . Computations done with
.k/
2
BJ4 , k D 2; 3; 4; 5 , where Aex
1 .x3 / D 3 C 4x3 C 5x3 , ! D 2 , D 0:5769 , and
D 0:3846 .
1
.j /
. /
j D 0; 1; : : : ; n:
(13.60)
The ESIF is then easily represented by a linear combination of the Jacobi polynomials as
.0/
.1/
.2/
(13.61)
The advantage of the hierarchical family of polynomials is that one can adaptively
increase the polynomial order of the ESIF. For example, if one is interested in
projecting Ai .x3 / into the space of polynomials of degree up to n , the n C 1
coefficients aQ 0 ; : : : ; aQ n are computed using the n C 1 extraction polynomials
.0/
.n/
BJ4 .x3 /; : : : ; BJ4 .x3 / defined in (13.51).
To increase the space in which Ai .x3 / is projected, all that is needed is the
previous
computation of (13.56) for n C 1 . In this way, the new Anew
equals Ai
C
i
.nC1/
.x3 / . We illustrate the extracted polynomial representation of the ESIF,
aQ nC1 J4
A1 .x3 / , A2 .x3 / , A3 .x3 / , of order 2; 3; 4; 5 , and its relative error using the data
. /
at R D 0:05 in Figures 13.9, 13.10 and 13.11 respectively and using K2 i .
Notice that the relative error of the extracted ESIFs is lower than 0:1% . The
results show an accurate and efficient method.
339
0.04
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
0.02
7
(%)
ex
A )/A
2 2
0.02
ex
0.04
100*(A
A (x )
2 3
0.06
1
1
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.08
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x
3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13.10 A2 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 . Computations done with
.k/
2
BJ4 , k D 2; 3; 4; 5 , where Aex
2 .x3 / D 2 C 3x3 C 4x3 , ! D 2 , D 0:5769 and
D 0:3846 .
0.02
12
10
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
100*(A3exA3)/A3ex (%)
11
A3(x3)
9
8
0.01
0.01
7
6
0.02
5
4
0.03
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
3
2
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.04
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13.11 A3 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 . Computations done with
.k/
2
BJ4 , k D 2; 3; 4; 5 , where Aex
3 .x3 / D 5 C 4x3 C 2x3 , ! D 2 , D 0:5769 and
D 0:3846 .
13.2.3 Numerical
Example: A Clamped Vnotched Domain
! D 3
2
As in the previous section, we generate an exact solution to a Vnotched domain
( ! D 3
) with clamped boundary conditions on the surfaces 1 and 2 by
2
computing analytically the primal and shadow eigenfunctions 0 , 1 , 2 . Their
formulas are presented in Section 13.1.4.
We select the ESIF to be polynomials of order 2 as presented in (13.58), such
that the the exact solution (13.17) contains only three terms in the sum, (13.57).
The domain ! D 3
has been discretized using a p FEM mesh, with ge2
ometric progression toward the singular edge with a factor of 0.15, having four
layers of elements. In the x3 direction, a uniform discretization using five elements
340
0.02
100*(A1exA1)/A1ex (%)
0.03
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
0.01
A1(x3)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
2
1
1
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.05
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.06
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
.k/
Fig. 13.13 A1 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 using BJ4 , k D 2; 3; 4; 5 ,
3
2
where Aex
1 .x3 / D 3 C 4x3 C 5x3 , ! D 2 , D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
has been adopted, as presented in Figure 13.12. We specify over the entire
boundary @ displacement boundary conditions according to the exact solution
uQ (13.59). The FE solution at any point x .r; ; x3 / is therefore the exact
solution (13.59).
After computing the J R integrals, the computation of the polynomial
representation of the ESIF is simple, using a linear combination of the Jacobi
polynomials (13.61). We illustrate the extracted polynomial representation of
the ESIF, A1 .x3 / , A2 .x3 / , A3 .x3 / , and their relative errors using the data at
. /
R D 0:05 in Figures 13.13, 13.14, and 13.15 respectively, using K2 i .
The relative error of the extracted ESIF is less than 0:1% .
0.01
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
10
0.005
100*(A2exA2)/A2ex (%)
11
9
A2(x3)
341
8
7
0.005
0.01
5
4
0.015
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
3
2
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.02
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
.k/
Fig. 13.14 A2 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 using BJ4 , k D 2; 3; 4; 5 ,
3
2
where Aex
1 .x3 / D 2 C 3x3 C 4x3 , ! D 2 , D 0:5769 , and D 0:3846 .
11
0.06
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
Exact ESIF
0.04
100*(A3exA3)/A3ex (%)
10
9
A3(x3)
8
7
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
2
1
ESIF of Degree 2
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.08
3
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.1
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
.k/
Fig. 13.15 A3 .x3 / (left) and its relative error (right) at R D 0:05 using BJ4 ; k D 2; 3; 4; 5;
3
2
where Aex
3 .x3 / D 5 C 4x3 C 2x3 ; ! D 2 ; D 0:5769; and D 0:3846:
342
(
)
r
r sin.. C /=2/ C 1 C 2 cos2 .. C /=2/
KII .x3 /
u1
D
:
u2
2
2 cos.. C /=2/ 1 2 sin2 .. C /=2/
(13.63)
Comparing the displacements expressed above with those expressed in terms of the
ESIFs (for D 0:5769 and D 0:3846 , see Section 13.1.3), the relation between
A1 and KI and the relation between A2 and KII in the case of plane strain is
KI
p cos.. C /=2/ 0:8 C 2 sin2 .. C /=2/
0:7692 2
3
1
sin
;
D A1 2:6 sin
2
2
KII
p sin.. C /=2/ 2:8 C 2 cos2 .. C /=2/
0:7692 2
1
3
1
cos
;
D A2 2:2 cos
2
3
2
(13.64)
(13.65)
A2 D 0:777938KII:
(13.66)
Remark 13.3. The strain component "33 computed using the displacements in
(13.28), for the case A1 , is a constant
"33 D
@2 u3
D 0:
@x32
(13.67)
"33 D
(13.68)
343
x2
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.4
2.5
x1
0.4
Fig. 13.17 The p FEM model of the CTS with a constant loading in the x3 direction (the
loading at the upper hole is as in the shown lower hole, in the opposite direction).
344
51
A1(x3) of Degree 4
A1(x3) of Degree 5
50
A1(x3)
49
48
47
46
45
44
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x3
345
52
51
A1(x3)
50
A1(x3), R = 0.5
49
A1(x3), R = 0.3
A1(x3), R = 0.2
48
A1(x3), R = 0.05
A1(x3), Extrapolated
47
0.2593KI , R = 0.5
46
0.2593KI , R = 0.2
0.2593KI , R = 0.3
0.2593KI , R = 0.05
45
1
0.5
x3
0.5
Fig. 13.19 A1 .x3 / and KI extracted using different R s for the compact tension specimen.
52
51
A1(x3)
50
49
48
A1(x3), R = 0.5
A1(x3), R = 0.3
47
A1(x3), R = 0.2
0.2593KI , R = 0.5
46
45
1
0.2593KI , R = 0.3
0.2593KI , R = 0.2
0.5
x3
0.5
Fig. 13.20 A1 .x3 / and KI extracted using different R s for the compact tension specimen
using coarse grid with 125442 DOF.
It is easy to see that the results of the extracted ESIF using the coarse mesh
with 125,442 DOFs are similar to the results obtained using the refined mesh with
150,726 DOFs.
346
or
Q ";
Q D E
Q
(13.69)
Q ) is symmetric and E
Q depends on E and ;
where E (respectively E
0
B
B
B
B
B
E D B
B
B
B
@
C
E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 C
C
E33 E34 E35 E36 C
C
C;
E44 E45 E46 C
C
C
E55 E56 A
E66
(13.70)
347
C 8.E16 C E26 / sin.2/ C 4.E16 E26 / sin.4/ ;
1
Q
E12 D
E11 C 6E12 C E22 4E66 .E11 2E12 C E22 4E66 / cos.4/
8
C 4.E16 C E26 / sin.4/ ;
1
Q
E13 C E23 C .E13 E23 / cos.2/ C 2E36 sin.2/ ;
E13 D
2
1
EQ 14 D
.3E14 C E24 2E56 / cos./ C .E14 E24 C 2E56 / cos.3/;
4
2 E15 C E25 2E46 C .E15 E25 2E46 / cos.2/ sin./
1
Q
E15 D
.3E15 C E25 C 2E46 / cos./ C .E15 E25 2E46 / cos.3/
4
C2 E14 C E24 C 2E56 C .E14 E24 C 2E56 / cos.2/ sin./ ;
1
Q
4.E16 C E26 / cos.2/ C 4.E16 E26 / cos.4/
E16 D
8
8.E16 C E26 / sin.2/ C 4.E16 E26 / sin.4/ ;
1
Q
E13 C E23 C .E13 C E23 / cos.2/ 2E36 sin.2/ ;
E23 D
2
1
.E14 C 3E24 C 2E56 / cos./
EQ 24 D
4
C .E14 C E24 2E56 / cos.3/ .3E15 C E25 C 2E46 / sin./
C .E15 E25 2E46 / sin.3/ ;
348
1
Q
.E15 C 3E25 2E46 / cos./
E25 D
4
C .E15 C E25 C 2E46 / cos.3/ C .3E14 C E24 2E56 / sin./
C .E14 C E24 2E56 / sin.3/ ;
1
4.E16 C E26 / cos.2/ C 4.E16 C E26 / cos.4/
EQ 26 D
8
C 2.E11 C E22 / sin.2/ C .E11 2E12 C E22 4E66 / sin.4/ ;
EQ 33 D E33 ;
EQ 34 D E34 cos./ E35 sin./;
EQ 35 D E35 cos./ C E34 sin./;
EQ 36 D E36 cos.2/ C .E13 C E23 / cos./ sin./;
1
E44 C E55 C .E44 E55 / cos.2/ 2E45 sin.2/ ;
EQ 44 D
2
EQ 45 D E45 cos.2/ C .E44 E55 / cos./ sin./;
1
Q
2 cos.2/.E46 cos./ E56 sin.//
E46 D
2
C .E14 C E24 / cos./ C .E15 E25 / sin./ sin.2/ ;
EQ 55 D E55 cos./2 C E44 sin./2 C E45 sin.2/;
Q
E56 D sin./ E46 cos.2/ C .E14 C E24 / cos./ sin./
C cos./ E56 cos.2/ C .E15 C E25 / cos./ sin./ ;
1
Q
E66 D
E11 2E12 C E22 C 4E66 .E11 2E12 C E22 4E66 / cos.4/
8
(13.71)
C 4.E16 C E26 / sin.4/ :
The NavierLame (NL) equations for an elastic anisotropic domain without body
forces in cylindrical coordinates are
1
1
EQ 22 C EQ 15 @3 C EQ 55 r@23 C 2EQ 56 @ @3 C EQ 66 @2 C EQ 11 @r
r
r
C 2EQ 15 r@r @3 C 2EQ 16 @r @ C EQ 11 r@2r ur
349
1
1
C EQ 26 C .EQ 14 EQ 24 EQ 56 /@3 C EQ 45 r@23 .EQ 22 C EQ 66 / @
r
r
1
C .EQ 25 C EQ 46 /@ @3 C EQ 26 @2 EQ 26 @r
r
2
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C .E14 C E56 /r@r @3 C .E12 C E66 /@r @ C E16 r@r u
1
C .EQ 13 EQ 23 /@3 C EQ 35 r@23 EQ 24 @
r
(13.72)
1
C .EQ 36 C EQ 45 /@ @3 C EQ 46 @2 C .EQ 15 EQ 25 /@r C .EQ 13 C EQ 55 /r@r @3
r
C .EQ 14 C EQ 56 /@r @ C EQ 15 r@2r u3 D 0;
1
1
EQ 26 C .EQ 24 C 2EQ 56 /@3 C EQ 45 r@23 C .EQ 22 C EQ 66 / @
r
r
1
C .EQ 25 C EQ 46 /@ @3 C EQ 26 @2 C .2EQ 16 C EQ 26 /@r
r
C .EQ 14 C EQ 56 /r@r @3 C .EQ 12 C EQ 66 /@r @ C EQ 16 r@2r ur
1
C EQ 66 C EQ 46 @3 C EQ 44 r@23 C 2EQ 24 @ @3
r
1
C EQ 22 @2 C EQ 66 @r C 2EQ 46 r@r @3 C 2EQ 26 @r @ C EQ 66 r@2r u
r
1
1
C 2EQ 36 @3 C EQ 34 r@23 C EQ 46 @ C .EQ 23 C EQ 44 /@ @3 C EQ 24 @2 C 2EQ 56 @r
r
r
C .EQ 36 C EQ 45 /r@r @3 C .EQ 25 C EQ 46 /@r @ C EQ 56 r@2r u3 D 0:
(13.73)
1
.EQ 23 C EQ 55 /@3 C EQ 35 r@23 C EQ 24 @ C .EQ 36 C EQ 45 /@ @3
r
1
C EQ 46 @2 C .EQ 15 C EQ 25 /@r C .EQ 13 C EQ 55 /r@r @3
r
Q
C .E14 C EQ 56 /@r @ C EQ 15 r@2r ur C .EQ 45 EQ 36 /@3 C EQ 34 r@23
1
EQ 46 @ C .EQ 23 C EQ 44 /@ @3
r
1 2
2
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
C E24 @ C .E36 C E45 /r@r @3 C .C 25 C E46 /@r @ C E56 r@r u
r
350
1
C EQ 35 @3 C EQ 33 r@23 C 2EQ 34 @ @3 C EQ 44 @2 C EQ 55 @r
r
C 2EQ 35 r@r @3 C 2EQ 45 @r @ C EQ 55 r@2r u3 D 0:
(13.74)
(13.75)
The splitting (13.75) allows an expression of the solution uQ as the series (13.18)
in which the shadow functions are determined by the recurrence relations (13.12)
accompanied by homogeneous boundary conditions (BCs) on the two surfaces 1
and 2 . The PDE system (13.12) results in an ODE system for the computation of
i/
. /
i Cj .i /
Q .
'Q j i after the substitution of Mi and
'Q j ./ :
j .r; / D r
8
.i /
<M0 'Q 0 D 0;
. /
. /
M0 'Q 1 i D M1 'Q 0 i ;
0 < < !;
(13.76)
where
M0 'Q
.i / D A1 @2 C ..i C
/A2 C A3 / @
i /
C .i C
/2 A4 C .i C
/A5 C A6 'Q .
;
i/
M1 'Q
.i / D .A7 @ C ..i C
//A8 C A9 // 'Q .
;
i/
M2 'Q
.i / D A10 'Q .
;
(13.77)
and
0
1
EQ 66 EQ 26 EQ 46
A1 D @EQ 26 EQ 22 EQ 24 A ;
EQ 46 EQ 24 EQ 44
1
2EQ 16
EQ 12 C EQ 66 EQ 14 C EQ 56
A2 D @EQ 12 C EQ 66
EQ 25 C EQ 46 A ;
2EQ 26
Q
Q
Q
Q
E14 C E56 E25 C E46
2EQ 45
1
0
EQ 22 EQ 66 EQ 24
A3 D @EQ 22 C EQ 66
0
EQ 46 A ;
Q
Q
E24
E46
0
0
1
0
EQ 16 EQ 26 EQ 25
A5 D @EQ 16 C EQ 26
0
EQ 56 A ;
Q
Q
E56
0
E25
0
EQ 11
A4 D @EQ 16
EQ 15
0
EQ 16
EQ 66
EQ 56
1
EQ 15
EQ 56 A ;
EQ 55
1
EQ 22 EQ 26 0
A6 D @ EQ 26 EQ 66 0A ;
0
0
0
351
1
2EQ 56
.EQ 25 C EQ 46 / .EQ 36 C EQ 45 /
A7 D @.EQ 25 C EQ 46 /
2EQ 24
.EQ 23 C EQ 44 /A ;
Q
Q
Q
Q
2EQ 34
.E36 C E45 / .E23 C E44 /
0
1
2EQ 15
.EQ 14 C EQ 56 / .EQ 13 C EQ 55 /
A8 D @.EQ 14 C EQ 56 /
2EQ 46
.EQ 36 C EQ 45 /A ;
.EQ 13 C EQ 55 / .EQ 36 C EQ 45 /
2EQ 35
0
1
EQ 15
.EQ 14 EQ 24 EQ 56 / .EQ 13 EQ 23 /
A;
A9 D @.EQ 24 C 2EQ 56 /
EQ 46
2EQ 36
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
.E23 C E55 /
.E36 E45 /
E35
0
1
EQ 55 EQ 45 EQ 35
A10 D @EQ 45 EQ 44 EQ 34 A :
EQ 35 EQ 34 EQ 33
(13.78)
(13.79)
. /
j D 1; 2; : : :
(13.80)
'Q j i . D 0; !/ D 0;
j D 0; 1; : : :
(13.81)
T0 'Q 0 D 0;
T0 'Q j C1 C T1 'Q j D 0; ; j 0;
for D 0; !;
(13.82)
where
i/
i/
D .B1 @ C ..i C
/B2 C B3 // 'Q .
T0 'Q .
;
i/
T1 'Q .
D B4 'Q
.i / ;
(13.83)
352
and
B1 D A1 ;
0
EQ 56
B4 D @EQ 25
EQ 45
0
1
EQ 16 EQ 66 EQ 56
B2 D @EQ 12 EQ 26 EQ 25 A ;
EQ 14 EQ 46 EQ 45
1
EQ 46 EQ 36
EQ 24 EQ 23 A :
EQ 44 EQ 34
1
EQ 26 EQ 66 0
B3 D @EQ 22 EQ 26 0A ;
EQ 24 EQ 46 0
(13.84)
2 .0; !/:
(13.85)
homogeneous Dirichlet:
(13.86)
Since the eigenpairs may be complex, we formulate the sesquilinear form corresponding to (13.85) on the element level, followed by an assembly procedure.
Multiplying (13.85) by a test function vN ei then integrating over the 1D element
353
(from !i 1 to !i ) and integrating by parts the second derivative term ( 'Q e0i D
'Q 0 .!i 1 !i / ), one obtains
Z
n
T o
A1 'Q e0i 0 vN ei j!!ii 1
Z
!i
C
Z
!i 1
!i 1
T
A1 'Q e0i 0 vN ei 0 d
(13.87)
T
.A2 C A3 / 'Q e0i 0 vN ei d
!i
!i
!i 1
T
2 A4 C A5 C A6 'Q e0i vN ei d D 0:
A1 'Q e0i 0
o
n
T o
vN ei j!!ii 1 D B1 'Q e0i 0 vN ei j!!ii 1
T
D
T
o
vN ei j!!ii 1 ;
(13.88)
!i
!i 1
!i
!i 1
Z
B10 .'Q e0i ; vN ei /
!i
!i 1
T
A1 'Q e0i 0 vN ei 0 d C
!i
!i 1
T
A3 'Q e0i 0 vN ei d
T
T o
A6 'Q e0i vN ei d B3 'Q e0i vN ei j!!ii 1 ;
T
A2 'Q e0i 0 vN ei d C
n
T o
B2 'Q e0i vN ei j!!ii 1 ;
Z !i
T
B20 .'Q e0i ; vN ei / D
A4 'Q e0i vN ei d:
!i
!i 1
A5 'Q e0i
T
vN ei d
(13.89)
!i 1
Finally, assembling all elements, the quadratic sesquilinear eigenform for the
evaluation of the primal and dual eigenpairs is obtained:
Seek 2 C;
B00 .'Q 0 ; vN /
B10 .'Q 0 ; vN /
s.t.
8v 2 E.0; !/;
2 B20 .'Q 0 ; vN /
D 0;
(13.90)
where B00 .'Q 0 ; vN / , B10 .'Q 0 ; vN / , and B20 .'Q 0 ; vN / are the assembled sesquilinear forms
resulting from B00 .'Q e0i ; vei / , B10 .'Q e0i ; vei / , and B20 .'Q e0i ; vei / respectively. In the
354
The eigenfunctions are smooth functions, and thus the application of p FEMs for
the solution of (13.90) should result in exponential convergence rates. To this end,
T
is expressed in terms of the basis functions k .
/ (integrals
'Q 0 D ur0 u 0 u30
of Legendre polynomials) in the standard element:
X
pC1
uer0i .
/ D
uei0 .
/ D
kD1
pC1
ak k .
/;
apC1Ck k .
/;
kD1
pC1
ue30i .
/
a2pC2Ck k .
/;
(13.91)
kD1
or
10 a 1
0
1
1 .
/ pC1 .
/
00
00
B :: C
ei
A
@
'Q 0 D
00
00
1 .
/ pC1 .
/
@ : A
00
00
1 .
/ pC1 .
/
a3.pC1/
def
D ae0i :
def
(13.92)
where K00 , K10 , K20 are the assembled matrices corresponding to K00 ei ,
K10 ei , K20 ei respectively and ! ei D !i !i 1 W
Z
! ei 1
D
T A4 T d
;
2 1
K10 ei D T B2 T j!!ii 1
K20 ei
! ei
C
A2 d
C
2
1
0 T
1
T A5 T d
;
355
Z 1
2
K00 ei D T B3 T j!!ii 1 e
0 T A1 T 0 d
! i 1
Z
Z 1
! ei 1
0 T
T
C
A3 d
C
T A6 T d
:
2 1
1
(13.93)
Here a0 is the vector of assembled coefficients of ae0i . For clamped BCs, B2 j0 D
B2 j! D B3 j0 D B3 j! D 0 . The quadratic eigenproblem (13.92) is solved by
a linearization process according to [7]. Setting d 0 D a0 , the .3pQ C 3/
.3pQ C 3/ ( Q is the number of elements) quadratic eigenproblem is transformed
into a linear .6pQ C 6/ .6pQ C 6/ standard eigenproblem:
a0
d0
!T
T
a0
0 K00
I
0
D
:
d0
I K10
0 K20
(13.94)
Because the eigenpairs may be complex, the complex and a0 are denoted by
D < C i = and a0 D a0< C i a0= :
The normalization factor c0 . The dual eigenfunctions Q 0 are the solutions
./
of (13.94) associated with negative eigenvalues. The normalization factor c0
is determined so that the primal and dual eigenfunctions satisfy an orthonormal
condition (10.64) under integration along a circular curve with the edge at its center:
Z !n
o
Q ./ T NQ ./ Rd D 1;
Q ./ NQ ./
T
(13.95)
0
0
0
0
0
def
1
EQ 13 @3 C 1r EQ 14 @ C EQ 15 @r C
C0 1
C ur
C
C @u A :
1
EQ 36 @3 C r EQ 46 @ C EQ 56 @r C
C u
C 3
A
1 Q
Q
Q
E35 @3 C E45 @ C E55 @r
r
(13.96)
The operator T is split according to T D T0 .@r ; @ / C T1 .@r ; @ /@3 with
356
1
1 Q
Q
T0 .@r ; @ / j D Ta @ C Tb @r C .Tc C j Tb /
j ;
r
r
Q j;
Q j D Td
T1 .@r ; @ /
0
1
EQ 16 EQ 12 EQ 14
Ta D @EQ 66 EQ 26 EQ 46 A ;
EQ 56 EQ 25 EQ 45
0
1
EQ 11 EQ 16 EQ 15
Tb D @EQ 16 EQ 66 EQ 56 A ;
EQ 15 EQ 56 EQ 55
1
EQ 12 EQ 16 0
Tc D @EQ 26 EQ 66 0A ;
EQ 25 EQ 56 0
1
EQ 15 EQ 14 EQ 13
Td D @EQ 56 EQ 46 EQ 36 A :
EQ 55 EQ 45 EQ 35
(13.97)
(13.98)
Because the eigenpairs and their duals are independent of x3 , one obtains
1
Q ./
Q ./
Ta 'Q 00 C Tb 'Q 0 C Tc 'Q 0 ;
T
0 D T0 0 D R
n
o
./
./
T NQ 0 D T0 NQ 0 D R1 Ta NQ 00 Tb NQ 0 C Tc NQ 0 :
(13.99)
Inserting (13.79) and (13.99) in (13.95), the expression for the normalization factor
c0 is obtained:
Z ! n
./
c0
Ta 'Q 00 C Tb 'Q 0 C Tc 'Q 0 NQ
0
o
'Q 0 Ta NQ 00 Tb NQ 0 C Tc NQ d D 1
(13.100)
Substituting c0 D c0< C i c0= ; 'Q 0 D 'Q 0< C i 'Q 0= ; and NQ 0 D Q 0< i Q 0= into
(13.100), the following system is obtained:
8
8
Ic<
./
0
;
<c0< D I <2 CI
<c ./ Ic< c ./ Ic= D 1;
=2
0< 0
0= 0
c0
c0
)
(13.101)
=
:c ./ I = C c ./ I < D 0;
c0
:c ./ D I
;
2
2
0< c0
0= c0
0=
<
=
Ic0 CIc0
where
Ic<0
Ta 'Q 00< C < Tb 'Q 0< = Tb 'Q 0= C Tc 'Q 0< Q 0< d
D
0
C
0
C
0
Z
C
Ta 'Q 00= C < Tb 'Q 0= C = Tb 'Q 0< C Tc 'Q 0= Q 0= d
0
'Q 0< Ta Q 0< < Tb Q 0< C = Tb Q 0= C Tc Q 0< d
0
'Q 0= Ta Q 0= < Tb Q 0= = Tb Q 0< C Tc Q 0= d;
Ic=0
Ta 'Q 00= C < Tb 'Q 0= C = Tb 'Q 0< C Tc 'Q 0= Q 0< d
D
0
Z
C
C
Z
357
0
!
0
Ta 'Q 00< C < Tb 'Q 0< = Tb 'Q 0= C Tc 'Q 0< Q 0= d
0
'Q 0= Ta Q 0< < Tb Q 0< C = Tb Q 0= C Tc Q 0< d
0
'Q 0< Ta Q 0= < Tb Q 0= = Tb Q 0< C Tc Q 0= d:
(13.102)
!i 1
!i 1
!i
!i 1
C%
!i
!i 1
!i 1
T
A1 'Q e
i 0 vN ei 0 d
.. C /A2 C A3 / 'Q e i 0
h
!i
C
Z
!i
!i
iT
vN ei d
iT
. C
/2 A4 C . C
/A5 C A6 'Q e
i vN ei d
A7 'Q e
i1 0
h
T
Z
vN ei d C
!i
!i 1
iT
vN ei d D 0;
iT
vN ei d
(13.103)
358
where
(
%D
0; D 1;
(13.104)
1; 2:
Tractionfree boundary conditions are applied to each element and using (13.83),
we represent the first term in (13.103):
T
T
A1 'Q e
i 0 vN ei j!!ii 1 D B1 'Q e
i 0 vN ei j!!ii 1
D
.. C /B2 C
B3 / 'Q e i
iT
vN
ei
j!!ii 1
T
ei
B4 'Q
1 vN ei j!!ii 1 :
(13.105)
The sesquilinear form for the computation of the shadow function 'Q
is
Seek 'Q
2 E.0; !/
s.t.
B .'Q ; vN / D F .Nv/;
(13.106)
where B
.'Q
; vN / and F
.Nv/ are the assembled forms of B
.'Q e
i ; vN ei / and
F
.Nvei / W
Z
B
.'Q e
i ; vN ei / D
!i
!i 1
Z
C
Z
C
!i
!i 1
!i
T
A1 'Q e
i 0 vN ei 0 d
h
h
!i 1
h
Z
ei
!i 1
Z
!i
!i 1
%
B3 / 'Q e i
iT
!i
!i 1
vN ei d
!i
vN
T
A7 'Q e
i1 0 vN ei d
h
iT
iT
. C
/2 A4 C . C
/A5 C A6 'Q e
i vN ei d
.. C /B2 C
!i
F .v / D
.. C /A2 C A3 / 'Q e i 0
ei
iT
vN ei d C
(13.107)
!i 1
iT
vN ei d
T !i
B4 'Q e
i1 vN ei
!i 1
(13.108)
359
13.3.2.2
We apply p FEMs for the solution of (13.106) as in Section 13.3.1.1. To this end,
T
def
'Q
D ur
u
u3
D a
and vN D b
:
The resulting FE formulation is
aT
K
D F
T ;
(13.109)
where
2
K D T . C
/B2 T C B3 T j!!ii 1 e
!i
Z 1
C
0 T . C
/A2 T C A3 T d
ei
1
C
F
ei
! ei
2
1
! ei
2
%
! ei
2
1
0 T A1 T 0 d
T . C
/2 A4 T C . C
/A5 T C A6 T d
;
T
ae
i1
T B4 T
1
Z
j!!ii 1
1
1
T
ae
i1
0 T A7 T d
T
ae
i1
T . C
1/A8 T C A9 T d
1
T
ae
i2
T A10 T d
;
(13.110)
where K
are the assembled matrices formed of K
ei , and F
are the
assembled vectors formed of F
ei . For clamped BCs, B2 j0 D B2 j! D B3 j0 D
B3 j! D 0 .
=
<
=
Substituting D < C i = ; a
D a<
C i a
; a
1 D a
1 C i a
1 ; and
<
=
a
2 D a
2 C i a
2 into (13.110), we obtain the FE formulation
a<
a=
!T
K
< K
=
K
= K
<
D
T
F<
;
F=
(13.111)
360
where
2
K
e<i D T .< C
/B2 T C B3 T j!!ii1 e
!i
Z 1
C
0 T .< C
/A2 T C A3 T d
1
! ei
2
1
1
1
0 T A1 T 0 d
1
1
0 T = A2 T d
Z
! ei 1
T 2.< C
/= A4 T C = A5 T d
;
C
2 1
Z 1
n
o
<eiT
<e T
T
T
!i
D a
1 B4 j!i1
a
1i 0 T A7 T d
! ei
2
F =i
T ..< C
/2 =2 /A4 T C .< C
/A5 T C A6 T d
;
K e=i D T = B2 T j!!ii1 C
F <i
1
1
1
=ei T
T
T
i
..< C
1/a<e
1 = a
1 / A8 d
Z
Z
! 1 <eiT
! ei 1 <eiT
T
T
a
A9 d
a
T A10 T d
;
2 1
1
2 1
2
Z 1
n
o
=eiT
=eiT
D a
1
T B4 T j!!ii1
a
1
0 T A7 T d
ei
!
2
! ei
2
Z
Z
1
1
1
1
1
=ei T
T
T
i
.= a<e
1 C .< C
1/a
1 / A8 d
=e T
i
a
1
T A9 T d
! ei
2
1
=e T
i
a
2
T A10 T d
;
(13.112)
where K
< , K
= are the assembled matrices from K
e<i and K
e=i ; and
e
e
F < , F = are the assembled vectors from F < i and F = i :
361
example the first shadow function associated with 1 D 1=2 , which has to satisfy
the inhomogeneous ODE (13.76) 2 W
3
D A1 @2 C
A2 C A3 @
2
3 2
3
. /
. /
C . / A4 C A5 C A6
'Q 1 1 D M1 'Q 0 1(13.113)
:
2
2
.1 /
M0 'Q 1
Formally, the solution (13.113) may be obtained by the inverse of the operator M0
applied to the RHS. Practically, when FE discretization is applied, the operator
M0 results in the matrix K 1 , which has to be inverted and must not be singular.
This is equivalent to requiring a particular solution without the homogeneous part of
the solution. However, the LHS of (13.113) is exactly the ODE for the computation
. C1/
. C1/
of 'Q 0 1 ; except that for 'Q 0 1 ; the ODE is homegeneous:
.1 C1/
M0 'Q 0
3
D A1 @2 C
A2 C A3 @
2
!!
2
3
3
. /
C
A4 C A5 C A6
'Q 1 1 D 0: (13.114)
2
2
<. /
=. /
a
<.i /
K
< K
= a0 j a0 j
=.i /
=. /
<. /
a
K
= K
< a0 j a0 j
.1 S /
.S .S C 2//
1T
F<
BF
C
=C
DB
@ 0 A ;
0
.1 .S C 2// (13.115)
362
X2
Material # 1
X1
360
X3
Material # 2
(13.116)
LT D Lz D T z D 0:21;
3 D 0:5;
(13.117)
In this example one obtains also the eigenvalues D 2:5 i 0:05106124425 , that
. /
satisfy D 1;2 C 2; therefore cause the K 2 matrix, associated with 'Q 2 1 ;
to become singular. Figure 13.22 shows the condition number of the matrix K 2
. /
associated with 'Q 2 1 ; computed using increasing p level.
It may be observed that the condition number of K 2 increases continuously as
p is increased. The condition number of K 2 after incorporating the constraint of
the scalar product remains constant.
. /
The functions ur2 and u 2 of 'Q 2 1;2 computed with and without the scalar
product condition are presented in Figures 13.23 and 13.24 respectively.
363
1016
with scalar product condition
no condition
Condition Number
1014
1012
1010
108
106
10
12
14
16
18
p level
.1;2 /
10
1.5
x 10
u(1), u(2)
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
x 10
4
3
0.5
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.5
2
1
0
1
2
u(1), u(2)
3
1.5
90
180
Degrees
270
4
0
360
0.08
90
180
Degrees
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
270
360
0.06
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
u(1), u(2)
0.06
0.04
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.06
90
180
Degrees
270
0.06
0
360
u(1), u(2)
90
180
Degrees
270
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
360
364
0.5
x 1010
14
12
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
v(1), v(2)
10
0.5
1.5
2
2.5
6
4
2
0
90
180
Degrees
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
v(1), v(2)
3.5
4
x 109
270
4
6
360
0.15
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.14
v(1), v(2)
0.12
0.1
0.1
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
0.08
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.1
v(1), v(2)
0.15
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
P=11
P=13
P=15
P=17
0.02
360
0.04
90
180
Degrees
270
360
It is visible from Figures 13.23, 13.24 that the functions computed without any
additional condition are scattered, whereas the functions computed using the scalar
product condition converge.
D
I
as R ! 0:
(13.118)
Here <.1 / is the real part of the smallest of all positive eigenvalues i : In
=
the case of complex eigenvalues, Ai .x3 / D A<
i .x3 / C {Ai .x3 / and B.x3 / D
<
=
B .x3 / C {B .x3 /: Choosing m D 2 , we have in (13.118) O.R<.1 /<.i /C3 /:
If Ai .x3 / is a polynomial of degree N; it is expanded as a linear combination
365
J4 .x3 /
;
hk
hk D
29 .k C 4/.k C 4/
:
.2k C 9/.k C 8/
(13.119)
8
.0/
.1/
< .N /
<A<
Q0< J4 .x3 / C aQ1< J4 .x3 / C C aQ N
J4 .x3 /;
i .x3 / D a
:
=
Q0= J4 .x3 / C aQ1= J4 .x3 / C C aQN
J4
A=
i .x3 / D a
.0/
.1/
.N /
.x3 /;
(13.120)
then we can obtain the coefficients aQ i directly by applying Theorem 13.1 with
different extraction polynomials:
Z
1
1
k D 0; 1; : : : ; N;
(13.121)
where
<.k/
J R
=.k/
J R
D
Z
D
1
1
1
<.k/
=.k/
.A<
.x3 / A=
.x3 //dx3 ;
i .x3 /BJ
i .x3 /BJ
=.k/
<.k/
.A<
.x3 / C A=
.x3 //dx3 ; (13.122)
i .x3 /BJ
i .x3 /BJ
and
aQ k< D
J R<.k/ C J R=.k/
;
2
aQ k= D
J R<.k/ C J R=.k/
:
2
(13.123)
366
102
102
e (%)
e (%)
1,2
1,2
e (%)
100
e (%)
100
1,2
1,2
e (%)
e (%)
3
102
104
106
108
102
104
106
108
1010
40
80
120
160
200
1010
50
DOF
100
150
200
250
300
DOF
Fig. 13.25 Relative error (percentage) in eigenvalues 1FE ; 2FE ; 3FE ; for example A, computed
by two (left) and four (right) elements.
3 D 0:5:
(13.124)
The relative error as a percentage in the first three eigenvalues computed using two
and four elements is shown in Figure 13.25. For the first complex eigenvalue, the
relative error is split into real and imaginary parts:
e<1;2 D 100
FE
<.1;2 / <.1;2
/
<.1;2 /
e=1;2 D 100
FE
=.1;2 / =.1;2
/
=.1;2 /
(13.125)
The eigenfunctions, duals, and shadows associated with the first three eigenvalues
are presented in Figures 13.26, 13.27, and 13.28 computed using four elements,
p D 6:
Obtaining the eigenpairs and shadows for the first three eigenvalues, we choose
the ESIF to be, for example, a polynomial of order 2. Thus, the solution is
uQ D A1 .x3 /r 1 'Q 0 1 ./ C @3 A1 .x3 /r 1 C1 'Q 1 1 ./ C @23 A1 .x3 /r 1 C2 'Q 2 1 ./
. /
. /
. /
CA2 .x3 /r 2 'Q 0 2 ./ C @3 A2 .x3 /r 2 C1 'Q 1 2 ./ C @23 A2 .x3 /r 2 C2 'Q 2 2 ./
. /
. /
. /
CA3 .x3 /r 3 'Q 0 3 ./ C @3 A3 .x3 /r 3 C1 'Q 1 3 ./ C @23 A3 .x3 /r 3 C2 'Q 2 3 ./:
. /
. /
. /
(13.126)
1.2
ur0
uq0
u30
0.4
ur0
uq0
u30
1
0.8
0.3
0.6
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
367
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
0.8
360
0.3
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
2.5
ur1
uq1
u31
0.2
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
1.5
0.5
0.3
0
0.4
0.5
90
180
Degrees
270
0.5
360
0.15
0.1
ur2
uq2
u32
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
ur2
uq2
u32
0.7
0.15
0.8
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.9
Fig. 13.26 The real part of the eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated
with 1;2 D 0:5 {0:075812; computed by four elements, p D 6:
Note that the eigenpairs and shadows are obtained numerically, and therefore
(13.126) represents an approximation of the exact solution only.
For example, consider the following exact ESIFs (polynomials of order 3):
2
2
AEx
1;2 .x3 / D .3 C 4x3 C 5x3 / i.2 C 3x3 C 4x3 /;
2
AEx
3 .x3 / D 5 C 4x3 C 2x3 :
(13.127)
If we prescribe on a tractionfree cracked domain Dirichlet boundary conditions according to (13.126)(13.127), the exact solution at each r; ; x3 is as in
368
0.5
1.5
ur0
uq0
u30
0.4
ur0
uq0
u30
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.5
0.5
0.1
1
0.2
0.3
90
180
Degrees
270
1.5
360
0.3
ur1
uq1
u31
0.25
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.15
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.05
0.6
0.8
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.01
0.15
0.1
0.05
Eigen Functions
0.01
Eigen Functions
90
ur1
u q1
u31
0.2
0.2
0.05
0.4
0.02
0.03
0
0.05
0.1
0.04
0.15
ur2
uq2
u32
0.05
0.06
ur2
uq2
0.2
u32
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.25
Fig. 13.27 The image part of the eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated
with 1;2 D 0:5 {0:075812; computed by four elements, p D 6:
369
0.5
0
0
0.2
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.5
ur0
uq0
u30
0.7
0.8
0.5
90
180
Degrees
270
2.5
360
0.5
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
ur1
uq1
u31
0.4
0.3
ur1
uq1
u31
3
Eigen Functions
0.2
Eigen Functions
ur0
uq0
u30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
1
0.4
0.5
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.12
ur2
uq2
u32
0.1
0.8
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
ur2
uq2
u32
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.6
0.4
0.02
0.2
0.02
1.2
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.2
Fig. 13.28 Eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with 3 D 0:5;
computed by four elements, p D 6:
. /
370
102
Energy Norm
101
100
101
102
103
104
105
DOF
Fig. 13.29 (Left): The p FEM model, having 160 elements. (Right): Convergence rate of the
relative error in the energy norm.
0.1
0.07
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.065
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.055
0.05
0.05
0.04
1
0.06
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.045
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.16
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 4
ESIF of Degree 5
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13.30 Relative error of extracted ESIF. Eigenfunctions computed using p D 6 and four
element model, ESIF computed using BJ .k/ with k D 3; 4; 5 and R D 0:05:
371
x2
2.5
X2
0.8
0.8
0.4
X1
2.5
X3
x1
0.4
X3
X1
X1
X3
Fig. 13.31 Dimensions of CTS. The thickness of the specimen is 2 ranging over 1 < x3 < 1 .
Observe that the relative error of the extracted ESIFs is less than 0:2% . These
results indicate that the method is accurate and efficient, and may be applied to
realistic engineering problems for which analytical solutions are unavailable, as
addressed in the next subsection.
372
0.3
0.2
x 105
10
ur0
uq0
u30
ur 0
uq0
u30
8
6
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.1
0.1
4
2
0
2
0.2
4
0.3
0.4
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.15
ur1
uq1
u31
0.1
90
180
Degrees
270
360
x 105
ur1
uq1
u31
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.05
0.05
0.1
6
0.15
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
0.12
1.5
ur2
uq2
u32
0.1
0.08
x 10
ur2
uq2
u32
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.5
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.5
1
0.02
1.5
0.04
0.06
90
180
Degrees
270
360
Fig. 13.32 Real part of the eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with
1;2 D 0:5 {0:0510612; computed by eight elements, p D 15:
0.3
x 105
ur0
uq0
u30
0.2
373
4
2
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.1
0.1
0
2
4
0.2
0.4
ur0
uq0
u30
0.3
90
180
Degrees
270
360
10
0.1
ur1
uq1
u31
0.05
x 10
90
180
Degrees
270
360
ur1
uq1
u31
8
7
6
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.05
0.1
5
4
3
2
0.15
1
0.2
0
0.25
0.06
90
180
Degrees
270
360
ur 2
uq2
u32
0.05
0.04
Eigen Functions
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
x 105
ur 2
uq2
u32
0.03
Eigen Functions
0.03
0.04
90
180
Degrees
270
360
Fig. 13.33 Imaginary part of the eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated
with 1;2 D 0:5 {0:0510612; computed by eight elements, p D 15:
closer to the vertices and provide a better approximation. This example demonstrates
the efficiency and accuracy of the ESIF extraction method, and its excellent results
also in the close vicinity of the vertices.
374
0.4
1.5
ur0
uq0
u30
0.3
x 104
ur0
uq0
u30
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.2
1
0.3
0.4
90
180
Degrees
270
360
1.5
0.15
0.1
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
90
180
Degrees
270
360
x 105
ur 1
uq1
u31
0.05
0.05
0.1
2
0
2
4
ur1
uq1
u31
0.15
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
6
8
360
0
4
1.6
20
ur2
uq2
u32
1.4
ur2
uq2
u32
15
Eigen Functions
Eigen Functions
1.2
x 10
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10
0
0.2
90
180
Degrees
270
360
Fig. 13.34 Eigenfunctions (left) and dual eigenfunctions (right) associated with 3 D 0:5;
computed by eight elements, p D 15:
0.019
0.0269
0.0189
0.027
0.0188
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 5
ESIF of Degree 7
ESIF of Degree 9
ESIF of Degree 11
, A
2
0.0271
0.0187
0.0272
0.0186
A
ESIF
0.0268
ESIF
0.0191
375
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 5
ESIF of Degree 7
ESIF of Degree 9
ESIF of Degree 11
,A
2
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0273
0.0274
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.03
ESIF of Degree 3
ESIF of Degree 5
ESIF of Degree 7
ESIF of Degree 9
ESIF of Degree 11
A
0.02
ESIF
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
1
0
x3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Fig. 13.35 ESIFs extracted using BJ .k/ with k D 3; 5; 7; 9; 11 for the CTS problem.
0.6
0.8
Chapter 14
This last chapter is devoted to our latest results on circular edges, and some
open questions that are the aim and scope of future research. In daily practice,
in reality, most edges are curved in threedimensional domains and therefore
these are of utmost engineering interest. Here we concentrate on circular edges
(a pennyshaped crack being a special renowned case) in a 3D domain, and derive
explicitly a singular series expansion in the vicinity of such an edge for the simplest
scalar elliptic operator, the Laplace operator. The displacements and stress fields
associated with the elasticity system are provided in a recent paper [208].
377
378
x3
Fig. 14.2 Different types of singular circular edges (only a sector is plotted, so the circular edge
is clearly visible. The domain in (c) includes the renowned pennyshaped crack.
Figure 14.2. For example, the lower singular edge in Figure 14.2(a) is determined
by ' 2 .; =2/, and the outer circular crack in Figure 14.2(b) is determined by
' 2 .0; 2/; whereas the pennyshaped crack in (c) is determined by ' 2 .; /:
Finally the reentrant corner with the solid angle ! in Figure 14.2 (d) is determined
by ' 2 .. !/=2; . C !/=2/:
We are interested in solutions .x/ of the equation
4
3D
1
1
D @rr C @r C 2 @ C @33 D 0:
r
r
def
(14.1)
379
x3 D sin ':
(14.2)
(14.3)
Axi
1
1
1
1
D @ C @ C 2 @' ' C
cos '@ sin '@' :
r
(14.4)
R!1
D A
1
X
i
i D0
i .'/:
(14.7)
380
(14.8)
i0 .'
(14.9)
To satisfy the above equation for any A and ; the following relationships must hold:
2 0 C 000 D 0;
(14.11)
(14.12)
. C 1/2 1 C 100 D cos ' 0 sin ' 0 cos ' 2 0 C 000 ;
. C 2/2 2 C 200 D . C 1/ cos ' 1 sin ' 10 cos ' . C 1/2 1 C 100 ;
. C 3/2 3 C 300 D . C 2/ cos ' 2 sin ' 20 cos ' . C 2/2 2 C 200 ;
Substituting the RHS of equation (14.11) in (14.12), one obtains
2 0 C 000 D 0;
(14.15)
k
k
k;0
0
0
1
1
1
2
sin
'
2
2
1
cos '
381
3
3
2
sin
3'
2
4
2
cos 2'
X
k
Ak k
1
X
i
i D0
k;i .'/:
(14.16)
Remark 14.2 For each primal eigenfunction and shadow k;i .'/; the first index k
represents the eigenvalue k to which this eigenfunction is associated, whereas the
second index i 1 represents the rank of the curvature shadow terms. Here k D
k
; where k D 0; 1; 2; : : : for homogeneous Neumann BCs, and k D 1; 2; 3; : : : for
!
homogeneous Dirichlet BCs.
Remark 14.3 If C 1 is not an eigenvalue of equation (14.13) with BCs (14.8) or
(14.9), there exists a unique solution 1 to equation (14.14). On the other hand, if
C 1 is itself an eigenvalue, then it can happen either that (14.14) has no solution
(then the ansatz (14.7) has to be completed with logarithmic terms), or (14.14) has
infinitely many solutions. The same situation holds for equation (14.15), depending
on whether C i is an eigenvalue or not.
In the special case of a crack, we have k D k2 ; and therefore resonances (i.e.,
C i is an eigenvalue) always occur. Nevertheless, as proved in [43], logarithmic
terms never appear: Equations (14.14) and (14.15) with Dirichlet or Neumann BCs
are always solvable. An orthogonality condition against the eigenvector makes the
solution unique; see (14.18).
382
Equations (14.13)(14.15) can be solved (cf. Remark 14.3) for k D 0; 1=2; 1; 3=2,
obtaining 0;i , 1;i ; 2;i ; 3;i . They yield the following series solution for a pennyshaped crack with homogeneous Neumann BCs:
D A0
'
2 1
'
3
3'
'
1
CA1 sin C
sin C
sin
sin
2
R 4
2
R
12
2 32
2
3 1
'
1
3'
5
5'
sin
sin
C
sin
C
C
R
16
2 30
2
128
2
3 9
1
2 3
5
C
cos '
C
cos 2' C
CA2 cos '
R 4
R 16
R
128 64
'
2 1
' 16
3'
3'
1
3
2
CA3 sin
sin
3 sin
sin
2
R 4
2
R 32
2
5
2
3
'
5
3'
3
5'
3
sin
sin
C
sin C
C
R
40
2
128
2
70
2
1
2
C :
(14.17)
'2 D
'1 D
k D 0; 1; 2; 3 and i D 1; 2; 3;
(14.18)
! A0 C A1 1=2 sin
'
3'
C A2 cos ' C A3 3=2 sin
C :
2
2
Remark 14.4 The eigenfunctions and shadows associated with A0 and A2 above
are polynomials in local Cartesian variables x1 D cos ' and x2 D sin ': This
can be predicted by the general theory [49, 95].
To verify the correctness of the solution (14.17), we consider a torus with inner
radius r1 D 1:5 and outer radius r2 D 2:5 having a circular crack with the tip at
R D 2; see Figure 14.3.
Taking A1 D 1 and Ak D 0; k 1; (notice that the outer boundary of the torus
is out D 1=2 and =R D 1=4 in the considered example), we prescribed on the
outer surface of the torus Dirichlet boundary conditions according to (14.17):
383
LINER ID=SOL1
Run8. DOF760
Fnc.=MY_DIFF(LCrt.1)
Max=6.581e004
Min=6.581e004
1.500e004
1.200e004
9.000e005
6.000e005
3.000e005
1.819e012
3.000e005
6.000e005
9.000e005
1.200e004
1.500e004
Z
R
Fig. 14.4 Solution (left) and error (right) for the axisymmetric Laplacian with homogeneous
Neumann BCs with out D 1=2; =R D 1=4; and A1 D 1: Series up to .=R/3 . The axis of
symmetry is to the left of the shown domain with the crack from the center of the circle to the left.
r "
2
'
'
'
3
3'
1 1
1
1
1
sin C
sin C
sin
sin
D
2
2
4 4
2
4
12
2 32
2
#
3
1
'
1
3'
5
5'
1
C
sin
sin
C
sin
;
4
16
2 30
2
128
2
with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on the crack face. Because
the problem is axisymmetric, we construct a twodimensional axisymmetric finite
element (FE) model and solve the Laplace equation over the axisymmetric crosssection using a highorder FE analysis. In Figure 14.4, left, the finite element
solution ( FE ) at polynomial level p D 8 is shown, whereas in Figure 14.4, right,
the difference between the analytical and FE solutions is shown FE : As may
be observed FE is three and a half orders of magnitude smaller compared to
; indicating the correctness of the derived analytical solution. If only terms up to
.=R/2 are applied to the boundary of the domain, then the error FE increases
by one order of magnitude, as expected.
384
1
2
3
2
k;0 .'/
'
cos
2
sin '
3'
cos
2
3 1
'
1
3'
5
5'
cos
cos
C
cos
C
R
16
2 30
2
128
2
CA2 sin '
3
'
2 3
'
1
3'
3'
1
2
cos C
cos C
cos
CA3 cos
2
R 4
2
R
32
2
10
2
3
'
5
3'
3
5'
3
cos
cos
C
cos
C
R
40
2 128
2
70
2
C :
Here we still enforce the orthogonality conditions (14.18) in order to have uniqueness.
The first terms in the asymptotic solution for the same specific problem are
provided in [186, p. 293] (the third term in this reference is erroneous).
14.1.1.3 A Specific Example Problem: Circumferential Crack
with Axisymmetric Loading and Homogeneous Neumann BCs
As in Section 14.1.1.1 we present here the first terms in the asymptotic series
solution for a circumferential crack (see Figure 14.2(d)), '1 D 2 , ! D 2 in
an axisymmetric domain with homogeneous Neumann BCs (14.9), still taking the
orthogonality condition (14.18) into account:
'
'
1
D A0 C A1 2 sin cos
2
2
1
'
'
1
3'
3'
sin C cos
C
sin
cos
C : (14.19)
C
R
4
2
2
12
2
2
385
cos '/2 .@ /2 C @' '
R
h
i
2
@ D 0:
C .1 C cos '/ cos '.@ / sin '@' C
R
R
R
(14.20)
(14.21)
i
2 h
i
h
2 cos ' m0 Cm01 C
cos2 ' m0 Ccos ' m01 C@ D 0: (14.22)
R
R
In the general case, for a circular edge the following form of expansion series is
appropriate:
D
@` Ak ./ k
`D0;2;4;::: kD0
` X
i
i D0
`;k;i .'/:
(14.23)
Remark 14.5 Observe that 0;k;i D k;i (associated with the curvature for an
axisymmetric case), so these are known for the axisymmetric analysis.
Comparing this asymptotic expansion to the one along a straight edge given in
Chapter 10, e.g. (10.52) , one notices one extra sum, implying that for each primal
eigenfunction there are two levels of shadow functions: one set is associated with
the derivatives of Ak (the index `), and the other set is associated with the curvature
terms, i.e., the powers =R (index i ).
The splitting in (14.22) provides an elegant and convenient way to formulate the
series expansion of the solution. Introducing the definition for a general term in the
expansion (14.23),
`Ci
def
`;k;i D k
`;k;i .'/;
(14.24)
R
we observe that
m0 .@ I @' /`;k;i .; '/ D k
`Ci
`Ci
m01 .@ I @' /`;k;i .; '/ D k
m01 .k C ` C i I @' /`;k;i .'/:
R
386
m0 .k /0;k;0
C
C
CA00k ./
h
i
m0 .k C 1/0;k;1 C 2 cos ' m0 .k / C m01 .k / 0;k;0
2 h
R
m0 .k C2/0;k;2 C 2 cos ' m0 .k C1/Cm01 .k C1/ 0;k;1
i
C cos2 ' m0 .k / C cos ' m01 .k / 0;k;0 C
h
i
2
m0 .k C 2/2;k;0 C 0;k;0
R
3 h
C
m0 .k C 3/2;k;1 C 2 cos ' m0 .k C 2/
R
i
Cm01 .k C 2/ 2;k;0 C 0;k;1
C
4 h
R
m0 .k C 4/2;k;2 C 2 cos ' m0 .k C 3/
Cm01 .k C 3/ 2;k;1 C cos2 ' m0 .k C 2/
i
C cos ' m01 .k C 2/ 2;k;0 C 0;k;2 C :
(14.26)
Equation (14.26) has to hold for any .=R/i and for any @` Ak , resulting in the
following recursive set of ordinary differential equations for the determination of
the eigenfunctions and shadows `;k;i .'/ W
m0 .k C ` C i /
`;k;i
(14.27)
D 2 cos ' m0 .k C ` C i 1/ C m01 .k C ` C i 1/ `;k;i 1
cos2 ' m0 .k C` C i 2/C cos ' m01 .k C` C i 2/ `;k;i 2
`2;k;i ;
for ` D 0; 2; 4; 6; : : : ;
and i 0:
i 0;
387
00
.k C i C `/2 `;k;i C `;k;i
(14.28)
.`;k;i / .'/ D 0
(14.29)
1
C0C2
2
2
00
2;1;0 C 2;1;0
D 0;1;0 ;
(14.31)
From (14.17), 0;1;0 D sin '2 ; and thus the solution of (14.31) can be taken as the
particular solution alone:
1
'
2;1;0 D sin :
(14.32)
6
2
Once 2;1;0 is available, one may proceed to the computation of 2;1;1 .'/ .` D
2; k D 1; i D 1/ obtained from (14.28), for k D 1; 1 D 1=2; and i D 1; ` D 2 W
2
1
1
1
00
D 2C1C 1 2 2C1C
C 1 C 2 2;1;1 C 2;1;1
1 cos '2;1;0
2
2
2
0
00
C sin '2;1;0
2 cos '0;1;0
0;1;1 :
(14.33)
388
Substituting 2;1;0 from (14.32) and 0;1;1 D 14 sin '2 from (14.17), the particular solution
to (14.33) that satisfies the homogeneous Neumann BCs is
'
7
3'
1
2;1;1 D sin C
sin
:
8
2
60
2
(14.34)
This procedure may be continued, to finally obtain the terms in the series expansion:
D A0 . /
2 19
2 1
5
11
cos '
C
cos 2' C C
C
R
4
R 16
R
128
64
1
'
2 1
'
3
3'
'
1
2
sin C
sin
sin
CA1 . / sin C
2
R 4
2
R
12
2 32
2
3 1
'
1
3'
5
5'
C
sin
sin
C
sin
C
R
16
2 30
2
128
2
2 1
'
1
'
7
3'
1
sin C sin C
sin
C C :
CA001 . / 2
R
6
2
8
2
60
2
R
CA000 . /
(14.35)
Again, the factors corresponding to A0 (and all terms of even order) and their
derivatives are polynomial in .x1 ; x2 /:
Remark 14.6 In the vicinity of a crack with a straight edge along the x3 axis, the
solution admits the expansion
D A0 .z3 / C
A000 .z3 /r 2
1
1
4
C
5
'
C A001 .z3 /r 2
2
1
'
sin
6
2
C :
(14.36)
One may observe that (14.36) is composed of the same leading terms associated with
i D 0 as in the expansion (14.35), as expected.
389
'
1
3'
5
5'
3
1
cos
cos
C cos
C
16
2 30
2
128
2
R
1
'
'
7
3'
1
1
2
cos C
cos
C
cos C
C A001 . / 2
R
6
2
8
2
60
2
R
C :
(14.37)
2 1
D A0 C
(14.38)
R
4
2'
1
2'
p cos
CA1 2=3 sin
3
3
3
1 p
' p
5'
'
5'
C
5 3 cos 3 cos
C 15 sin C 3 sin
R 60
3
3
3
3
2 1
p
p
2'
4'
2'
4'
12 sin
4 3 cos
15 sin
5 3 cos
C
R 160
3
3
3
3
2 1 p
2'
2'
3 sin
C :
3 cos
CA001 2=3
R
20
3
3
A000
2 1
(14.39)
R
4
'
1
'
2 1
'
3
3'
1=2
cos
CA1
cos C
cos C
cos
2
R 4
2
R
12
2
32
2
2
1
'
cos
C :
CA001 1=2
R
6
2
D A0 C A000
390
'
3'
6B 5 cos 2 cos 2
8 9
6B
6B
>
'
4
>
6B
>
cos
>
6B
>
C
2
6
B
>
>
6B
< >
=
'
6
B
3'
.
/
K
1
''
I
6B 3 cos C cos
p
D
6
B
2
2
>
4
2
>
6B
>
6B
>
>
0
6
B
>
' >
6B
: >
;
'
3'
6B
'
6B sin C sin
4@
2
2
0
0
1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
5
C 13
'
C 9
3'
cos
cos
4.
C /
2
4.
C /
2
B
7
C
B
7
C
B
7
C
B 2.2
C /.
C 5/
7
C
'
3
C
2
3'
B
7
C
cos
cos
B
7
C
2
.
C /
2
C
2 C
B
7
B
7
C
7
C
B
3.
C 9/
'
C 9
3'
B
7
C
cos C
cos
C
B
C C7
4.
C /
2
4.
C /
2
7
C
R B
B
7
C
B
7
C
0
B
7
C
B
7
C
B
7
C
7
'
7
3'
B
7
C
sin
sin
B
7
C
4.
C
/
2
4.
C
/
2
@
5
A
0
0
B
B
0
B
B
B
0
B
0
B
1 KI . / B 2.
/
'
2.
C 3/
3'
p
B
C
cos
cos
4
2 R B
C
2
C
2
B
B
B
0
B
B
@ 2.
C 3/
'
2.
C 3/
3'
sin C
sin
C
2
C
2
1
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
391
20
5
'
3' 1
sin C sin
6B
3
2
2 C
6B
C
6B
C
'
4
6B
C
sin
6B
C
3.
C /
2
6B
C
6B
C
6B
C
'
3'
B sin sin
C
3 KII . / 6
6B
C
C p
2
2
B
C
4 2 6
6B
C
6B
C
0
6B
C
6B
C
6B 1
C
'
3'
6B
C
cos C 3 cos
6B
C
2
2 A
4@ 3
0
0
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
B
R B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
@
3
1
51
C 107
'
C 9
3'
sin C
sin
7
C
60.
C /
2
12.
C /
2
7
C
7
C
7
C
2
2
2 34
C 83
C 45
'
3
C 2
3' C
7
sin C
sin
7
C
2
7
15.
C /
2
3.
C /
2 C
7
C
7
C
7
C
'
C 9
3'
C 9
7
C
sin
sin
CC 7
12.
C /
2
12.
C /
2
7
C
7
C
7
C
0
7
C
7
C
7
C
23
C 31
'
C 7
3'
7
C
7
C
cos C
cos
7
C
60.
C /
2
12.
C /
2
5
A
0
0
B
B
B
B
B
B
0
3 KII . / B
B
C p
B
4 2 R B
B
B
B
B
B
@
20
C
C
C
C
C
0
C
C
2.
/
'
3' C
CC
sin C sin
3.
C /
2
2 C
C
C
C
0
C
C
'
3' A
2.
C 3/
cos C cos
3.
C /
2
2
0
6B
6B 0
6B
6B
6B 0
6B
KIII . / 6
6B
'
Cp
B
sin
2 6
6B
2
6B
6B
0
6B
B
6@
4
'
cos
2
0
B
C
B
0
C
B
C
B
C
B
0
C
C
B
B
C
B
'
3'
7
CC
C
R B
B 4 sin 2 sin 2
C
B
C
B
C
0
B
C
B
A
@5
'
3'
cos cos
4
2
2
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
C C 7
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
7
C
5
A
392
4
'
sin
5
2
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B 4 7
C 5
'
C
B
B 5
C sin 2 C
C
B
C
K 0 . /
B
C C
B
0
C pIII
C
B
R
2
C
B
C
B
0
C
B
C
B
'
2
C
B
C
B
cos
A
@
5
2
0
393
On top of the above questions, and related to them, the size effect is also a major
concern especially because asymptotic analysis is used, i.e., to which structure scale
is the asymptotic analysis valid, and can one apply the same solutions and failure
laws to micron structures associated with the electronic industry (structures having
dimensions at the meter level)? Answers to such topics are extremely important
from the engineering point of view, especially in the growing area of the electronic
device industry.
Surprisingly enough, in realistic 3D structures no failure law exists even for a
crack configuration that is able to predict crack propagation in a general direction.
Furthermore, because both edge and vertex singularities exist, the questions whether
failure begins along the edge or at the vertex, and what parameters trigger that failure
are still unsolved.
Since in realistic 3D structures cracks usually have curved edges, there is a need to
explicitly formulate the asymptotic solution in the vicinity of a curved edge. This
has also to be extended to sharp Vnotch curved edges.
These and many other important and unsolved problems associated with singular
solutions of elliptic partial differential equations and their connection to failure
initiation will most probably be the topic of further research in the next half century,
with many exciting and beneficial results to engineering practice.
Appendix A
To define the family of functions that are said to belong to a Sobolev space,
we first need some preliminary definitions which are relatively simple and well
known. We address both the heat conduction and elasticity systems in two or three
dimensions. Let .x/ and .x/ be Lebesgue measurable functions (temperature
fields), u and v displacement vectors, and .x/ and &.x/ stress vectors in a two
or threedimensional domain 3 x.
Definition A.1. The L2 inner product is defined for
temperature fields:
Z
def
d xI
.; /L2 ./ D
displacement vectors:
def
.u; v/L2 ./ D
ui vi d xI
stress tensors:
def
. ; & /L2 ./ D
ij &ij d x:
sZ
2d x I
kkL2 ./ D
395
396
sZ
u i ui d x I
kukL2 ./ D
sZ
k kL2 ./ D
ij ij d x :
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.