Received: 17 April 2018 Revised: 28 July 2018 Accepted: 1 August 2018

DOI: 10.1111/ffe.12912

INVITED REVIEW ARTICLE

Computational fracture mechanics: An overview from early

efforts to recent achievements

Aleksandar Sedmak

Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,

University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Correspondence
Aleksandar Sedmak, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering, University of
Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Email: asedmak@mas.bg.ac.rs
Abstract
An overview of the state of the art of computational fracture mechanics is pre-
sented, starting from early efforts and going all the way up to recent achieve-
ments. Some specific aspects of linear elastic and elastic plastic fracture
mechanics problems have been discussed, including the fact that even for a
static loading, numerical simulation is not a simple task because of complex
geometries, material nonlinearity, and heterogeneity, and especially if crack
growth is considered. Therefore, micromechanical modelling of elastic‐plastic
crack growth is presented as new and promising approach to overcome some
of the shortages of traditional approach. Besides static loading, couple of other
important practical problems are tackled, like fatigue crack growth, with
remaining life in the focus of investigation, using the empirical laws for crack
growth rates. Numerical simulation of fatigue crack growth is inherently com-
plex both because of complex material damage processes and lack of sound
theoretical basis to define them. Therefore, combination of theoretical, experi-
mental, and numerical approach is presented here to get reliable and efficient
estimation of life under fatigue loading.

Nomenclature: (R/R0)c, Critical value of void growth; 2a, Crack length; 2a0, Initial crack length; A, Secondary void initiation; AA, volume and surface
fraction of detected oxides; Ai, Area of detected inclusions; AT, Measurement field area; a/w, Crack length/specimen width ratio; a, b, Thomason
constants; b, Specimen semiwidth; B, Specimen nominal thickness; Bn, Ligament thickness; C, m, Paris equation coefficients; CMOD, Crack mouth
opening displacement; COD, Crack opening displacement; CTOA, Crack tip opening angle; CTOD, Crack tip opening displacement; D, Chu‐
Needleman model parameter; dεpeq , Equivalent plastic strain increment; E, Young modulus; f , Void volume fraction; F , Load; f *, Void volume
fraction function; f 0, Initial void volume fracture; f c, Critical value at which void coalescence occurs; f F , Void volume fracture at final failure;
F max, Maximum force; f N, Volume fraction of secondary‐void forming particles; f V, Volume fraction of nonmetallic inclusions; h, Specimen
height; Ji, J‐integral at crack initiation; K, Strength coefficient; KI, KII, KIII, Stress intensity factors for crack opening modes I, II, and III
respectively; Keff, Equivalent stress intensity factor; lc, Original element length; n, Hardening exponent; q1, q2, Twergaard parameters; r, Void space
ratio; R, Mean void radius; R0, Mean void radius initial value; Rm, Ultimate tensile strength; Rp0.2, Yield stress; SN, standard deviation; t, Specimen
thickness; U, External work area below F ‐VLL curve; VV, volume and surface fraction of detected sulphides; W‐a0, Ligament length; α, β, Rice‐
Tracey model parameters; δa, Crack length increment; Δa, Crack growth; ΔD, Cross‐sectional reduction (round tensile specimen); εe, Elastic strain;
ε_ pii , Strain rate tensor; εN, Mean strain at void nucleation; επ, Plastic strain; Φ, Plastic potential; λ, Mean free path; σ1, maximum principal stress; σ2,
0
Stress in the y direction; σeq, Equivalent stress; σ ij , Stress deviator; σm, Mean stress; σm/σeq, Stress tri‐axility; σT, True stress; σYS, Yield strength;
CFM, Computational fracture mechanics; LEFM, Linear elastic fracture mechanics; EPFM, Elastic plastic fracture mechanics; GTN, Gurtin‐
Tvergaard‐Needlman; CGM, Compete Gurson model; FEM, Finite element method; EFG, Element free Galerkin; C (T)OD, Crack (tip) opening
displacement
This paper is dedicated to Prof. Stojan Sedmak (1929‐2014), father of Fracture Mechanics in Southeast Europe, founder of Serbian Structural Integrity
and Life Society, named after him in 2014. His gigantic effort made Serbia and ex Yugoslavia important part of the Fracture Mechanics world map.

Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2018;1–37. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ffe © 2018 Wiley Publishing Ltd. 1
2 SEDMAK
1 | INTRODUCTION
Computational fracture mechanics (CFM) is a broad term
encompassing many different numerical methods applied
to solve fracture mechanics problems using computers.
Here, we consider the finite element method (FEM) as
the most powerful tool for numerical simulation of frac-
ture mechanics problems. Therefore, it is only natural to
start from the very beginning, with 2 pioneering papers,
1 by Argyris1 and the other by Turner et al.2 More than
a decade later, when FEM was already a well‐established
numerical tool for solving many structural problems,3,4
difficulties of its application to crack problems emerged.
Namely, the first attempts to calculate stress intensity fac-
tors were not very successful because of relatively large
error, even with well‐refined meshes.5 Soon, first singular
elements for linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
were introduced by Tracey,6 followed by elastic‐plastic
singular elements,7 as described in the most important
paper on CFM in early 70s, written by Rice and Tracey.8
Later on, the so‐called 4‐point and 8‐point noded singular
elements were introduced, or better to say, reproduced by
Barsoum,9 Henshell and Shaw,10 and Shih et al.11 At the
same time, another approach to crack problems was to
use nonuniform mesh refinement,12-14 reducing the error
to acceptable level without singular elements. Neverthe-
less, in both approaches, it was difficult to build a mesh,
and also practically impossible to take into account crack
growth.
Anyhow, it was recognised that nonuniform mesh
refinement and/or singular elements would do the job
for LEFM and elastic‐plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM),
and just few years later, thanks to fast improvement of
both hardware and software facilities, even uniform
meshes, with very large number of elements, were
equally efficient. Especially, when EPFM problems were
tackled, this was true, because “normal” meshes were
actually needed to follow crack growth. Once computers
and software are mentioned, couple of significant contri-
butions in software need to be referenced.15-17
Many other researchers have contributed to these
early developments,18-20 including elastic‐plastic model-
ling of 3‐dimensional (3D) crack problems, as well as pro-
viding solutions for J‐integral and crack tip opening
displacement (CTOD), before ESIS TC8 committee,
devoted to numerical methods in fracture mechanics,
published the “Recommendations for Use of FEM in
Fracture Mechanics” in 1991.21 All relevant details about
elastic‐plastic modelling of crack problems can be found
in recently published book by Brocks.22
In ex‐Yugoslavia, it was Prof. Stojan Sedmak, who
first mentioned the FEM (p. 41 in his PhD thesis, pub-
lished in 197623) as an efficient way to solve fracture
mechanics problems. Anyhow, the real breakthrough
was another pioneering work, by Prof. Mladen Berković
in 1980, with application of linear elastic FEM to a simple
problem of central cracked plate in tension.24 This early
effort resulted in very accurate prediction, using special
elements and uniform mesh refinement at the same time,
with stress intensity factors (SIF) calculated by extrapola-
tion or displacement and via J intergral, including 3D
problems.25 Later on, nonuniform mesh refinement with
extrapolation technique also provided excellent
results.26,27
Application of FEM to static crack growth was natural
next step, leading to micromechanical material model-
ling, applied as the so‐called local approach to brittle
and ductile fracture,28-31 although the basic idea can be
traced back to late 70s.32 Numerous published papers
and several round robin projects lead to publishing of 2
procedures of the European Structural Integrity Society
(ESIS)33,34 and to further improvement of local approach,
by introducing GTN model35,36 and complete Gurson
model (CGM),37 also supported by the conference focused
exclusively on the local approach.38
All these early efforts look obsolete nowadays com-
pared to preprocessing and postprocessing capabilities of
softwares such as ABAQUS and ANSYS, just to mention
2 of them, probably most frequently used to solve all
kinds of different types of fracture mechanics prob-
lems.39,40 So, one can say that CFM has progressed signif-
icantly over last few decades, or better to say, exploded
from small village of handful number of enthusiasts back
in 70s of the last century, to a megacity of researchers
producing beautiful colourful images of fracture mechan-
ics problems, be it brittle, ductile, plastic, fatigue, or
creep; static, dynamic or impact; and metallic or nonme-
tallic. We have witnessed dramatic change in our scien-
tific and engineering practice because of, so far,
unstoppable increase in computer capacity and efficiency.
One can say that “difficult” problems, like those with sin-
gularities, inspired significant improvement in numerical
analysis, which in turn has been providing solutions for
problems that we even could not dream of just few
decades ago.
As an excellent example of this interaction between
FEM and FM, one can take modelling of crack growth,
including fatigue crack growth, because the right time
for numerical simulation came only after meshless
method has been introduced by Belytschko,41-46 starting
with element free Galerkin (EFG) method, to be com-
pleted and named as extended finite element method
(XFEM) by the end of the last century. It should be men-
tioned that the FEM was much exploited in crack growth
modelling, ever since it was introduced into FM practice.
Anyhow, restrictions in FEM‐based crack growth
SEDMAK
simulations discouraged researchers who tried numerous
variations of FEM, until XFEM was developed for model-
ling discontinuities in 1D, 2D, and 3D domains. The
essence of the XFEM lies in subdividing a domain into
2 distinct parts: mesh generation for the geometric
domain (cracks not included) and enriching the finite ele-
ment approximation by additional functions that model a
crack, as introduced by Melenk and Babuska.47 The
essential feature was multiplication of the enrichment
functions by nodal shape functions, incorporating the
elastic asymptotic crack‐tip function of the Westergaard
field form. Many improvements were made later on, like
the modification of enriched functions in an attempt to
apply XFEM to elastic/plastic crack growth.48
In this paper, an overview of the state of the art of
computational fracture mechanics is presented, including
LEFM, EPFM, micromechanical modelling, and fatigue
crack growth with life assessment. Focus will often be
on heterogeneous materials such as welded joints,
because “one should never assume there are no cracks
in a welded joint”, as stated by Nichols.49
2 | N U M E R I C A L SI M U L A TI O N O F
LINEAR ELASTIC A ND ELASTIC ‐
P L A S T I C FR A C T U R E ME C H A N I C S
Extensive overview of CFM, both in LE and EP, is given
by Kuna50 and Brocks,51 so here it will be presented only
briefly, starting with few remarks about the FEM, to
emphasise often forgotten fact that we are dealing with
mathematical method of solving partial differential equa-
tion. Typically, static FM problems are defined as the
elliptical boundary value problem with prescribed con-
tour conditions for displacements and/or forces. Its main
features are discretisation (domain), approximation (con-
vergence), and interpolation (FE itself), transforming par-
tial differential equation into a set of linear algebraic
equations. This is the moment when computers started
to be important, at least from the point of view of efficient
solvers of large number of equations,15 while preprocess-
ing and postprocessing came later to turn this beautiful
mathematical method into a kind of black box. Thus, it
is never too many times to repeat how important it is to
know basics of FEM to apply it correctly and use modern
softwares appropriately. Finally, let us remind readers
that from a mathematical point of view, crack in a body
is just a different boundary condition (free surfaces),
although it produces relatively large error, even with well
refined meshes,5 because of singularity.
To start with CFM, let us quote few statements from
the brilliant paper, written by Rice and Tracey in early
70s,6 Chapter 4.2 on ELEMENT DESIGN (note: original
3
reference numbers are kept): “Three types of finite ele-
ments were used in the analysis. For elastic solutions,
the r−1/2 singular element25 was used nearest the crack
tip with arbitrary quadrilateral 4‐node isoparametric ele-
ments over the remainder of the configuration. To study
plastic effects at the crack tip, a new singular element
was designed, similar to that of Levy et al,37 which has
a 1/r shear strain singularity (with a bounded dilatational
strain) and a uniform strain as admissible deformations.
The singularity elements have the shape of isosceles tri-
angles and are focused along radial lines into the crack
tip. However, they are treated as degenerate isosceles
trapezoids in the sense that 4 nodes are assigned to the
elements, 1 at each vertex, even though 2 of the nodes
coincide at the crack tip. Levy et al37 introduced this coin-
cident node technique to study the crack tip displacement
variation. Contrary to their procedure, however, the coin-
cident nodes were here constrained to move as a single
point in obtaining the elastic response of the cracked
body, because the nonunique crack tip displacement is a
plasticity effect. The variation of stress and hence consti-
tutive relation in the plastic case within elements was
accounted for in the following approximate manner. Each
near‐tip element was viewed as the composite of 3
subelements, each extending one‐third of the height of
the element. The area average strain of an individual
subelement was used in evaluating the stress state and
constitutive matrix representative of the subelement.
The 3 subelement stiffnesses were then formed and added
to obtain the total element stiffness matrix. For the
adjoining isoparametric elements, the midpoint strain
was judged adequate to calculate the stress representative
of the entire element. To obtain elastic‐plastic solutions,
the procedure was to specify the r−1/2 element just up to
the load necessary to yield 1 of the subelements. There-
upon the r−1 element was used with its associated non-
unique crack tip displacement capability. Clearly, the
elastic singularity implies yielding under infinitesimal
load so that there is some error involved in the plastic
solution by specifying the r−1/2 near tip strain distribution
up to finite loads. Actually for the size element used at
the tip, this error should be very small”.
Keeping in mind the fact that all necessary equations
for both linear elastic and elastic‐plastic elements were
provided, including relevant examples, it is clear that 3
papers, referenced as Tracey,6 Levy et al,7 and Rice and
Tracey,8 established computational fracture mechanics,
long time ago, in 1973. Also, let us not forget that just
2 years later, McMeeking and Rice52 have shown that tri-
angular or prismatic collapsed 8‐node or 20‐node ele-
ments respectively, with a 1/r singularity, are well
suited for elastic‐plastic 2D and 3D calculations. Having
in mind also pioneering work in the mechanics of crack
4 SEDMAK
tip deformation and extension by fatigue,53 it seems that
we are still just recycling gigantic efforts and phenomenal
results provided by James Rice in late 60s and early 70s.
Later on, Barsoum9 formulated (or better to say
reinvented) triangular or prismatic isoparametric ele-
ments by collapsing 1 side to the point and shifting the
midside nodes to a quarter position. To obtain the 1/√r
singularity, the tip nodes have to undergo the same dis-
placement, whereas the 1/r singularity is produced with-
out midside nodes being shifted and without
displacements of the tip nodes being constrained. After
completing EPFM solutions, a large‐strain FEM analysis
was capable of simulating a crack tip blunting, both in
displacements, and principal stresses.13
It is now irresistible temptation for this author to pay
a respect to early CFM efforts in ex Yugoslavia, by
Mladen Berković, who was the first in the region to
completely understand, develop, and use the FEM. His
doctoral thesis on thin plate isoparametric finite ele-
ment54 booked him 1 of just 16 places in the First World
Congress on Computational Fracture Mechanics.55 By all
means, Mladen was the father of computational mechan-
ics in exYu, including CFM.56-59
Anyhow, after all these efforts and developments, sin-
gular elements gradually lost their utmost importance,
mainly because of an alternative way to calculate fracture
mechanics parameters, eg, to use virtual crack extension
for J‐integral calculations,60,61 providing useful results
even with coarse meshes, as well as because they were
unable to simulate crack growth. Another important
alternative, using regular elements, is separated into 3
groups52:
• Node release techniques, controlled by fracture
mechanics parameters (J, CTOD, CTOA).62-65
• Cohesive elements.66-70
• Constitutive equations based on damage mechanics
concepts.71-76
At this point, reader should not oversee 2 significant
contributions, made by joint effort of ESIS Technical
Committee 8 (TC8) members. First, it was round robin
on CT specimen modelling, resulting in the Recommen-
dations for Use of FEM in Fracture Mechanics in
1991,21 including mesh, solution procedure, material
law, type of analysis, crack tip modelling, fracture
mechanics parameters, and reference solution, This was
followed by the round robin on micromechanical model-
ling of fracture mechanics specimens as initiated by W.
Brocks, and performed in following 3 phases:
* Phase 1: Determination of local approach parameters
for ductile tearing (task A) and for cleavage (task B)
for a German 20MnNiM055 RPV reactor pressure ves-
sel steel, 1993 to 1995.
* Phase 2: Finite element simulations of ductile crack
growth (task A) and cleavage fracture (task B) on CT
specimens.77
* Phase 3: Finite element simulations of CT specimens
in the brittle to ductile transition curve, 2002 to 2005.
The results were then incorporated in the ESIS guide-
line document entitled “Guidance on local approach of
rupture of metallic materials”.34
It is interesting to note that both singular elements for
stationary cracks and regular meshes for crack growth
simulation have been developed at a time when computer
capacities were still rather limited. Today, well‐
established procedures and exponential increase in com-
puter capacities enabled wide range of applications,
including modifications of J‐integral (heterogeneous
materials like welded joints, ie, multimaterial bodies,78-
84
3‐dimensional problems,85,86 volume forces,87 dynamic
problems,88 thermal problems,89,90 nonflat surfaces like
thin shells.91-94
This spectacular development both in software and
hardware provided sound basis for reliable structural
integrity assessment of almost any practical problem,
however complex it may be. As an illustration, one can
think about complex 3D geometry, like cracked housing
of HP turbine, 2 pipes, cracked at the intersection, or
complete aircraft structure with a crack under complex
dynamic loading. Therefore, several examples with practi-
cal application of fracture mechanics to structural integ-
rity assessment of different components are presented
now.
Computation procedure for the structural integrity
assessment of damaged housing of high‐pressure turbine
thermoenergetic power plan is presented in Jovocic
et al.95 It can be seen from Figure 1, which is an excellent
example of modelling a complex structure, that the crack
of depth 30 mm and length up to 375 mm produced the
equivalent stress of relatively low level, 100 MPa, with
the corresponding stress intensity factor, Keq = 8 MPa m0.5,
significantly lower than the fracture toughness, leading to
the conclusion that the integrity of turbine housing was
not jeopardised, although the crack was detected during
repair. More details, about this procedure and results
obtained, are given in Jovocic et al.95
As another example of a complex structure modelling,
we present here numerical simulation of cracks in coated
materials,96 describing the effect of multicracking under
the thin layer during the hot dip galvanised steel process
(Figure 2A). For the modelling of bimaterial steel‐zinc
structure, ABAQUS 6.10.1 was used, providing results
for different cases, ie, for 1 crack and for 3 cracks under
the loading 500 MPa, as shown in Figure 2B.96 One crack
model indicated SIF values 16.2 to 24 MPa m0.5 for crack
SEDMAK 5

FIGURE 1 The equivalent stress in

vicinity of the crack (375 × 30 mm)95
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

(A) (B)

FIGURE 2 A, Structure of steel‐zinc bimaterial. B, FEM model, 3 cracks, loading 500 MPa96 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

length 0.03 to 0.06 mm.96 Results for the model with 3
cracks (Figure 3) indicated increased SIF value because
of the cumulative effect of cracks. Anyhow, this increase
does not exceed a critical value of mode I fracture
FIGURE 3 SIF vs crack length for model with 3 cracks96 [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
toughness for these alloys, eg, a SIF value for the steel
(80‐170 MPa m0.5). More details, especially about
debonding area and its interaction with cracks, are given
in Azari et al.96
Yet another practical application of the FEM is an
estimation of the elastic‐plastic semielliptical through‐
wall crack opening displacement (COD),97 with an aim
to analyse the leak‐before‐break of a pressuriser. The
COD value is calculated through thickness along the cen-
tre of crack, and used for the calculation of J‐integral by
the engineering approach taking into account the mate-
rial full stress‐strain data. Actually, this paper presents
an engineering procedure for determining critical crack
length by combining J‐integral values at the crack tip
and COD value, in respect to the fracture toughness of
the material. Conditions for leak before break (LBB) are
met if any value of the J‐integral overcomes the J‐value
at stable crack initiation. Under this condition, the orifice
size can be estimated by using calculated COD values in
respect to the postulated crack length 2a. The calculation
showed that steam mass flow at the critical crack length
6 SEDMAK
FIGURE 4 A, Finite element model of pressuriser. B, von Mises
stress distribution97 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
2a = 80 mm is 0.109 kg/second. This value is significant
enough to recognise LBB effects before final rupture
occurs. Figure 4 shows FE model of the pressuriser and
results for von Mises stress at the crack tips.
Now, we focus our attention to welded joints, treated
here primarily as multimaterial structure. To start with,
one can mention the review paper by Zerbst et al,98 basi-
cally on mismatch, misalignment, and round robin on
residual stresses for welded joints, as an excellent over-
view of weldment fracture mechanics in general.
Two detailed analyses of crack effects in HAZ are now
presented, starting with extensive research on weldment
fracture mechanics,99 where 2 different crack tip loca-
tions were analysed: 1 in the fine‐grained (FG) HAZ
and the other on in the coarse‐grained (CG) HAZ of
slightly overmatched welded joint. The 3D FEM using
ANSYS 5.7 was applied to simulate the experimental
research on tensile specimens,99 ie, to assess effects of
welded joint heterogeneity on the distribution of stress
and strain in front of the crack tip. Special care was taken
to model HAZ and crack region, requiring large number
FIGURE 5 The 3D model with enlarged crack tip region99
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 6 Location of crack in FG HAZ99 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(4560) of 3D 20‐node elements, as shown in Figure 5 for
specimen with crack tip in FGHAZ (Figure 6). Material
behaviour was modelled by multilinear stress‐strain
curves, obtained for each region of welded joint (WM,
BM, FGHAZ, and CGHAZ) through a combination of
microhardness values and the Ramberg‐Osgood law, as
explained in Adžiev et al.99 Numerical results for F vs
crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) are shown
in Figure 7 for the specimen with crack tip in the
FGHAZ, together with results of 2D FEM calculation
and the experimental results. Good agreement between
3D FEM and experimental results is obvious, verifying
numerical simulation.
The equivalent strain distribution around the crack
tip in the FGHAZ, obtained by 3D FEM, is shown in
Figure 8A. Significant influence of overmatching is obvi-
ous, acting as barrier for strain development, pushing
the strain to the more ductile base material and
protecting the welded joint from sudden failure. This
was also the case for the crack tip in the CGHAZ
(Figure 8B). More details are given in Adžiev et al,99
explaining also some subtle differences between 2 cases,
like decreasing of the fracture resistance of the welded
joint in the case of crack tip in FGHAZ, because of strain
constraint because of CGHAZ, and contrary to that its
increase in the case when the crack tip is located in the
CGHAZ, because the more ductile surrounding regions
FIGURE 7 The F‐CMOD curves for crack in FGHAZ99 [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK 7

(A) (B)
FIGURE 8 Equivalent strain distribution at remote stress σ = 291.7 MPa99 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

of the WM and FGHAZ (compared to CGHAZ) accom-

FIGURE 9 The J‐CMOD curves for tensile panel with small
crack100 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
modates the strain.
Numerical simulation of cracked welded joints is also
reported in Doncheva et al,100,101 where an experimental
research on the so‐called large cracks (LC) and small
cracks (SC)102 has been modelled by the use of 3D FEM.
To verify procedure, first the BM was modelled, and then
the welded joint, with different tensile properties in 4 dif-
ferent regions (BM. WM, CGHAZ, FGHAZ). Verifying
procedure included an analysis of the influence of crack
geometry (LC, SC) on fracture parameters as shown in
Figure 9, for J‐CMOD plot in the case of the SC, indicat-
ing good agreement between numerical and experimental
results. Figure 10 shows enlarged FE mesh around the SC
and the stress distribution at the crack tip, obtained by
using ABAQUS.

FIGURE 10 Results obtained from BMSC, with details on mesh and stress distribution100 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
8 SEDMAK
FIGURE 11 Finite element model for WMLC101 [Colour figure
can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Three‐dimensional FE models were also developed for
2 tensile specimens, made of welded joint, with different
surface cracks, large and small. The zone ahead of the
crack front is modelled with minimum of 2 layers of ele-
ments with a highly refined mesh stretch out across the
ligament, Figure 11, because of expected damage and
crack propagation in this region. Tensile properties of dif-
ferent regions in the undermatched welded joint have
been obtained by using special iterative procedure.103
The results for J‐CMOD and J‐remote strain are given
in Figure 12. One should notice relatively large difference
in the case of J‐CMOD for LC (Figure 12B) probably
because of constraint, produced by undermatching, espe-
cially for increased loading. More detailed analysis is
given in Doncheva et al.101
3 | MICROMECHANICAL M ODEL-
LING —LOCAL A PPROACH TO
FRACTURE
Driving force for local approach development was the fact
that elastic‐plastic fracture mechanics parameters, like
COD and J‐integral, cannot completely describe and
(A)
FIGURE 12 The J‐CMOD curves for 3D numerical model compared with experimental results: (A) WMSC and (B) WMLC101 [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
predict the behaviour of components with different geom-
etry under different loading conditions. To overcome
these deficiencies, a local approach was introduced based
on a large number of models of microscopic damages, as
an effort to explain and predict crack growth and macro-
scopic failure.
Following differences in 2 basic fracture mechanisms
for metallic materials, namely cleavage and ductile frac-
ture, the local approach developed 2 different
micromechanical models. On one hand side, it was rela-
tively simple model for brittle fracture, ie, cleavage,28,29
whereas more complex mechanisms of ductile fracture
were modelled as a process of void nucleation, growth,
and coalescence,30,31 which is the focus here. In this
chapter, numerical methods, used for simulation of duc-
tile fracture process, are presented as a compilation of
previously accomplished research,104-157 followed by an
overview of more recent results.158-166
3.1 | Micromechanical modelling of
ductile fracture
The first micromechanical investigations113-116 included
round tensile specimens and notched tensile specimens
with different values of notch radius, enabling develop-
ment of ESIS procedure21. Further investigations117-120
lead to the ESIS draft “Guidance on local approach of
rupture of metallic materials”.34 The more recent
methods and approaches are focused to specific problems,
including void coalescence criterion, detailed microstruc-
tural analysis, and the effect of size, shape, and distribu-
tion of voids.121,122 These micromechanical models have
been successfully applied to several classes of problems,
including pressure vessels,123-125 pipelines,126,127 and
welded joints.128,129
Modelling of ductile fracture includes void nucleation
around inclusions and second‐phase particles, followed
by their growth and coalescence (Figure 13). Proposed
(B)
SEDMAK 9

FIGURE 13 Process of ductile fracture

on geometries: (A) without and (B) with
initial crack135 (A) (B)



models typically assume that voids nucleate when critical R σm
ln ¼ ∫α⋅ exp β⋅ ⋅dεpeq
stress within inclusion or at inclusion‐matrix interface R0 σ eq
has been reached.
Early attempts to model ductile fracture assumed that where R stands for the mean void radius, R0 is its initial
voids do not significantly affect material behaviour. These value, σm/σeq represents the stress triaxiality, and dεpeq is
so‐called uncoupled models30,31 typically used von Mises the equivalent plastic strain increment. The critical value
yield criterion and have not incorporated any damage of void growth ratio, (R/R0)c, is the value at the crack ini-
parameter into the constitutive equation. Soon after- tiation. Values of parameters α = 0.283 and β = 1.5 for
wards, the so‐called coupled models were developed,36 Rice‐Tracey model are given in the original reference,32
based on constitutive equations suggested by Gurson,35 as the constants for a given steel.
with damage parameter “built into” the numerical proce- The main advantages of this approach are simple
dure and estimated during the finite elements (FE) anal- numerical procedure and possibility to use the results of
ysis. Main variable was void volume fraction, which was a single FE calculation for many postprocessing routines.
directly incorporated into the flow criterion. Numerical It makes this approach favourable for engineering prac-
and experimental tests have shown that this model, com- tice, as it enables quick assessment of crack initiation
monly called Gurson‐Tvergaard‐Needleman (GTN) on tested material or plant component.142
model, can describe both damage development at micro-
scopic level and plastic strain, at macroscopic level of 3.3 | Coupled modelling
material behaviour. Some of the recent advances114-117
proved that GTN model is capable to predict the macro- The coupled modelling of ductile fracture initiation con-
scopic ductile toughness using microscopic parameters.136 sider material as a porous medium, where the influence
One of the most successful recent models is CGM,37 of nucleated voids on the stress‐strain state and plastic
developed by incorporating the Thomason's limit load cri- flow is taken into account, as defined by GTN model.
terion,132 into the GTN model. Here, the void volume fraction f is introduced into the
expression for plastic potential35,36,144:
0 0

3σ ij σ ij 3q2 σ m  
3.2 | Uncoupled modelling φ¼ þ 2q1 f * cosh − 1 þ ð q1 f * Þ 2 ¼ 0
2σ 2YS 2σ YS
According to the model of Rice‐Tracey,32 improved by 0

Beremin,29 Huang,139 and Chaouadi et al,140 void growth where σYS is the yield stress, σ ij the stress deviator, σm is
is strongly dependent on stress‐field multiaxiality. All the mean stress, q1 and q2 parameters introduced
these models are uncoupled; hence, damage is calculated by Tvergaard,144 and f* is a function of the void volume
by postprocessing routines, after FE analysis of the stress fraction36:
and strain fields. 
According to Beremin,30 growth of an isolated void in * f for f ≤ f c
f ¼
a remote uniform von Mises stress field can be defined as: f c þ K ðf −f c Þ for f > f c
10
where f c is the critical value at which void coalescence
occurs. For f* = 0, the plastic potential Φ is identical with
that of von Mises. The parameter K defines the slope of a
sudden drop of the force on the force‐diameter reduction
diagram, thus defining the final stage of ductile fracture‐
void coalescence, which leads to complete loss of the
material load carrying capacity.
In the initial phase of the ductile fracture, the voids
nucleate mostly around the nonmetallic inclusions. To
quantify this micromechanism, the volume fraction of
nonmetallic inclusions, f V, that can be determined using
light microscopy, should be known.145 Two phenomena
contribute to the increase of the void volume fraction: the
growth of existing voids and the nucleation of new voids:
f_ ¼ f_ nucleation þ f_ growth ; f_ nucleation ¼ A_εpeq and f_ growth ¼ ð1− f Þ_εpii
where ε_ pii is the plastic part of the strain rate tensor.
Growth of nucleated voids is strongly dependent on
stress and strain state. Most of experiments and analyses
show an exponential increase with the stress triaxiality,
defined as the ratio of the mean stress σm and equivalent
stress σeq.
Chu and Needleman146 proposed a model for initia-
tion of the secondary voids. According to this model,
the secondary void initiation can be described using nor-
mal distribution:
"
#
fN 1 εeq −εN 2
A ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi exp −
sN 2π 2 sN
where f N denotes the volume fraction of secondary‐void
forming particles, εN is the mean strain at void nucle-
ation, and SN is the corresponding standard deviation.
All parameters described above can be divided into 3
groups:
1. Constitutive parameters: q1, q2.
2. Initial damage parameters: f 0, f N, and εN (according
to Chu‐Needleman).
3. Critical damage parameters: f c, f F , and f u.
The GTN model has undergone many modifications,
one of them proposed by Zhang et al,37 who applied the
Thomason's void coalescence criterion,132 to formulate
the complete Gurson model (CGM). This model intro-
duces a criterion for the onset of void coalescence:


 
σ1 1 β 
¼ α −1 þ pffiffi 1−πr 2
σ r r f N in Chu‐Needleman equation. Using procedure
where r1 is the maximum principal stress and a and b are
constants fitted by Thomason132 (a = 0.1 and b = 1.2).
SEDMAK
Instead of a constant value, Zhang et al37 proposed a lin-
ear dependence of a on hardening exponent n, which is
applied in the CGM. Taking the void space ratio r as
given in Zhang et al,37 the critical void volume fraction
f c can be calculated during the FEM, ie, it is not a mate-
rial constant in the CGM. This critical value depends on
the strain field, so it does not necessarily have the same
value in all finite elements and even in all integration
points within 1 element. This fact is especially important
in joints, where the material heterogeneity causes severe
gradients in the stress and strain fields around the crack
tip before and after the crack growth initia-
tion.130,133,134,137,138 If the GTN model is used, it is neces-
sary to determine this value (eg, by transferring its value
from a tensile specimen or from unit cell analyses) and
use it as material parameter for fracture assessment.
3.4 | ESIS round robin—modelling of
ductile fracture initiation
The starting point in making an overview of
micromechanical modelling results is the ESIS round
robin on ductile fracture initiation. Low‐alloyed steel 22
NiMoCr 3 7 (according to DIN), used mainly for pressure
vessels, has been tested on the specimens in forged heat‐
treated condition,147 and later used for ESIS TC8 round
robin project on micromechanical models, Phase II Task
A1, through which the numerical part of the analysis is
performed. Tensile properties of steel were determined
on a smooth specimen at 0°C: yield strength
Rp0.2 = 476 MPa and ultimate tensile strength
Rm = 620 MPa.
Initial void volume fraction f 0 is determined by quan-
titative optical microscopy. Volume fraction of sulphides
and oxides in tested steel has been determined based on
equality with surface fraction:
Ai
V V ¼ AA ¼
AT
where VV and AA are the volume and surface fraction of
detected sulphides and oxides respectively, Ai is the area
of the detected inclusions, and AT is the measurement
field area. Volume fraction f 0 is determined as a mean
value of surface fraction of nonmetallic inclusions for all
of 100 measurement fields. In this way, the value of initial
volume fraction of nonmetallic inclusions f 0 = 0.00226
has been determined. Considering the similar densities
of structural steel and Fe3C particles, it has been adopted
that the volume fraction of iron carbides is 0.03, used as
described in Younise,134 the mean edge‐to‐edge distance
between inclusions, represented by the average value of
mean free path, λ = 219 μm, is determined.
SEDMAK
(A) (B)
FIGURE 14 Standard round tensile specimen: dimensions (A) and simulation by FE mesh (B)104 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Calculations on standard tension specimen
(Figure 14) are made, and criteria of initiation of ductile
fracture are established according to Rice‐Tracey model
and GTN model. Because of the symmetry, one‐quarter
of the specimen is used for FE model. Loading is intro-
duced by prescribing displacements of specimen edge in
several steps. Eight‐noded quadrilateral elements with
reduced integration are used, and the results obtained
using 4‐noded elements can be found in Nichols.49 Size
of elements in the centre of the specimen is
0.3 × 0.125 mm. Material nonlinearity is modelled using
true stress‐true (logarithmic) strain curve, and large
strain (updated Lagrangian) FE formulation.
The GTN model is integrated into the FE software,
ABAQUS.39 Elastic‐plastic FE calculations are carried
out with Tvergaard‐Needleman parameter value
q1 = 1.5, according to Tvergaard,144 both with and with-
out secondary void nucleation. When secondary void
nucleation is taken into account, parameter D according
to the Chu‐Needleman model is determined for εN = 0.3,
SN = 0.1, and f N = 0.04, as the reference values, most fre-
quently used for various steels.136,150
Figure 15 shows a diagram load, F , vs reduction of
cross section, ΔD, of a round specimen. Calculation with-
out nucleation of secondary voids and calculation with
traditional von Mises criterion give approximately the
same results. Moreover, differences between the von
Mises law and the GTN model are negligible almost to
the point of the initiation of damage. Finite element
FIGURE 15 Load, F , vs reduction of cross section, ΔD, of the
round tensile specimen107
11
calculation in which secondary void nucleation is taken
into account predicts significant deviation from experi-
mental data after neck has been formed.
Change of void volume fraction in radial direction for
the last 3 tensile steps is shown in Figure 16A. The dam-
age is most severe in the middle of the specimen, and this
is the location of crack initiation. Accordingly, the critical
values of model parameters had been determined for ele-
ment in the specimen centre. The last step of numerical
calculation of tension corresponds to the specimen frac-
ture, which can also be seen in Figure 16A.
Critical void volume fraction, f c, is determined accord-
ing to Figure 11B, from the increase of void volume frac-
tion in central element of the specimen, depending on
cross‐sectional reduction. For determination of f c value,
for the necking process experimental result,117
ΔD ≈ 2.63 mm is used. This is the value at the point of sud-
den drop of force caused by coalescence of voids. Obtained
value is in good agreement with recommended
values114,117 for this steel ( f c = 0.05) and the steel that is
most similar to it according to the American standard
A508Cl.2, f c = 0.045.151 The critical value (R/R0)c = 3.045
is obtained in the same way as shown in Rakin et al.119
The second part of the micromechanical analysis
includes determination of the onset of crack growth on
standard CT25 specimen (Figure 17). Within the scope of
the round robin project, Phase II, Task A2,117 6 specimens
were tested, providing curves load‐load line displacement
and J‐integral‐crack growth increment. One half of the
specimen is modelled using quadrilateral 8‐noded
isoparametric plain strain elements (Figure 17A), with
the same true stress‐true strain curve as for the tensile
smooth specimen calculation. Loading is modelled by pre-
scribing displacements of the load line, in several steps.
Crack tip is modelled using refined FE mesh without
singular elements (Figure 17B). According to numerous
researches,117,136 element size at the crack tip corre-
sponds to the mean free path between the nonmetallic
inclusions (λ = 219 μm), which is considered to be unaf-
fected by orientation. Therefore, the size of elements at
the crack tip was 0.2 × 0.2 mm, used for both calcula-
tions: Rice‐Tracey void growth model with von Misses
yield criterion and GTN model with the same initial void
volume fraction value as in the tensile smooth specimen.
Subsequent void nucleation is not taken into account.
12 SEDMAK

(A) (B)

FIGURE 16 A, Distribution of void volume fraction, f . B, Critical void volume fraction, f c107

(A) (B)

FIGURE 17 A, CT specimen. B, FE mesh with detail near the crack tip107 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Distribution of void volume fraction ( f ) near the below numerically determined curves, according to the
crack tip, at the crack growth initiation, is shown in expression152:
Figure 18A. Concentration of large values ( f > 0.06) very
close to the crack tip is obvious. One can also see a large ηU
a 
0
Ji ¼ and η ¼ 2 þ 0:552 1− (10)
variation of f in the element in front of the crack tip. Dis- Bn ðW −a0 Þ W
tribution of the stress component, normal to the crack
direction, σ2, at the crack growth initiation is shown in where U is external work‐area below F ‐VLL curve,
Figure 18B. W − a0 is ligament length, and thickness Bn = 20 mm
Based on FE calculation, load F ‐load line displace- because of 20% side grooves (specimen nominal thickness
ment VLL curves are established. The value of J‐integral B = 25 mm). Load line displacement VLL corresponding
at crack initiation, Ji, is obtained using the area to the onset of crack growth is determined according to

(A) (B)

FIGURE 18 A, Distribution of f in front of crack tip. B, Distribution of σ2 at the crack growth initiation107 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK
the values (R/R0)c = 3.045 and f c = 0.0611, determined
for smooth specimen. Failure in front of the crack tip is
defined by R/R0 ≥ (R/R0)c and f ≥ f c.
In this analysis, 2 failure criteria are possible, 1 at the
Gauss point nearest to the crack tip (GP1) and the other
one for the entire element. Having in mind that the goal
is determination of Ji, and that its experimental verifica-
tion means determination of final stretch zone width, fail-
ure at the first Gauss point is more realistic, as also
proved by the following 2 values of Ji (experimental value
was Ji = 230 N/mm117):
a. Ji = 220.4 N/mm (GTN model), Ji = 249.2 N/mm
(Rice‐Tracey model), failure at the GP1.
b. Ji = 267.9 N/mm, failure of the entire element at the
crack tip.
Figure 19 shows increase of void volume fraction vs
load line displacement VLL, in Gauss points (GP1‐GP4)
FIGURE 19 Void volume fraction in gauss points of the first FE
in the ligament107
(A)
FIGURE 20 A, Load F vs load line displacement VLL until the moment of crack growth initiation using f c as failure criterion. B, Part of
diagram corresponding to crack growth initiation107] [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
13
for the element at the crack tip, until the onset of crack
growth, indicating significant differences.
One should notice that the recommendation to use
the size of elements at the crack tip similar to the mean
free path between nonmetallic inclusions was correct in
both models, uncoupled and coupled, because the onset
of crack growth is successfully predicted. Anyhow, there
are other expressions, explanations, and recommenda-
tions,153,154 regarding the size of FE at the crack tip,
which have proved to be correct for certain
materials.155,156
However, disregarding the applied method for deter-
mination of FE size at the crack tip, there is unanimous
opinion that FE size strongly effects prediction of the
onset of crack growth, making micromechanical model-
ling sensitive to FE mesh. This is not clearly visible in
Figure 20, where force F is plotted against CMOD until
the failure at the GP1, for 3 different values of FE at the
crack tip, 0.2 × 0.2, 0.4 × 0.4, and 0.1 × 0.1 mm, but def-
initely true if Ji values are compared (220.4 N/mm for
0.2 × 0.2 mm, 414.5 N/mm for 0.4 × 0.4 mm, and
127.2 N/mm for 0.1 × 0.1 mm, almost proportional to
the element size).
3.5 | Micromechanical modelling of crack
initiation and growth in welded joints
Weldment fracture mechanics has been in focus for long
time, because welding is, unfortunately, ideal process to
produce cracks.49 This is also the reason to apply
micromechanical modelling, presented here briefly, as a
fraction of extensive study on welded joints made of
NIOMOL 490, high‐strength‐low‐alloyed (HSLA) steel
used mostly for pressure vessels.134
To start with, the quantitative microstructural analy-
sis was performed to estimate the micromechanical mate-
rial parameters: volume fraction of nonmetallic
(B)
14 SEDMAK

TABLE 1 Microstructural parameters of welded joint materials

Material fv fN λ, μm (m)

BM (NIOMOL 490K) 0.0094 0.014748 578

HAZ 0.0086 0.014748 497
WM 0.0194 0.010685 202

inclusions ( f v) and mean free path (λ) between the non-

metallic inclusions in the BM, HAZ, and WM.134 The ini-
tial porosity ( f 0) is assumed to be equal to the volume
fraction of nonmetallic inclusions ( f v). Volume fraction
of void nucleating particles ( f N) was calculated from the
content of carbon in tested materials, using the carbon
content in BM and filler metal for HAZ and WM respec-
tively, as presented in Table 1, together with volume
fraction of nonmetallic inclusions ( f v) and mean free
path (λ).
Stress‐strain curves of various zones of welded joint,
especially heat‐affected subzones (CGHAZ and FGHAZ),
are difficult to be determined by conventional methods.
Therefore, special iteration procedure based on compari-
son of experimental and numerical results103 was applied
here for the first time to estimate true stress‐true strain
curves. Toward this end, smooth tensile plate (without
cracks) was cut transversally from welded plate and lon-
gitudinal strains at different load levels measured in var-
ious regions of welded joints (WM, CGHAZ, FGHAZ,
FIGURE 22 Finite element mesh for the region of measured
strain134 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
and BM) using digital image correlation method with
ARAMIS measuring system118 (Figure 21).
Then, the smooth tensile specimen was numerically
modelled using ABAQUS 6.7 with 3‐dimensional 8‐node
brick elements. Mesh has been refined in regions where
strains were measured (Figure 22).
Engineering remote stress‐true strain data for welded
joint regions (BM, WM, and HAZ) was obtained from
strains, measured by ARAMIS (Figure 21) using corre-
sponding applied force. Strains in each region at corre-
sponding forces were calculated as an average value

FIGURE 21 Geometry of smooth

tensile specimen with strains measured by
ARAMIS134 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK 15

TABLE 2 Mechanical properties of the materials for numerical estimated from the obtained experimental true stress‐
iterations strain curves. The mechanical properties (E and σYS)
Material Iteration E (MPa) σYS (MPa) n K (MPa) and Hollomon parameters (K and n) are given in
Table 2 for 3 iterations as example for performing itera-
WM 1 169 320 459 0.1 944
tion procedure. The third iteration for Hollomon parame-
2 195 000 550 0.08 971
ters is represented in Figure 23A as a plot true stress‐true
3 200 000 530 0.21 1255
strain curves for all 4 regions of welded joint and in
CGHAZ 1 190 037 459 0.11 935
Figure 23B as a plot of strain vs distance along the weld-
2 200 000 530 0.09 947
3 203 000 550 0.17 968
ment, compared with the experimental results. Finally,
Figure 24 shows comparison between tested specimen
FGHAZ 1 190 037 459 0.11 935
and longitudinal true strain distribution in numerical
2 200 000 500 0.08 901
3 195 000 500 0.23 1217
models for 3 iterations, indicating good agreement after
third iteration.
BM 1 176 972 459 0.11 929
2 202 000 540 0.1 940
3 202 900 520 0.22 1157
3.6 | Modelling of crack initiation and
growth in welded joints
along measured line. Then, engineering remote stress (σ) Micromechanical modelling was first done on 2 SENB
was calculated using initial cross section of tested speci- specimens, 1 precracked in WM and the other 1 in
men and then converted to true stress (σT) using expres- FGHAZ. They were analysed as 2D model under plane‐
sion σT = σ (1 + ε) where ε is average strain.134 True strain conditions with isoparametric quadrangular 8‐
stress‐strain behaviour of materials was found to follow noded elements with 2 × 2 Gauss integration used for
Hollomon power law up to maximum load according to simulating crack initiation and 4‐noded elements with
expressions: full Gauss integration used for crack propagation. In front
of the crack tip, squared finite elements (0.2 × 0.2 mm for
ε ¼ εe þ εp; σ ¼ Eεe if σ ≤ σ YS; σ ¼ K εpn if σ > σ YS: specimen with a precrack in WM and 0.5 × 0.5 mm for
specimen with a precrack in FGHAZ) were used, in
where εe and εp are elastic and plastic strains respectively, accordance with the mean free path λ between nonmetal-
E is Young modulus, σYS is yield strength, K is strength lic inclusions in tested materials (see Table 1). For this
coefficient, and n is material hardening exponent in analysis, we present only specimen with precrack in WM
Hollomon equation. The proper combination of mechan- (Figure 25).
ical properties was determined by varying them until More detailed analysis is given in Younise,134 includ-
good agreement between numerical and experimental ing verification of FEM results by comparing with exper-
results at different loads was obtained. This procedure imental ones, using plots of CMOD vs force ( F ), as well
was introduced for engineering stress‐strain curves and as the effects of heterogeneity and constraint on ductile
applied to determine yield strength and hardening coeffi- crack initiation and propagation. Here, we focus our
cient in Sedmak et al.103 The initial iteration was attention only on crack growth, ie, J‐R curves. The crack

(A) (B)

FIGURE 23 A, True stress‐true strain curve. B, Strain vs distance along the weldment134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
16 SEDMAK

FIGURE 24 Comparison between tested specimen and longitudinal true strain distribution in numerical models for 3 iterations at the
same remote displacement134 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

(A)

(B)

FIGURE 25 A, Geometry of SENB specimen with precrack in WM. B, Finite element mesh134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

growth (Δa) has been simulated by tracing the path of
completely damaged elements, shown in Figure 26. Crack
growth has been estimated by multiplying the original
length of an element (lc) with the number of completely
damaged elements. The element is assumed to be
completely damaged when the void volume fraction at
final failure f F is reached according to the relation
f F = 0.15 + f 0. Then, the corresponding value of J‐inte-
gral is calculated to construct crack growth resistance
curves (Figure 27).
The effect of finite element size on the prediction of
crack initiation and crack resistance curves was analysed
SEDMAK
FIGURE 26 Distribution of void
volume fraction for SENB specimen with a
precrack in WM134 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 27 Experimental and numerical J‐R curves for SENB
specimen precracked in WM134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
by many researchers, including Sedmak and Rakin107 and
Younise,134 and where it is found that the size of FE mesh
significantly affects the material resistance curves and
crack initiation values for specimens with precracks in
WM and HAZ. Here, this effect is clearly visible in
Figure 27, where excellent agreement between experi-
mental and numerical results have been obtained with
lc equal to mean free path value, λ = 202 μm ≈ 0.2 mm,
whereas strongly overestimated values for J were
obtained with lc = 0.5 mm. Similarly, J values for the
crack in CGHAZ were strongly underestimated when lc
was taken as 0.25 mm instead of 0.5 mm.134
3.7 | Three‐dimensional finite element
analysis of tensile panels
To study fracture behaviour of welded high‐strength
steels, tensile panel with semielliptical surface cracks in
17
HAZ was used.134 Three‐dimensional finite damage
models for welded tensile panels with surface crack were
developed. Ductile crack growth initiation values and J‐R
curves have been analysed numerically, including effects
of crack tip constraint, mechanical heterogeneity, and
loading condition. Finite element code ABAQUS with
material user subroutine UMAT was used to model the
tensile panels with a surface crack in FGHAZ (length
22 mm, depth 5 mm), with 3‐dimensional 8‐node ele-
ments (Figure 28).
Keeping in mind that most metals have very narrow
fracture process zone,129 3D modelling of the whole spec-
imen using a damage constitutive model is unnecessary
and inefficient. Therefore, a single layer of elements with
a damage constitutive model was used in front of the
crack to simulate the ductile tearing, following procedure
described in Rakin et al112 and Zrilic.115 In the tearing
zone, ahead the crack front, minimum 2 layers of ele-
ments with a highly refined mesh were used for CGM
modelling. The BM and WM have been modelled by
using conventional J2 flow theory von Mises plasticity
with large displacement analysis. The mesh size, lc, was
chosen to approximate the mean free path between non-
metallic inclusions.
Comparison between numerical and experimental
results of force ( F ) vs crack tip opening displacement
(δ5), force ( F ) vs CMOD, and CMOD vs δ5 has been given
in Younise,134 indicating good agreement, and, thus, ver-
ifying numerical procedure.
Here, we focus our attention to ductile crack growth
initiation, defined by J‐integral at initiation (Ji), modelled
using the critical void volume fraction criterion ( f c),
which represents the end of stable void growth and the
start of void coalescence in the material. The values of Ji
have been estimated numerically at the middle of the
specimen thickness in front of crack, where the highest
value of void volume fraction occurs. The value of
 18
Colour online, B&W in print
(A)
(B)
FIGURE 28 The 3D model for tensile panel with surface crack in FGHAZ: (A) 3D mesh for half of specimen with boundary conditions
and (B) detailed mesh for the region near the crack front134 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Ji = 346.2 N/mm agrees well with the value obtained by
experiment, using FSZ, Ji = 321.4 N/mm, as described
in details in Younise et al.134,149,157
Figure 29 shows the distribution of void volume frac-
tion ( f ) at the instant of crack growth initiation, indicat-
ing concentration of large values very close to the crack
front. The location of crack initiation is also shown in
this figure, which corresponds to the location of maxi-
mum stress triaxiality. Equivalent von Mises stress and
plastic strain distribution at the onset of crack growth
in FGHAZ is given in Figures 30 and 31. The effects of
applied stresses and strains on the distribution of void
volume fraction at crack growth initiation can be seen
also in Figure 32. More details are given in Younise,134
SEDMAK
including constraint levels analysed on basis of stress
triaxiality.
Now, we focus on some of the most recent research,
including ring pipe specimen to evaluate behaviour of
real structure, such as pressure vessel. In recently pub-
lished paper,158 the influence of specimen size and stress
concentrator size/shape was analysed for a new type of
specimen, the pipe ring notch bend specimen (PRNB).
In Musraty et al,158 fracture criteria of this specimen
(Figure 33A made of HSLA steel, NIOMOL 490K, are
determined by micromechanical analysis. The specimens
with radius 60 and 40 mm were precracked, while those
with radius 85 mm were notched (tip radius 0.25 mm).
Numerical analysis was performed in software package
SEDMAK 19

FIGURE 29 Distribution of void volume fraction ( f ) in HAZ at the onset of crack growth134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 30 Equivalent von Mises stress distribution at the onset of crack growth in FGHAZ134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 31 Equivalent plastic strain distribution at the onset of crack growth in FGHAZ [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
20
FIGURE 32 Distribution of void volume fraction, which shows crack growth in FGHAZ134 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(A)
FIGURE 33 A, Specimen dimensions and testing scheme. B, FE mesh158 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Simulia ABAQUS (Figure 33B) using CGM with the ini-
tial value of porosity f 0 set equal to the volume fraction
of nonmetallic inclusions, f v = 0.0094.158
Crack growth curves obtained experimentally are
shown in Figure 34A for precracked rings (R60 and
R40) and R85 specimens, whereas their numerical coun-
terparts are shown in Figure 34B, indicating good agree-
ment for R40 and R60. Somewhat lower crack resistance
was obtained both experimentally and numerically for
R85 specimen, because of its larger thickness.
The influence of wall thickness is further examined
for R60 specimen, with initial thickness of 7.5 mm
increased to 12 mm (Figure 35A) indicating lower resis-
tance to crack growth (Figure 35B). On the other hand
side, there is no effect if width is increased from 15 to
SEDMAK
(B)
24 mm (Figure 35B). One can also see that specimen
radius, defect shape, and size do not have a pronounced
influence on fracture behaviour.
Another recently published paper163 on prediction of
ductile crack growth in laboratory samples (SENB, SENT,
and CT), made of X65, welded grade pipe steel, used
round notched bars (RNB) to identify damage parameters
(Figure 36) for both parent and weld materials. Toward
this end, FEM code MSC MARC was used with 3D 8‐
node brick elements specialised for ductile crack growth.
Initial blunting (r = 0.15 mm, consistent with SZW
stretch zone width data) was used.
In Figure 37A, the comparison of the predicted
applied load vs crack mouth opening displacement, and
stroke displacement (TRAV), with experimental data for
SEDMAK
(A)
FIGURE 34 Crack growth curves: (A) experimental and (B) CGM158 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(A)
FIGURE 35 Crack growth for 2 models: (A) with different wall thickness and (B) wall thickness effect on crack growth curves158 [Colour
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SENT base metal is shown. The overall agreement is very
good and confirmed by the qualitative comparison of the
predicted crack growth and crack front shape at test end
(Figure 37B). It should be noted that finite element simu-
lation with damage is capable to reproduce all main fea-
tures of the deformation and crack growth process.
Finally, we present just a fragment of an extensive
study on the effect of Lüders plateau on crack resistance
curve with sent specimens.166 Material behaviour has
been modelled as shown in Figure 38, with hardening
exponent n = 0.05, damage parameter f 0 = 0.005, crack
length a/w = 0.1, and crack length increment δa = 0.5 mm.
The stress triaxiality distribution ahead of crack tip for dif-
ferent levels of strain at Lüders plateau, εl, is shown in
Figure 38B, indicating that the stress triaxiality scales duc-
tile crack growth, depending on the Lüders plateau length.
More details are presented in Tu et al,166 including
effects of hardening exponent, n, damage parameter, f 0,
crack length a/w, and crack length increment δa, while
21
(B)
(B)
here, we just emphasise 1 important conclusion, that
the CTOD at crack initiation is insensitive to the Lüders
plateau length.
4 | A P P L I C A T I O N OF X F E M TO
FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH
SIMULATION
The FEM, as the most popular numerical method nowa-
days, was also used for fatigue crack growth simula-
tion,167-169 but restrictions in FEM crack growth
simulations discouraged researches, until XFEM was
introduced and developed to solve different crack growth
problems.41-48 As explained in the introduction, the main
advantage of XFEM is to enable the crack growth without
remeshing of the domain. The cracks are represented
with the help of 2 signed distance functions that are
discretised on the same mesh as the displacement field
22 SEDMAK

FIGURE 36 Identification of damage parameters using only RNB traction data163 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

FIGURE 37 A, Applied force vs TRAV. B, Crack growth comparison163 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

with first‐order shape functions. After each step of the
propagation simulation, the SIFs are computed from the
numerical solution at several points along the crack
fronts. Interaction integrals are used to extract the
mixed‐mode SIFs with the help of auxiliary fields. After
that, fatigue crack growth model (like Paris‐Erdogan
law) can be used for fatigue life evaluation.
In the last couple of years, many papers dealt with the
problems related to crack initiation and resulting damage
growth under different loadings, but in the most cases,
basic geometry was used in XFEM. Researchers carried
out simulations either on 2‐dimensional specimen
models170,171 or 3D models of simplified structures.172
Furthermore, even in 3D models, crack growth was sim-
ulated in 1 plane, taking into consideration only 1 direc-
tion of propagation. In reality, cracks can grow in
different directions depending on loading and con-
straints, eventually changing plane and direction of
growth, not to mention multiple cracking. This is difficult
to simulate, and therefore, precise evaluation of fatigue
life of the damaged structure is not easy to achieve. The
best estimates are made when stress intensity factors
(SIFs) are known for the real geometry, so only values
obtained for 3D models can be used for further calcula-
tions without any modification.
In Daux et al,173 authors used XFEM for analyzing
models containing several cracks with voids, cracks with
multiple branches, and cracks emanating from the holes.
More recently, Kim et al174 investigated the effect of com-
pression stresses, stress level, and stress order on fatigue
crack growth of multiple site damage. In this investiga-
tion, the XFEM was applied to predict lifetime under
SEDMAK 23

(A) (B)

FIGURE 38 A, Lüders plateau. B, The stress triaxiality distribution ahead of crack tip166 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

constant amplitude cyclic loading of fatigue tests on sev- 4.1 | Fatigue life estimation of CCT
eral multiple site damage specimens of Al 2024‐T3. Then, specimen
the multiple crack growths under service stress spectra
To demonstrate the capability and reliability of XFEM in
are calculated to investigate the effect of compressive
prediction of the crack propagation trajectory and the
stress, stress order, and the effect of sequence cyclic load-
evaluation of SIF values, specimen with a central crack
ing on stress level by using Forman and NASGROW
was analysed, as defined and described in details in
equations.174
Eldwaib et al.181 Dimensions of the specimen were
There are studies, such as Budyn et al,175 Loehnert
semiheight h = 40 mm, semiwidth b = 20 mm, and thick-
and Belytschko,176 and Singh et al,177 where XFEM was
ness t = 1 mm. Initial length of the crack was
used for analyzing various effects of multiple microcracks
2a0 = 4 mm, and a uniform tension of 25 MPa was
on a macrocrack. A homogenised XFEM was proposed in
applied.
Kumar et al178 for the evaluation of fatigue life of an edge
It is important to emphasise that 2D simulations of
crack plate in the presence of multiple discontinuities,
crack propagations are still dominant and—to the best
like holes, inclusions, and minor cracks. A detailed
authors' knowledge—simulations presented here were 1
numerical study is performed to decide the modelling
of the first attempts of XFEM application for 3D crack
region for the discontinuities. To improve the results, a
growth analysis. In 2D simulations, values for SIFs are
homogenisation scheme based on strain energy density
calculated in 1 point only—at the tip of the crack propa-
approach is used to determine the effective properties of
gating in plane, whereas, in 3D simulations, the values
heterogeneous region containing the holes, inclusions,
are calculated in several points/nodes along the crack
and both. A nonuniform meshing is used to discretise
front that propagates in space. In this way, it is possible
the entire domain. All mentioned studies and research
to determine the stress intensity factors for all 3 modes
activities, regarding XFEM, were concentrated on its
(which is important for fatigue life estimation in the case
implementation on relatively simple configurations, with
of mixed loading), while 2D analysis determines KI and
several cracks in 2D models of panels and sheets, where
KII only.
genuine multiple site damage (MSD) was not really an
issue. Also XFEM itself in these studies were carried out
through specifically made “custom code” numerical cal- TABLE 3 Comparison of KI (MPa mm0.5) for CCT, crack front 1
culations, which make their application hard and Step a (mm) a/b KI Morfeo KI ASGRO
reduced to a very small number of potential users. It
1 2.00 0.100 66.88 63.05
should be mentioned that there are also several studies
where XFEM was used for simulating 3D fatigue crack 5 3.98 0.199 95.04 90.63

propagations, but only with 1 crack.179,180 10 6.40 0.320 127.40 119.81

Now, we focus our attention on series of papers on 15 8.74 0.437 160.12 148.92
XFEM application published recently by Grbovic and 20 11.06 0.553 198.86 183.34
coworkers, which deserves to be named “Belgrade school
21 11.55 0.578 204.30 191.93
of XFEM simulation”,179-189 starting with an analysis of
22 12.00 0.600 211.41 200.24
fatigue crack growth in a CCT specimen.
24
ABAQUS defines initial crack as a separate entity
with no element mesh and the first step in 3D analysis
of crack propagation is crack “opening”, followed by cal-
culation of stresses.179 Morfeo/Crack for ABAQUS190 uses
ABAQUS solutions to calculate stress intensity factors in
nodes of the crack front and generates a file with KI,
KII, and KIII results. Then, the equivalent stress intensity
factor Keq, which combines all 3 SIF modes, is calculated
as well as the kink angle (crack propagation angle) which
defines the direction in which crack will be propagated in
a next step. At the same time, Morfeo/Crack for ABAQUS
calculates number of loading cycles necessary to grow
crack by a given length.
Values for all 3 modes and equivalent SIF are shown
for (x, y, z) coordinates of the nodes on the crack fronts
after each step of crack propagation in Eldwaib et al,181
including all nodes on the crack front of CCT after first
and second steps of XFEM simulation. Values of SIFs
mode I for crack front 1 obtained by XFEM and NASGRO
software191 are presented in Table 3 for characteristic
steps of crack growth.
Comparison between XFEM and NASGRO results in
Table 3 indicates good agreement. In general, XFEM
gives somewhat greater SIF values, which can be
explained by the fact that thickness of analysed 3D model
is relatively small. Once the SIF values are evaluated. it is
possible to estimate fatigue life, ie, the number of loading
cycles which would propagate a crack to a complete fail-
ure. All relevant data, including material properties, are
given in Eldwaib et al.181
The values obtained by Morfeo/Crack for ABAQUS.
Figure 39 show that the crack front 1 will move by
2 mm (from initial crack length a0 = 2‐4 mm) after cca
700 000 load cycles, while it will move next 2 mm (to total
crack length a = 6 mm) after approximately 250 000 cycles
(because of the symmetry, crack front 2 will behave in the
same manner). After that, front 1 will start to move rap-
idly and crack length will be doubled (a = 12 mm) after
FIGURE 39 Estimated number of cycles vs crack length for CCT
under tension [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
SEDMAK
another 250 000 cycles. It will take additional 40 000 cycles
to grow crack to final length a = 19 mm just before com-
plete failure.
Comparing XFEM results with number of cycles
obtained by NASGRO (Figure 39), it is evident that
NASGRO predicts longer fatigue life, which can be
explained by the fact that NASGRO uses more sophisti-
cated and empirically improved equation than Morfeo.
Namely, NASGRO software uses the multiparameter
material equation for fatigue crack growth, contrary to
the simple 2‐parameter Paris equation, used by
MORFEO. Anyhow, from an engineering point of view,
results obtained by XFEM are acceptable, because they
are conservative.
4.2 | Fatigue life estimation of multiple
site damage
Two important investigations have been performed for
MSD effects on fatigue life of aluminium alloy Al‐
2024T3: 1 for tensile panel with 3 holes, each with 1 or
2 cracks (Figure 40),186 and the other 1 practically the
same, but with 11 holes182,183 (Figure 41).
To predict crack growth rate of structure with MSD,
accurate calculation of stress intensity factors (SIFs) is
needed. Therefore, the FE model of a panel
(L1 × L2 = 600 × 400 mm, Figure 40) with 3 holes (radii
r = 2.4 mm at distances b = 25 mm) is subjected to uni-
form uniaxial tensile stress (σ = 100 MPa). The middle
hole has 2 radial cracks (nos. 1 and 2 in Figure 40), and
other 2 holes have 1 radial crack each (nos. 3 and 4 in
Figure 40). The SIFs are calculated for each crack tip as
a function of crack length, and used to predict direction
and relative rate of growth of each crack. The FEM natu-
rally includes the effects of crack interaction, enabling
easy comparisons of the rates of no‐interaction growth.
Figure 41 shows that the length of each crack varied with
its stress intensity factor history. The lengths of middle
cracks (1 and 2) are longer than other 2 cracks (3 and
4), which has been also observed in experiments. The
analysis was arbitrarily stopped after the 62nd step,
because after that step the cracks would form 1 large.
The accuracy of the calculated SIFs is verified apply-
ing a simple approximation procedure, using an existing
solution for SIFs in the case of 2 unequal cracks in an
infinite plate subjected to remote uniform stress. The
solution for this configuration was used to obtain the
interaction effect coefficients which take into account
the increase of SIFs of analysed crack tip because of the
interaction with an existing adjacent crack tip. The com-
parison of the results has shown very good agreement
between solutions (Figure 42), verifying that XFEM can
SEDMAK
FIGURE 40 Analysed configuration with multiple cracks: (A) 3 holes186 and (B) 11 holes183
FIGURE 41 FEM model of the MSD
panel after 50 steps of crack
propagation186 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
be successfully used for SIF calculations and fatigue life
predictions of MSD in aircraft structures.
In the second case, plate with 11 holes and 22 crack
tips,182,183 the FE model of a panel (dimensions
L1 × L2 = 609.6 × 863.6 mm, thickness = 1.6 mm,
Figure 43, with 11 fastener holes (radii r = 3.23 mm at
distances b = 25.4 mm) is subjected to different levels of
uniform uniaxial tensile stresses (50, 100, and 200 MPa).
All other details, including material properties, loading,
and geometry, are given in Aldarwish et al.182,183 Results
are given in Figure 43 (step 40), as an example, where
more detailed presentation of results is given in
Aldarwish et al.183
As mentioned before, SIFs were calculated for each
crack front and different crack sizes. Maximum values
of SIFs calculated along the crack fronts were used as a
reference. The SIF results shown in Figure 44 represent
(A)
FIGURE 42 Normalised SIFs: (A) crack tip 1 and (B) crack tip 4 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
25
the solutions for cracks 1, 2, 11, 12, 21, and 22 only. These
6 cracks were selected because of their unique positions.
That is, at these positions, the influences of adjacent
crack interaction are either minimal (at the 1st and the
11th hole; cracks 1, 2, 21, and 22 respectively) or maximal
(the 5th hole; cracks 11 and 12).
The maximum SIF values are obtained for cracks
emanating from the fifth hole, whereas hole nos. 1 and
11 have the minimum ones (Figure 55). This becomes
more obvious with crack growth, for all 3 load cases. This
can be explained by the fact that the crack interaction is
stronger for the cracks at middle holes, than for the
cracks at “edge” holes.
To verify results obtained by XFEM, SIFs calculated
in Morfeo/Crack for ABAQUS are compared with results
obtained using classical FEM (FRANC software192) and
approximate method, as shown in Aldarwish et al.183
(B)
26
The results are presented through normalised stress
KI
intensity factors (geometry factor β ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi) for 2
σ πa
selected cracks, nos. 11 and 12, ie, for the maximal influ-
ences of cracks interaction Figure 45.
Comparing the results obtained by XFEM (Morfeo/
Crack for ABAQUS) and FEM (FRANC2D/L), it can be
seen that SIF maximum differences occur for initial crack
size, because of the proximity of the hole. For cracks at
fifth hole, this difference starts to decrease with crack
growth to 0.5% (crack 11), ie, 1% (crack 12), but with fur-
ther crack growth, it increases up to 6.3% (crack 11), ie,
8.1% (crack 12). Increasing differences with crack growth
may be explained by the different manner in which these
2 methods implement mutual crack interaction. The dif-
ference can probably be reduced by increasing the num-
ber of nodes in the crack regions in 3D model.
Comparing the XFEM results with the results of approxi-
mate method, better agreement can be seen, leading to
the conclusion that XFEM also takes crack interaction
effect into consideration in a very good manner.
4.3 | Fatigue crack growth in integral
skin‐stringer panels
Fatigue crack initiation and growth, as well as fracture
resistance and corrosion issues associated with riveted
structures, are well understood, and it seems difficult to
FIGURE 44 SIF histories for selected cracks for σ = 200 MPa182
[Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK
FIGURE 43 XFEM model of MSD
panel after 40 steps of cracks propagations
(σ = 200 MPa)182 [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
get significant improvements in riveting technology
regarding the extension of the fuselage fatigue life. Devel-
opment of new welding processes, like laser beam (LBW)
and friction stir welding (FSW), enabled production of
integral skin‐stringer structures, but despite its numerous
advantages, welded joints are prone to cracking. Two
types of cracks, most frequently associated with the struc-
tural integrity of the fuselage, are longitudinal cracks
under hoop stresses and circumferential cracks under
stresses from vertical bending. Therefore, here we present
results obtained by using XFEM for a complex 3D geom-
etry,180,183 compared with experimental investigation for
verification.
The first step in numerical modelling was to test
XFEM by making FE model of base metal plate with ini-
tial crack, simulating the real loads from experiment.180
Base metal plate was chosen as it had simple geometry,
and because the calculated values of SIF could be verified
using other methods. The second step was FE modelling
of 4‐stringer panel and determination of the number of
load cycles that would grow crack to critical length that
will then be compared to number of cycles obtained in
experiment with real 4‐stringer structure. In both simula-
tions, aluminium alloy AA6156 T6 was used (Young
modulus E = 71 GPa, Poisson ratio ν = 0.33). The loads
used in simulations were equal to average values of max-
imum tensile forces over time measured in experiments
(obtained because of the courtesy of researchers from
GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht180). For the base
metal plate, average maximum force was
F max = 112.954 kN, while the load ratio R = 0.146 was
determined on the basis of average minimum tensile
force measured. Coefficients for Paris equations were
obtained by tests with base metal plates184: m = 3.174
and C = 1.77195E−012 MPa mm1/2. Initial crack in the
first simulation was propagated to length 2a = 275 mm.
Figure 46 shows that in XFEM simulation, number of
cycles to critical crack length is less than that obtained
in experiment (169 076 cycles vs 189 514 cycles); however,
up to crack length 2a = 60 mm (almost linear growth),
the numbers of cycles differ insignificantly. This confirms
conclusion that in case of simple geometry, XFEM is a
fairly reliable method for crack growth rate determina-
tion, providing conservative values.
SEDMAK
FIGURE 45 Comparison of SIF values obtained by 3 different methods (σ = 200 MPa)183 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
After successful numerical simulation of crack growth
in base metal plate, more complex geometry of 4‐stringer
plate has been analysed.184 The central crack of the
length a0 = 14 mm was initiated, and the load identical
to that used for base metal plate was applied. The crack
propagation was simulated in 173 steps, each being
2 mm; after 68 steps, it reached the wall of the left
stringer and started growing along it. At the same time,
crack continued to spread through the base metal plate,
reaching the wall of the right stringer after 78th step
(Figure 47A) and started growing along that stringer.
During the 160th step, complete failure of the left stringer
occurred (Figure 47B), after which the crack continued to
spread along the right stringer and through the base
metal plate.
4.4 | Integral (welded) vs riveted joints
The main load‐carrying member of the wing is the spar
(Figure 48A), usually composed of thin shear panel
(web) and flanges (caps) at the top and bottom
(Figure 48B). Under service loading, a fatigue crack
may initiate and grow from the most severe stress
FIGURE 46 Numbers of cycles obtained in experiment and
XFEM simulation (base metal T6)180 [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
27
concentrator on the spar bottom cap, which can lead
to catastrophic failure if not detected during service
and repaired. The most common used material in light
aircrafts, aluminium alloy 2024‐T3, has been tested
extensively in the form of standard specimens under
constant amplitude or spectral loading.185,188 However,
complex geometry of a spar highly influences fatigue
life, making predictions, based on specimens, obsolete.
Anyhow, even the smallest change in the geometry or
material necessarily would require new experiment,
making design process too expensive. Perfect alternative
is numerical modelling, because any change is easy to
make, providing new estimations of fatigue life quickly
and at low costs. Nevertheless, numerical model has to
be verified experimentally, to have any relevance for real
application.
Therefore, here the XFEM for crack growth simula-
tion and fatigue life estimation of the integral AA2024‐
T3 wing spar was performed to evaluate possible replace-
ment of differential spar of light aircraft UTVA 75 (shown
in Figure 48). Toward this end, numerical models of both
AA2024‐T3 integral and differential spars were developed
and number of loading cycles (to propagate crack to a
given length) was compared with the number of cycles
obtained by testing the differential spar, using the equip-
ment shown in Figure 49, as explained in detail in
Petrašinović et al.185
During the experiment with narrow band random
loading, 2 cracks appeared. Load used (minimum value
+391.2 N, maximum value +2028.0 N, frequency
12.5 Hz) produced strong tensile stress in caps; conse-
quently, visible crack appeared on the left cap below the
support, after 8542 cycles. The crack began to spread rap-
idly towards the spar web, then changed its direction and
continued along the cap at an angle of 90° with respect to
the original direction. After 39 450 cycles, another crack
was spotted on the right spar cap, later determined to
have occurred on the fastener hole. Cracks then contin-
ued to grow below the strengthening washers but were
28 SEDMAK

(A) (B)

FIGURE 47 Crack growth (A) after 78 steps and (B) after 160 steps184 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

(A) (B)

FIGURE 48 A, Wing root assembly of light aircraft UTVA 75. B, Spar and supporting elements [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

not visible. After 58 520 cycles, the test was stopped, and
the spar was examined to determine what was going on
below the strengthening washers. Damaged spar is shown
in Figure 50, not indicating any visible damage on the
spar web.
The experiment with riveted joints was modelled by
the XFEM, as explained in detail in Petrašinović et al.185
The finite element mesh with an edge crack is shown in
Figure 51A, whereas the crack growth after 45th step is
shown in Figure 51B. Number of cycles for this simula-
tion, 58 687, was extraordinary close to the experimental
one, 58 520. Anyhow, before running into conclusion,
one should pay attention to the fact that crack growth
path was different, ie, numerical simulation predicted dif-
ferent change of direction of the initial crack, compare
Figures 50A and 51B). Nevertheless, this is still valuable

(A) (B)

FIGURE 49 Fatigue testing system: (A) photo and (B) schematic presentation185 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK 29

(A) (B)

FIGURE 50 Damaged spar after experiment: (A) general view and (B) details188 [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

(A) (B)

FIGURE 51 A, FE mesh with the initial crack. B, Crack after a 45th step (view from below)185 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

result, proving great potential of numerical simulation of
3D crack growth.
To simulate fatigue crack propagation in the integral
spar, the FE model with dimensions equivalent to the dif-
ferential spar was made (Figure 52). It was decided to
simulate growth of 2 penny‐shaped cracks in the left
and right edge of spar cap (Figure 52) next to the
constraining zone, where cracks in the experiments
always appeared. Finite element mesh was significantly
refined in the areas where cracks were expected to spread
for getting more precise values of SIFs at nodes on crack
fronts. The mesh consisted of 278 616 3‐dimensional 8‐
node linear brick elements with reduced integration (type
C3D8R) and an average element size of 0.5 mm (average
element size around the crack tip was 0.2 mm). Initial
crack lengths were 1 mm, and cracks did not penetrate
the entire thickness of the spar. The value of displace-
ment used in the simulation was 3 mm (Figure 52).
After opening, cracks were propagated in steps of
approximately 1 mm. Growth was not restricted to a sin-
gle plane; instead, the crack could grow in the direction
defined by kink angle, calculated within Morfeo/Crack
for ABAQUS. After 22 steps of propagation, the first crack
reached the vertical wall of the integral spar (Figure 53B).
Its path was not straight, but curved, like in the experi-
ment with differential spar, proving that the numerical

FIGURE 52 Integral spar geometry and FE mesh with initial penny‐shaped cracks (blue circles)188 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
30
(A)
FIGURE 53 Cracks after the 8th step (A) and 1st crack after 22nd step of propagation (B)188 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
model simulated spar behaviour adequately. The second
crack grew until eighth step (Figure 53A), when it was lit-
erally closed by the second crack, ie, spar deformation.
One should notice that if crack growth is restricted to a
single plane, both grow at the same rate and second crack
does not stop, but this situation is supposed to be less
realistic.
First crack then split, and 2 new fronts continued to
propagate simultaneously in the horizontal wall of the
spar (first front) and the vertical wall of the spar (second
front). After the 35th step of propagation (counting from
the crack opening), the simulation stopped because the
1st front left the area with refined mesh (Figure 54A)
and Morfeo/Crack for ABAQUS could not proceed with
calculations (as an order of magnitude, it is recom-
mended to generate elements 5 to 10 times smaller than
the characteristic lengths of the initial crack both in the
initial crack area and in the area where it is expected to
propagate). Position of the second front after 35 steps of
propagation is given in Figure 54B.
Stress intensity factor modes I, II, and III were calcu-
lated for each step; then, the equivalent stress intensity
factor Keq was calculated for each node on crack fronts.
(A)
FIGURE 54 A, First front of the crack. B, Second front of the crack after 35 steps of propagation188 [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
SEDMAK
(B)
The number of output values for each propagation step
might be large and depends on the number of points on
the crack front, which, again, results from the density of
the FE mesh in propagation areas; therefore, values
obtained during simulation had to be processed. Equiva-
lent SIF values obtained for the first crack, along with
estimated number of cycles for some characteristic steps,
are shown in Table 4. Number of cycles was calculated
using modified Paris‐Erdogan law (the stress ratio
R = 0.15 used in calculations was identical to ratio kept
in experiment with differential spar).
Table 4 indicates that the value of equivalent SIF
increases until the 22nd step, with the mean value
Keq=792.263 MPa mm0.5. After that step, it starts to
decline, which coincides with the first crack reaching
the vertical wall of the spar. The equivalent SIF values
continue to decline until the 27th step when crack leaves
the area between horizontal and vertical wall (which is
thicker than other areas), and then starts to grow again
until the last step. The number of cycles obtained for first
crack on integral spar (Table 4 and Figure 55) shows that F55
the initial crack (of length 1 mm) will extend to 2 mm
after approximately 198 000 cycles of applied
(B)
SEDMAK 31

TABLE 4 Values of equivalent SIFs obtained by XFEM simulation of crack growth in integral spar

Equivalent SIF (Keq) (MPa mm>0,5)

Number of Cycles
Step Max. Value Min. Value Mean value for Each Step

1 93.826 88.801 91.719 0

11 449.562 448.396 449.129 2601.38
21 782.222 771.832 779.340 401.018
22 793.353 789.838 792.263 382.973
29 823.883 653.519 688.550 627.077
30 724.467 686.779 706.439 502.862
31 733.845 716.974 726.257 483.992
32 786.265 754.693 766.747 363.528
33 839.233 800.253 816.207 295.627
34 908.389 869.451 883.331 282.955
35 920.845 906.537 914.249 235.858
36 964.471 944.922 951.777 209.427

The main goal of presented analysis was to compare

residual life of damaged integral spar with the life of dam-
aged differential spar obtained in experiment. Two cracks
propagated on spar caps riveted to spar web until com-
plete failure, while web remained undamaged during test.
Contrary to the experiment, one crack on FE model of
integral spar stopped after few steps of propagation,
whilst other continued to grow and produced consider-
able damage on vertical wall (which has the same func-
tion as web of differential spar). Comparison of
numerical results and experimental values revealed that
FIGURE 55 Estimated number of cycles vs crack length for significant increase in fatigue life can be expected, justify-
integral spar [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary. ing the idea of replacing the old concept with new one.
com]

displacement, while in the experimentally tested differen-
tial spar, the initial crack extended to 2 mm after approx-
imately 27 000 cycles (for the same applied displacement).
Also, it grew up to 3 mm after another 52 230 cycles com-
pared to just 5850 cycles in differential spar. The crack
entered the area between the horizontal and vertical wall
of the spar after 341 251 cycles compared to 45 000 cycles
in differential spar. Finally, propagation ended after
345, 795 cycles compared to 50 743 cycles obtained in
experiment. It must be noted that final crack lengths were
not the same: Crack in experiment riches 45 mm, while
length of crack in simulation is 36 mm; nevertheless,
fatigue life of integral spar is obviously much longer. Esti-
mated number of cycles for integral spar is approximately
7 times greater than for differential spar under the same
applied displacement.
5 | C ON C L U D I NG R E M AR K S
It was indeed a long way from early efforts in solving rel-
atively simple problems of 2D cracked solids using man-
ual input data to feed computers with kilobytes of
memory, to nowadays sofisticated automatic mesh gener-
ators capable of modelling 3D geometries, being as com-
plex as real solids, running on computers with
terabytes... and still growing! Anyhow, one should keep
in mind that it takes more than just software and hard-
ware to simulate real life. We still struggle with correct
prediction of crack growth path in 3D structures, just to
mention one of many problems yet to be solved.
An attempt was made here to make an overview of
CFM not only from the task posed by the title itself, ie,
from early effort to recent achievements but also as a
kind of cross section through arbitrary chosen topics,
32
covering mainly elastic‐plastic crack analysis and growth,
as well as fatigue crack growth, but leaving many other
important topics untouched because of limited space
and time. Let me just mention emerging topics, like bio-
materials, which deserve equal treatment, especially if
one considers their importance.
Finally, let me try to answer to the question, naturally
arising at the end, ie, “what has been achieved”? From
the point of view of the time when early attempts were
made, simple answer would be “fantastic, almost unbe-
lievable results have been achieved”, whereas from the
point of view of future developments, it could be that this
is just a beginning. Anyhow, let us state and underline
the main achievements, at least for topics covered in this
paper:
• Modelling of singularity, both in linear elastic and
elastic‐plastic FM problems.
• Successful simulation of crack growth in plasticity,
especially micromechanical modelling, based on
material microstructure, including heterogeneous
materials like welded joints.
• Modelling of 3D crack problems, in relatively simple
manner, by using sophisticated, commercially avail-
able pre‐processors.
• Reasonably successful simulation of fatigue crack
growth in complex 3D welded structures, enabling
reliable prediction of fatigue life.
R EF E RE N C E S
1. Argyris JH. Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, a series
of articles on in Aircraft Engineering, Oct., Nov., 1954; Feb.,
March, April, May, 1955.
2. Turner MJ, Clough RW, Martin HC, Topp LC. Stiffness and
deflection analysis of complex structures. J Aeronaut Sci.
1956;23(9):805‐823, 854.
3. Oden JT. Finite Elements of Non‐linear Continua. McGraw‐
Hill; 1972.
4. Zienkiewiitz O. The Finite Element Method in Engineering Sci-
ence. McGraw‐Hill; 1971.
5. Chan SK, Tuba IS, Wilson WK. On the finite element method
m fracture mechanics. Eng Fracture Mech. 1970;2(1):1‐17.
6. Tracey DM. Finite elements for determination of crack tip elas-
tic stress factors. Eng Fracture Mech. 1971;3(3):255‐265.
7. Levy N, Marcal PV, Ostergren WJ, Rice JR. Small scale yielding
near a crack in plane strain: a finite element analysis. Int J
Fracture. 1971;7:143‐156.
8. Rice JR, Tracey DM. In: Fenves SJ et al., eds. Computational
Fracture Mechanics, in Numerical and Computer Methods in
Structural Mechanics. N.Y: Academic Press; 1973:585‐623.
SEDMAK
9. Barsoum RS. Triangular quarterpoint elements as elastic and
perfectly‐plastic crack tip elements. Int J Numer Methods Eng.
1977;11(1):85‐98.
10. Henshell RD, Shaw KG. Crack tip finite elements are unneces-
sary. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 1975;9(3):495‐507.
11. Shih CF, de Lorenzi HG, German MD. Crack extension model-
ing with singular quadratic isoparametric elements. Int J Fract.
1976;12(4):647‐651.
12. Fried I. Discretization and round‐off error in the finite element
analysis of elliptic boundary value and eigenvalue problems,
Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 1971)
13. Rice JR, Johnson MA. The role of large crack tip geometry
changes in plane strain fracture. In: Kanninen MF, Adler W,
Rosenfield A, Jaffe R, eds. Elastic behaviour of solids. McGraw
Hill; 1977.
14. Banks‐Sills L, Bortman Y. Reappraisal of the quarter‐point
quadrilateral element in linear elastic fracture mechanics. Int
J Fracture. 1984;25(3):169‐180.
15. Irons BM. A frontal solution program for finite element analy-
sis. Int J Numer Methods Eng. 1970;2(1):5‐32.
16. Luxmoore AR, Owen DRJ. Proc. 1st Int. Conf., Numerical
Methods in Fracture Mechanics, Pineridge Press, Swansea, 1978
17. Luxmoore AR, Owen DRJ. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf., Numerical
Methods in Fracture Mechanics, Pineridge Press, Swansea,
1980
18. Yuan H, Brocks W. On the J‐integral concept for elastic‐plastic
crack extension. Nucl Eng Design. 1991;131(2):157‐173.
19. Brocks W, Olschewski J. On J‐dominance of crack‐tip fields in
largely yielded 3D structures. Int J Solids Structures.
1986;22(7):693‐708.
20. Brocks W, Noack HD. J‐integral and stresses at an inner surface
flaw in a pressure vessel. Int J Pres Ves Piping. 1988;31(3):187‐203.
21. European Structural Integrity Society, ESIS TC8 the recom-
mendations for use of FEM in fracture mechanics, Newsletter
Nr 15, 1991
22. Brocks W.. Plasticity and fracture series: solid mechanics and
its applications, Vol. 244
23. Sedmak, S. The effects of notches and cracks on fracture with
elastic and plastic deformation (in Serbian), D.Sc. thesis, Uni-
versity of Belgrade, 1976
24. Berkovic M. Determination of stress intensity factors using
finite element method, Structural Integrity and Life 4, 2004,
pp. 57–62, based on lecture held in Int. Fracture Mechanics
Summer School, Smederevska Palanka, 1980
25. Sedmak S, Berković M. Jarić, J., Fracture mechanics problems
(in Serbian), 15. Congress of Rational and Applied Mechanics,
Kupari, 1981.
26. Sedmak A, Berković M. Rapid mesh refinement as a simple
technique for SIF evaluation, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf., Numerical
Methods in Fracture Mechanics, Pineridge Press, Swansea,
1984
27. Sedmak A. Finite element evaluation of FM parameters using
rapid mesh refinement, proc. Int. Conf. Fracture 6, Pergamon
press, New Delhi, 1984, Vol. 2, pp. 1095–1101
SEDMAK
28. Pineau A. Review of fracture micromechanisms and a local
approach to predicting crack resistance in low strength steels
advances in fracture research, Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on Fracture,
Cannes, Ed. D Francois et al, Pergamon (1981) pp 553–580
29. Beremin FM. A local criterion for cleavage fracture of a nuclear
pressure vessel. Met Trans. 1983;14a:2277‐2287.
30. Beremin FM. Experimental and numerical study of the differ-
ent stages in ductile rupture: application to crack initiation
and stable crack growth. In: Nemat‐Nasser S, ed. Three‐dimen-
sional constitutive relations and ductile fracture. North‐Holland
Publ; 1981:185‐205.
31. Mudry F. A local approach to fracture. Nucl Engn and Design.
1987;105(1):65‐76.
32. Rice JR, Tracey DM. On the ductile enlargement of voids in tri-
axial stress fields. J Mech Phys Solids. 1969;17(3):201‐217.
33. European Structural Integrity Society, ESIS Publication P6–98:
Procedure to measure and calculate material parameters for
the local approach to fracture using notched tensile specimens,
1998
34. European Structural Integrity Society, ESIS Publication—Draft
P9‐02D: Guidance on local approach of rupture of metallic
materials, 2002
35. Gurson AL. Continuum theory of ductile rupture by void nucle-
ation and growth: part I—yield criteria and flow rules for
porous ductile media. J Engng Mater Technol. 1977;99(1):2‐15.
36. Tvergaard V, Needleman A. Analysis of the cup‐cone fracture
in a round tensile bar. Acta Metall. 1984;32(1):157‐169.
37. Zhang ZL, Thaulow C, Ødegard J. A complete gurson model
approach for ductile fracture. Eng Fract Mech. 2000;67:155‐168.
38. Euromech ‐ Mecamat. In: Besson J, Moinerau D, Steglich D,
eds. 9th European Mechanics of Materials Conference, Local
Approach to Fracture. Moret‐Sur‐loing; 2006:9‐12 May 2006.
39. ABAQUS. User's Manual, version 6.12. RI, USA: Dassault
Systèmes Simulia Corp, providence; 2014.
40. www.ansys.com
41. Belytschko T, Lu YY, Gu L. Element‐free Galerkin methods.
Int J Numer Methods Eng. 1994;37(2):229‐256.
42. Belytschko T, Gu L, Lu YY. Fracture and crack growth by ele-
ment free Galerkin methods. Model Simul Mater Sci. Eng.
1994;2(3A):519‐534.
43. Lu YY, Belytschko T, Gu L. A new implementation of the ele-
ment free Galerkin method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng.
1994;113(3‐4):397‐414.
44. Moes N, Dolbow J, Belytschko T. A finite element method for
crack growth without remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng.
1999;46(1):131‐150.
45. Belytschko T, Black T. Elastic crack growth in finite elements
with minimal remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng.
1999;45(5):601‐620.
46. Sukumar N, Moës N, Moran B, Belytschko T. Extended finite
element method for three‐dimensional crack modeling. Int J
Numer Methods Eng. 2000;48(11):1549‐1570.
33
47. Melenk JM, Babuska I. The partition of unity finite element
method: basic theory and applications. Comp Meth App Mech
Eng. 1996;39:289‐314.
48. Jovičić G, Živković M, Sedmak A, Jovičić N, Milovanović D.
Improvement of algorithm for numerical crack modeling.
Archives Civil Mech Eng. 2010;10(3):19‐35.
49. Nichols RW. The use of fracture mechanics as an engineering
tool, Proc. Int. Conf. Fracture 6, Pergamon Press, New Delhi,
Fracture 84, 1984, pp. 3717–3749
50. Kuna M. Finite Elements in Fracture Mechanics, Theory‐
Numerics‐Applications. Springer; 2013.
51. Brocks W, Cornec A, Scheider I, Computational aspects of
nonlinear fracture mechanics, Technical Note GKSS/WMS/
02/05, 2002
52. McMeeking RM, Rice JR. Finite‐element formulations for
problems of large elastic‐plastic formulations. Int J Solids
Struct. 1975;11:601‐616.
53. Rice JR. The mechanics of crack tip deformation and extension
by fatigue, in fatigue crack propagation, Special Technical Pub-
lication 415, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1967, pp. 247–311.
54. Berković M. Membrane finite elements (in Serbian), D.Sc. the-
sis, University of Belgrade, 1978
55. Berković M. General mеmbгanе isoparametric elements, I
World congress оn finite element methods in structural
mесhanics, Bournemouth, 1975
56. Berkovic M. Numerical methods in fracture mechanics. Struc-
tural Integrity Life. 2004;4:63‐66.
57. Berkovic M. Problems of plane and triaxial stress states in pres-
sure vessels and pipelines. Structural Integrity Life.
2004;4:67‐74.
58. Berkovic M, Sedmak A. The application of finite element
method in calculation of thin shell J integral. Structural Integ-
rity Life. 2004;4:85‐90.
59. Sedmak A, Berkovic M, Savovic N. Numerical analysis of sur-
face crack problems in pressure vessels. Structural Integrity
Life. 2004;4:91‐100.
60. Hellen TK. On the method of virtual crack extension. Int J
Numer Methods Eng. 1975;9(1):187‐207.
61. Parks DM. The virtual crack extension method for nonlinear
material behavior. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng.
1977;12(3):353‐364.
62. Siegele D, Schmitt W. Determination and simulation of stable
crack growth in ADINA. Comput Struct. 1983;17(5‐6):697‐703.
63. Brocks W, Eberle A, Fricke W, Veith H. Large stable crack
growth in fracture mechanics specimens. Nucl Eng Design.
1994;151(2‐3):387‐400.
64. Brocks W, Yuan H. Numerical investigations on the signifi-
cance of J for large stable crack growth. Eng Fract Mech.
1989;32(3):459‐468.
65. Gullerud AS, Dodds RH, Hampton RW, Dawicke DS. Three‐
dimensional modeling of ductile crack growth in thin sheet
metals, computational aspects and validation. Eng Fract Mech.
1999;63(4):347‐374.
34
66. Needleman A. An analysis of tensile decohesion along an inter-
face. J Mech Phys Solids. 1990;38(3):289‐324.
67. Needleman A. An analysis of decohesion along an imperfect
interface. Int J Fract. 1990;42(1):21‐40.
68. Lin G, Kim Y‐J, Cornec A, Schwalbe K‐H. Fracture toughness of
a constrained metal layer. Comput Mater Sci. 1997;9(1‐2):36‐47.
69. Siegmund Th, Bernauer GW, Brocks W.. Two models of ductile
fracture in contest, porous metal plasticity and cohesive ele-
ments, Proc. ECF 12, Fracture from Defects, Engineering
Materials Advisory Services Ltd, Ort, 1998, pp. 933–938.
70. Needleman A, Tvergaard V. An analysis of ductile rupture at a
crack tip. J Mech Phys Solids. 1987;35(2):151‐183.
71. Rousselier G, JC Devaux, G Mottet, Devesa G. A methodology
for ductile fracture analysis based on damage mechanics, An
illustration of a local approach of fracture, Nonlinear Fracture
Mechanics, Volume II ‐ Elastic‐Plastic Fracture, ASTM STP
995, Philadelphia, 1989, pp. 332–354.
72. Sun D‐Z, Siegele D, Voss B, Schmitt W. Application of local
damage models to the numerical analysis of ductile rupture.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 1988;12:201‐212.
73. Brocks, W., D Klingbeil, G Künecke, DZ Sun. Application of
the Gurson model to ductile tearing resistance, Second Sympo-
sium on Constraint Effects, ASTM STP 1224, 1995, pp.
232–252.
74. Xia L, Shih FC. Ductile crack growth—I. a numerical study
using computational cells with microstructurally‐based length
scales. J Mech Phys Solids. 1995;43:223‐259.
75. Xia L, Shih C, Hutchinson FW. A computational approach to
ductile crack growth under large scale yielding. J Mech Phys
Solids. 1995;43(3):389‐413.
76. Schmitt W, Sun D‐Z, Blauel JG. Damage mechanics analysis
(Gurson model) and experimental verification of the behaviour
of a crack in a weld‐cladded component. Nucl Eng Des.
1997;174(3):237‐246.
77. Bernauer G, Brocks W. Micro‐mechanical modeling of ductile
damage and tearing ‐ results of a European numerical round
robin. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2002;25(4):363‐384.
78. Smelser RE, Gurtin M. On the J integral for bi‐material body.
Int J of Fracture. 1977;13:382‐384.
79. Bleackley MH, Jones RD, Luxmoore AR. Path dependency of
the Rice J integral in weld geometries. In: Fracture Control of
Engineering Structures, Proceedings, European Conference on
Fracture 6. Amsterdam, Vol. I: EMAS; 1986:643‐654.
80. Sedmak, A. The role of weldment interfaces in fracture
mechanics parameters evaluation, Proc. of Int. Conf. Fracture
9, Vol. 5, p. 2345–2356, Sydney, Pergamon Press, 1997
81. Sedmak A. Sedmak, S., Weldment fracture mechanics parame-
ters evaluation, Proc. of XXII Congress of TAM, Vrnjačka
Banja, pp.73–83, 1997
82. Savović N, Sedmak A. Numerical simulation of weldment het-
erogeneity. Zavarivač. 1994;39:185‐190.
83. Sedmak S, Adžiev T, Sedmak A, Gočev J. Experimental and
numerical analysis of cracked welded joints, Proc. of ICM 7,
Hague, 1995, pp. 291, 1995
SEDMAK
84. Kikuchi M, Miyamoto H. Evaluation of Jk integrals for a crack
in multiphase materials, Recent Research on Mechanical
Behavior of Materials, Bulletin of Fracture Mechanics Labora-
tory, Vol. 1, Science University of Tokyo, 1982.
85. Kikuchi M, Miyamoto H. Sakaguchi Y, Evaluation of three‐
dimensional J‐integral of semi‐elliptical surface crack in pres-
sure vessel, in “Trans. 5th Int. Conf. Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology (5th SMiRT),” paper G7/2, Berlin, 1979.
86. Gurtin ME. On the path‐independent integral for
elastodynamics. Int J Fracture. 1976;12(4):643‐644.
87. de Lorenzi HG. On the energy release rate and the J‐integral
for 3D crack configurations. Int J Fract. 1982;19:183‐193.
88. de Lorenzi HG. Energy release rate calculations by the finite
element method, General Electric Technical Infomation Series,
Report No. 82CRD205, 1982
89. Bui H, Jarić J, Radenković D.. Loi de Conservation en
Termoelasticite Lineare, Ecole Polytechnique, Lab. de
Mecanique des Solides, Rapport interne No 3, 1977
90. Sedmak A, Pavišić M. Conservation law of J integral type for
non‐stationary time dependent fracture mechanics. Int J Frac-
ture. 1994/95;69(2):R41‐R43.
91. Vukobrat M, Sedmak A. Conservation law of J integral type for
multilayered shells, ECF9, Reliability and structural integrity
of advanced materials, EMAS, Warley, U. K, 1992, p. 865
92. Sedmak A.. Berković M, Jarić J.. Finite element method of thin
shell J integral evaluation, Proc. of ICF7, Houston, Pergamon
Press, 1989
93. Sedmak A, Berković M, Jarić J. J integral for thin shells, Defect
Assessment in Components—Fundamentals and Applications,
in ESIS/EGF9. London: MEP; 1991:45‐53.
94. Jarić J, Sedmak A, Berković M. On the problem of path depen-
dency of J integral for thin shells, Proc. of ECF7, Budapest,
EMAS, 1988
95. Jovicic G, Zivkovic M., Kojic M. Numerical procedure for cal-
culation of stress intensity factors and its use for life
assessment of steam turbine housing of thermal power plant,
Proc. Int. Fract. Mech. Summer School 8, Belgrade, 2003, p.
321–332
96. Azari Z, Casavola C, Pappalettere C, Pruncu CI. Numerical
simulation in coated materials: model of crack propagation
bi‐material. Structural Integrity Life. 2012;12:125‐129.
97. Gubeljak N, Predan J, Kozak D. Leak‐before‐break analysis of
a pressurizer—estimation of the elastic‐plastic semi‐elliptical
through‐wall crack opening displacement. Structural Integrity
Life. 2012;12:31‐34.
98. Zerbst U, Ainsworth RA, Beier H‐TH, et al. Review on fracture
and crack propagation in weldments – A fracture mechanics
perspective. Eng Fract Mech. 2014;132:200‐276.
99. Adžiev G, Sedmak A, Adžiev T. Numerical analysis of tensile
specimen fracture with crack in HAZ. Structural Integrity Life.
2008;8:107‐113.
100. Doncheva E, Medjo B, Sedmak A. Finite element analysis of
fracture resistance parameters for stationary semi‐elliptical sur-
face cracks in high strength steel. Structural Integrity Life.
2015;15:131‐134.
SEDMAK
101. Doncheva E, Medjo B, Adziev G, Sedmak S. Elastic‐plastic
numerical analysis of tensile specimens with surface center‐
cracked asymmetric welded x‐joints, Proc. 7th International Sci-
entific and Expert Conference TEAM 2015, Belgrade, pp. 1–5
102. Sedmak S, Petrovski B, Sedmak A. The resistance to crack
growth of different regions of weldments in a real structure.
Int J Pres Ves & Piping. 1992;52:313‐335s.
103. Sedmak S, Sedmak A, Vukomanović N. Theoretical, numerical
and experimental analysis of cracked welded tensile panel,
Proc. of ECF8 Fracture Behavior and Design of Materials and
Structures, pp. 1596–1599, Torino, 1990
104. Rakin M. Numerical analysis in local approach. In: Sedmak S,
Sedmak A, eds. Experimental and numerical methods of frac-
ture mechanics in structural integrity assessment. Belgrade, (in
Serbian): TMF‐GOSA; 1997:345‐352.
105. Zrilić M, Rakin M, Sedmak A, Sedmak S. Experience in frac-
ture mechanics local approach application, proceedings of the
6th international scientific conference on achievements in the
mechanical materials engineering ‐ AMME97, Miskolc, 71‐75,
1997
106. Zrilić M, Rakin M, Sedmak A, Sedmak S. Measurement tech-
niques in local approach to fracture, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Symposium on Measurement Technology
and Inteligent Instruments, Miskolc, 358‐361, 1998
107. Sedmak A, Rakin M. Application of fracture mechanics in
assessment of structural integrity. In: Sedmak S, Radaković Z,
eds. From Fracture Mechanics to Structural Integrity Assess-
ment. DIVK‐TMF; 2004:373‐386.
108. Zrilić M, Rakin M, Cvijović Z, Sedmak A, Sedmak S, Structural
integrity assessment by local approach to fracture, Proc. of 16th
European Conference of Fracture: Failure Analysis of Nano
and Engineering Materials and Structures, Ed. Gdoutos, E.E.,
Alexandroupolis, Greece, 2006, published on CD by Springer
109. Zrilic M, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Dobrojevic M, Krunich N,
Sedmak A. Ductile fracture modeling of advanced metallic
materials. EMMC9 ‐ MECAMAT, 9th European Congress on
Mechanics of Materials, facilities of EDF "Les Renardières"
Moret Sur Loing, France, 247–253, 2006
110. Guidance on Local Approach Methods, Appendix 17 of R/H/
R6 ‐ Rev. 3, BEGL Confidental, British Energy, 1998
111. Rakin M, Cvijovic Z, Grabulov V, Sedmak A. Crack initiation
analysis in structural steel by application of micromechanical
approach. Polish Mater Sci Eng. 2001;22:741‐744.
112. Rakin M, Sedmak A, Cvijović Z, Zrilić M, Sedmak S.
Micromechanical approach ‐ transferability of ductile fracture
parameters, proceeding of the 14th European conference on
fracture ‐ Vol III, EMAS Publishing, Krakow, 27‐34, 2002
113. Mudry F, Di Fant M.A round robin on the measurement of
local criteria. Rapport Abrege N_ RE 93.319, IRSID, St.
Germain, 1993
114. Brocks W. Numerical round robin on micromechanical models
—results, IWM‐Bericht T 8/95, Fraunhofer Institut fuer
Werkstoffmechanik (IWM), Freiburg, 1995
115. Zrilic M. The application of local approach to residual life
assessment of equipment components at elevated
35
temperatures), Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Technollogy and Metal-
lurgy, Belgrade University, (in Serbian), 2004
116. Rakin M. Application of the local approach in analysis of frac-
ture of steel, M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Technollogy and
Metallurgy, Belgrade University, (in Serbian), 1996
117. Bernauer G, Brocks W. Numerical round robin on micro‐
mechanical models—results, ESIS TC8, GKSS Research Cen-
ter, Geesthacht, 2000
118. Rakin M. The analysis of ductile fracture initiation in struc-
tural steel using micromechanical models, Ph.D. Thesis,
Faculty of Technollogy and Metallurgy, Belgrade University,
(in Serbian), 2003
119. Rakin M, Cvijovic Z, Grabulov V, Putic S, Sedmak A. Predic-
tion of ductile fracture initiation using micromechanical
analysis. Eng Fract Mech. 2004;71(4‐6):813‐827.
120. Besson J (Ed). Local Approach to Fracture. Paris: Les Presses
de l'Ecole des Mines; 2004.
121. Rakin M, Cvijovic Z, Grabulov V, Gubeljak N, Sedmak A. The
influence of microstructure on the ductile fracture initiation in
low‐alloyed steel. Mater Sci Forum. 2004;453‐454:175‐180.
122. Needleman A, Tvergaard V. Numerical modeling of the duc-
tile‐brittle transition. Int J Fract. 2000;101(1/2):73‐97.
123. Rakin M, Cvijović Z, Grabulov V, Zrilić M, Sedmak A. Deter-
mination of micromechanical ductile fracture parameters of
pressure vessel steel, Proceeding of The 7th European Confer-
ence on Advanced Materials and Processes ‐ Euromat,
Published on CD, Rimini, 2001
124. Rakin M, Sedmak A, Cvijović Z, Zrilić M, Sedmak S.
Micromechanical coupled study of crack growth initiation cri-
terion in pressure vessel steel. Strength of Materials.
2004;36(1):33‐36.
125. Zrilić M, Rakin M, Sedmak A, Aleksić R, Cvijović Z, Arsić M.
Ductile fracture prediction of steam pipeline steel. Mater Sci
Forum. 2006;518:537‐542.
126. Zrilić, M., Rakin, M., Sedmak, A., Sedmak, S., Assessment of
in‐service degradation of steam pipeline steel by local approach
method, Proceedings of the Conference: Life Assessment and
Management for Sructural Components Kiev, 247‐253, 2000
127. Zrilić M, Rakin M, Milović LJ, Burzić Z, Grabulov V. Experi-
mental and numerical evaluation of a steamline behaviour
using local approach. Metalurgija. 2007;46/2:87‐92.
128. Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Dobrojević M, Sedmak A. Modeling of
ductile fracture initiation in strength mismatched welded joint.
Eng Fract Mech. 2008;75(11):3499‐3510.
129. Dobrojević M, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, et al. Micromechanical
analysis of constraint effect on fracture initiation in strength
mismatched welded joints. Mater Sci Forum. 2007;555:571‐576.
130. Burstow MC, Howard LC, Ainsworth RA. The influence of
constraint on crack tip stress fields in strength mismatched
welded joints. J Mech Phys Solids. 1998;46(5):845‐872.
131. Penuelas I, Betegon C, Rodriguez C. A ductile failure model
applied to the determination of the fracture toughness of
welded joints. Numerical simulation and experimental valida-
tion. Eng Fract Mech. 2006;73(18):2756‐2773.
36
132. Thomason PF. Ductile Fracture of Metals. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; 1990.
133. Betegón C, Peñuelas I. A constraint based parameter for quan-
tifying the crack tip stress fields in welded joints. Eng Fract
Mech. 2006;73(13):1865‐1877.
134. Younise B. Micromechanical fracture analysis of high strength
steel weldments, D.Sc. thesis, University of Belgrade, 2013
135. Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics. London: CRC Press; 1995.
136. Sun DZ, Siegele D, Voss B, Schmitt W. Application of local
damage models to the numerical analysis of ductile rupture.
Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct. 1989;12(3):201‐212.
137. Marsavina L, Nurse AD, Braescu L, Craciun EM. Stress singu-
larity of symmetric free‐edge joints with elasto‐plastic
behaviour. Compos Mater Sci. 2012;52(1):282‐286.
138. Marsavina L, Nurse AD. The asymptotic structure of small‐
scale yielding interfacial free‐edge joint and crack‐tip fields.
Acta Mech. 2007;190(1‐4):115‐131.
139. Huang Y. Accurate dilatation rates for spherical voids in triax-
ial stress fields. Trans ASME. 1991;58(4):1084‐1086.
140. Chaouadi R, De Meester P, Vandermeulen W. Damage work as
ductile criterion. Int J Fracture. 1994;66(2):155‐164.
141. Younise B, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Medjo B, Sedmak A. Numer-
ical simulation for studying constraint effect on ductile fracture
initiation using complete Gurson model. FME Trans J.
2010;38:197‐202.
142. Rakin M, Sedmak A, Matejic P, Zrilic M, Sedmak S. Numerical
simulation of ductile fracture initiation by application of Rice–
Tracey void growth model. In: Fuentes M, Elices M, Martin‐
Meizoso A, Martinez‐Esnaola JM, eds. Proceedings of the ECF
13 Fracture Mechanics: Applications and Challenges. San
Sebastian: ESIS Publication‐Elsevier Science Ltd, On CD; 2000.
143. Schmitt W, Keim E, Nagel G, Sun DZ. Engineering applica-
tions of the local approach. In: Blauel JG, ed. Failure
assessment concepts and applications. Fraunhofer‐Institut fuer
Werkstoffmechanik (IWM); X‐1390; 1997.
144. Tvergaard V. Influence of voids on shear band instabilities
under plane strain conditions. Int J Fract. 1981;17(4):389‐407.
145. Rakin M, Sedmak A, Grabulov V, Gubeljak N, Cvijović Z.
Determination of initial damage parameters in Gurson‐
Tvergaard‐Needleman model, 9th International Conference
on Mechanical Behaviour of Materials, Published on CD,
Geneva, 2003
146. Chu CC, Needleman A. Void nucleation effects in biaxially
stretched sheets. J Eng Mater Technol. 1980;102(3):249‐256.
147. Heerens J, Hellmann D, Fracture toughness of steel in the duc-
tile to brittle transition regime. Final Report of the EU‐Project
MAT1‐CT‐940080, GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, 1999
148. Younise B, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Medjo B, Sedmak A. Numer-
ical simulation of constraint effect on fracture initiation in
welded specimens using a local damage model. Struct Integrity
Life J. 2011;11:51‐56.
149. Younise B, Rakin M, Меdjo B, Sedmak A. Local approach for
prediction of ductile fracture initiation in welded specimens.
Welding & Material Testing J. 2011;1:31‐35.
SEDMAK
150. Zhang ZL, Niemi E. A new failure criterion for the Gurson‐
Tvergaard dilational constitutive model. Int J Fract.
1995;70(4):321‐334.
151. Sun DZ, Kienzler R, Voss B, Schmitt W. Fracture mechanics—
twenty‐second symposium. In: Atluri SN, Newman JC, Raju I
Jr, Epstein JS, eds. ASTM STP 1131. Vol.II Philadelphia:
American Society for Testing and Materials; 1992:368‐378.
152. European Structural Integrity Society: ESIS procedure for
determining the fracture behaviour of materials. ESIS P2–92,
1992
153. Bilby BA, Howard IC, Li ZH. Prediction of the first spinning
cylinder test using ductile damage theory. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct. 1993;16(1):1‐20.
154. Marini B, Mudry F, Pineau A. Experimental study of cavity
growth in ductile rupture. Eng Fract Mech. 1985;22(6):989‐996.
155. Gubeljak N, Legat J, Kocak M. Effect of fracture path on the
toughness of weld metal. Int J Fract. 2002;115(4):343‐359.
156. Las V, Ocenasek J, Vacek V. Numerical determination of J‐R
curve using void model. Mater Technol. 2005;39:83‐88.
157. Younise B, Rakin M, Medjo B, Gubeljak N, Kozak D, Sedmak
A. Numerical analysis of constraint effect on ductile tearing
in strength mismatched welded CCT specimens using
micromechanical approach. Technical Gazette J. 2011;18:
333‐340.
158. Musraty W, Međo B, Gubeljak N, et al. Ductile fracture of pipe‐
ring notched bend specimens—micromechanical analysis. Eng
Fract Mech. 2017;175:247‐261.
159. Younise B, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, et al. Micromechanical anal-
ysis of mechanical heterogeneity effect on the ductile tearing of
weldments. Mater Des. 2012;37:193‐201.
160. Younise B, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Međo B, Sedmak A. Effect of
material heterogeneity and constraint conditions on ductile
fracture resistance of welded joint zones—micromechanical
assessment. Eng Failure Anal. 2017;82:435‐445.
161. Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Međo B, Sedmak A. Micromechanical
assessment of mismatch effects on fracture of high‐strength
low alloyed steel welded joints. Eng Fract Mech. 2013;109:
221‐235.
162. Međo B, Rakin M, Gubeljak N, Arsić M, Šarkočević Z, Sedmak
A. Failure resistance of drilling ring casting pipes with an axial
crack. Eng Failure Anal. 2015;58:429‐440.
163. Bonora N. A nonlinear CDM model for ductile failure. Eng
Fract Mech. 1997;58(1):11‐28.
164. Bonora N, Ruggiero A, Esposito L, Gentile D. CDM modeling
of ductile failure in ferritic steels: assessment of the geometry
transferability of model parameters. Int J Plasticity. 2006;
22(11):2015‐2047.
165. Testa G, Bonora N, Gentile D, Carlucci A, Madi Y. Ductile frac-
ture assessment of X65 steel using damage mechanics. Procedia
Structural Integrity. 2017;3:508‐516.
166. Tu, S., Ren, X., He, J., Zhang, Z., Numerical study on the effect
of Lüders plateau on the ductile crack growth resistance of
SENT specimens, submitted for Int. J. Fracture, 7.4.2018
SEDMAK
167. Souiyah M, Muchtar A, Alshoaibi A, Ariffin AK. Finite ele-
ment analysis of the crack propagation for solid materials.
American J Appl Sci. 2009;6(7):1396‐1402.
168. Citarella R, Cricrì G. A two‐parameter model for crack growth
simulation by combined FEM–DBEM approach. Adv Eng
Softw. 2009;40(5):363‐377.
169. Yang ZJ, Wang XF, Yin DS, Zhang C. A non‐matching finite
element‐scaled boundary finite element coupled method for
linear elastic crack propagation modeling. Comput Struct.
2015;153:126‐136.
170. Nicak T, Mutz A, Keim E, Meier G. Application of XFEM to
model crack initiation and propagation during a PTS event.
Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference PVP2015 July 19–23, 2015, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA, 1–11.
171. Huffman PJ, Ferreira J, Correia J. Fatigue crack propagation
prediction of a pressure vessel mild steel based on a strain
energy density model. Frattura Ed Integrità Strutturale.
2017;42:74‐84.
172. Lee S, Martin D. Application of XFEM to model stationary
crack and crack propagation for pressure containing subsea
equipment. Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels
and Piping Conference PVP2016 July 17–21, 2016, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, 1–7.
173. Daux C, Moes N, Dolbow J, Sukumar N, Belytschko T. Arbi-
trary branched and intersecting cracks with the extended
finite element method. Int J Numer Methods Eng.
2000;48(12):1741‐1760.
174. Kim JH, Chau‐Dinh T, Zi G, Kong JS. The effect of compres-
sion stresses, stress level and stress order on fatigue crack
growth of multiple site damage. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct.
2012;10:1‐15.
175. Budyn É, Zi G, Moës N, Belytschko T. A method for multiple
crack growth in brittle materials without remeshing. Int J
Numer Methods Eng. 2004;61(10):1741‐1770.
176. Loehnert S, Belytschko T. Crack shielding and amplification
due to multiple microcracks interacting with a macrocrack.
Int J Fract. 2007;145(1):1‐8.
177. Singh IV, Mishra BK, Bhattacharya S, Patil RU. The numerical
simulation of fatigue crack growth using extended finite ele-
ment method. Int J Fatigue. 2012;36(1):109‐119.
178. Kumar S, Singh IV, Mishra BK. A homogenized XFEM
approach to simulate fatigue crack growth problems. Comput
Struct. 2015;150:1‐22.
179. Krаedegh A, Li W, Sedmak A, Grbovic A, Trišović N, Kirin S.
Simulation of fatigue crack growth in A2024‐T351 “T” welded
joint. Structural Integrity Life. 2017;17(1):3‐6.
37
180. Sghayer A, Grbović A, Sedmak A, Dinulović M, Doncheva E,
Petrovski B. Fatigue life analysis of the integral skin‐stringer
panel using XFEM. Structural Integrity Life. 2017;17(1):7‐10.
181. Eldwaib KA, Grbovic A, Kastratovic G. Fatigue life estimation
of CCT specimen using XFEM and Paris law. Structural Integ-
rity Life. 2017;17(2):117‐124.
182. Aldarwish M, Grbović A, Kastratović G, Sedmak A, Vidanović
N. Numerical assessment of stress intensity factors at tips of
multi‐site cracks in unstiffened panel. Structural Integrity Life.
2017;17(1):11‐14.
183. Aldarwish A, Grbović A, Kastratović G, Sedmak A, Lazić M.
Stress intensity factors evaluation at tips of multi‐site cracks
in unstiffened 2024‐T3 aluminum panel using XFEM, accepted
for publication in Technical Gazzete, 2018
184. Sghayer A, Grbović A, Sedmak A, Dinulović M, Grozdanovic I,
Sedmak S, Petrovski B.. Experimental and numerical analysis
of fatigue crack growth in integral skin‐stringer panels,
accepted for publication in Technical Gazzete, 2018
185. Petrašinović D, Rašuo B, Petrašinović N. Extended finite ele-
ment method (XFEM) applied to aircraft duralumin spar
fatigue life estimation. Tehnički vjesnik. 2012;19(3):557‐562.
186. Rakipovski E, Grbović A, Kastratović G, Vidanović N. Applica-
tion of Extended Finite Element Method for Fatigue Life
Predictions of Multiple Site Damage in Aircraft Structure.
Structural Integrity Life. 2015;15(1):3‐6.
187. Kraedegh A, Sedmak A, Grbovic A, Sedmak S. Stringer effect
on fatigue crack propagation in A2024‐T351 aluminum alloy
welded joint. Int J Fatigue. 2017;105:276‐282.
188. Eldwaib KA, Grbovic A, Sedmak A, Kastratovic G, Petrasinovic
D. fatigue life estimation of damaged integral wing spar Using
XFEM, accepted for publication in Technical Gazzete, 2018
189. Živojinović D, Arsić M, Sedmak A, Kirin S, Tomić R. Practical
aspests of fail‐safe design‐calculation of fatigue life of cracked
thin‐walled structures. Technical Gazette. 2011;18(4):609‐617.
190. Cenaero. Morfeo/crack for ABAQUS, from http://cneaero.be
191. Fatigue Crack Growth Computer program “NASGRO”, Refer-
ence Manual, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
London B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texsas 77058–3696,
August 2002.
192. FRANC 3D, Menu & Dialog Manual, July 1998.
How to cite this article: Sedmak A.
Computational fracture mechanics: An overview
from early efforts to recent achievements. Fatigue
Fract Eng Mater Struct. 2018;1–37. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ffe.12912