Fracture Lecture of Abaqus

Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Lecture 1
L1.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Fracture Mechanisms
• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
• Small Scale Yielding
• Energy Considerations
• The J-integral
• Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics
• Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Interfacial Fracture
• Creep Fracture
• Fatigue
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L1.3
Overview
• This lecture is optional.

• It aims to introduce the necessary fracture mechanics concepts and
quantities that are relevant to the Abaqus functionality that is presented
in the subsequent lectures.
• If you are already familiar with these concepts, this lecture may be
omitted.

Introduction
L1.5
Introduction
• Fracture mechanics is the field of solid mechanics that deals with the
behavior of cracked bodies subjected to stresses and strains.
• These can arise from primary applied loads or secondary self-
equilibrating stress fields (e.g., residual stresses).

L1.6
Introduction
• Objective of fracture mechanics

• The objective of fracture mechanics is to characterize the local
deformation around a crack tip in terms of the asymptotic field around
the crack tip scaled by parameters that are a function of the loading and
global geometry.

Fracture Mechanisms
L1.8
Fracture Mechanisms
• For engineering materials, such as metals, there are

two primary modes of fracture: brittle and ductile.
• Brittle fracture
• Cracks spread very rapidly with little or no
plastic deformation.
• Cracks that initiate in a brittle material tend to
continue to grow and increase in size provided
the loading will cause crack growth.
• Ductile fracture
• Three stages: void nucleation, growth, and
coalescence.
• The crack moves slowly and is accompanied by
a large amount of plastic deformation.
• The crack typically will not grow unless the
applied load is increased.

L1.9
Fracture Mechanisms
• Brittle fracture in polycrystalline materials displays either cleavage

(transgranular) or intergranular fracture.
• This depends upon whether the grain boundaries are stronger or
weaker than the grains .
Cleavage fracture

L1.10
Fracture Mechanisms
• Ductile fracture has a dimpled, cup-and-cone fracture appearance .

• Ductile fracture surfaces have larger necking regions and an
overall rougher appearance than a brittle fracture surface.

L1.11
Fracture Mechanisms
• Fracture process zone

• The fracture process zone is the region around the crack tip where
dislocation motions, material damage, etc. occur.
• It is a region of nonlinear deformation.
• The fracture process zone size is characterized by
• a number of grain sizes for brittle fracture or
• either inclusion or second phase particle spacings for ductile
fracture.
• Different theories have been advanced to describe the fracture process
in order to develop predictive capabilities
• LEFM
• Cohesive zone models
• EPFM
• Etc.

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
L1.13
• Fracture modes
• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
considers three distinct fracture modes: Modes
I, II, and III
• These encompass all possible ways a crack
tip can deform.
• Mode I:
• The forces are perpendicular to the crack,
pulling the crack open.
• This is referred to as the opening mode.

L1.14
• Mode II:
• The forces are parallel to the crack.
• One force pushes the top half of the
crack back and the other pulls the
bottom half of the crack forward, both
along the same line.
• This creates a shear crack: the
crack slides along itself.
• This is referred to as the in-plane shear
mode.
• The forces do not cause out-of-
plane deformation.

L1.15
• Mode III:
• The forces are transverse to the crack.
• This causes the material to separate
and slide along itself, moving out of
its original plane
• This is referred to as the out-of-plane
shear mode.
• The objective of LEFM is to predict the critical

loads that will cause a crack to grow in a brittle
material.

L1.16
• Stress intensity factor

• For isotropic, linear elastic materials, LEFM characterizes the local
crack-tip stress field in the linear elastic (i.e., brittle) material using a
single parameter called the stress intensity factor K.
• K depends upon the applied stress, the size and placement of the
crack, as well as the geometry of the specimen.
• K is defined from the elastic stresses near the tip of a sharp crack
under remote loading (or residual stresses).
• K is used to predict the stress state ("stress intensity") near the tip
of a crack.
• When this stress state (i.e., K) becomes critical, a small crack
grows ("extends") and the material fails.
• This critical value is denoted KC and is known as the fracture
toughness (it is a material property; discussed further later).

L1.17
• Asymptotic crack tip solutions

• The stress and strain fields in the vicinity of the crack tip are expressed
in terms of asymptotic series of solutions around the crack tip.
• They are valid only is a small region near the crack tip.
• This size of this region is quantified by small scale yielding
assumptions (discussed later).
• The stress intensity factor is the parameter that relates the local
crack-tip fields with the global aspects of the problem.

L1.18
• The leading-order terms of the asymptotic solution are:
KI K K
 ij (r , )  fijI ( )  II fijII ( )  III fijIII ( ), x2 r
2 r 2 r 2 r 
where x1
r is the distance from the crack tip,

 = atan(x2/x1),
KI is the Mode I (opening) stress intensity factor,
KII is the Mode II (in-plane shear) stress intensity factor,
KIII is the Mode III (transverse shear) stress intensity factor, and the
fija define the angular variation of the stress for mode a.

L1.19
• Crack-tip singularity
• The predicted stress state at the crack tip in a linear elastic (brittle)
material possesses a square-root singularity:
1
 .
r
• In reality, the crack tip is surrounded by the fracture process zone

where plastic deformation and material damage occur.
• Inside this zone, the LEFM solution is not valid.
• Outside of this zone (i.e., sufficiently "far" from the fracture
process zone), the LEFM is accurate provided the
plastic/damage zone is “small enough.”
• This is called small-scale yielding (discussed further later).

L1.20
• Some comments on fracture toughness

• Fracture toughness is strongly dependent on temperature.
Fracture toughness
Temperature
• The brittle-ductile transition temperature range depends on the material.
• For many common metals it may lie within the reasonable operating
temperature range for the design, so the temperature dependence
of the fracture toughness must be considered.

L1.21
• Experimentally, the fracture toughness KC is a function of specimen

thickness.
• Since plane strain gives the practical minimum value of KC …
• The plane strain value is usually the value that is determined
experimentally.
• However, if the application is fracture of thin sheets of material, KC
values somewhere between the plane stress and plane strain values
may be appropriate.
Fracture toughness
KC
Thickness →

L1.22
• Aside from temperature and thickness, the fracture toughness is also a

function of the crack extension.
• The fracture toughness as a function of crack extension is called the
resistance curve (shown below).
ductile
Variation in fracture toughness

with crack growth is Kr(Da):
Kr(0)= KC
brittle
• The resistance curve is used to predict crack growth stability.

L1.23
• Crack growth and stability

• The condition for continued crack growth for a crack length a + Da is
Kapplied  K R (Da).
• The condition for stable continued crack growth is
K applied dK R
 .
a load
d Da

Small-Scale Yielding
L1.25
• Small-scale yielding (SSY) means the region of inelastic deformation at

the crack tip is contained well within the zone dominated by the LEFM
asymptotic solution.
• For LEFM to be valid, there must be an annular region around the
crack tip in which the asymptotic solution to the linear elasticity
problem gives a good approximation to the complete stress field.
Plastic zone
K-dominated zone
Transition zone

L1.26
• The size of the process zone and the plastic region must be
sufficiently small so that this is true. Typical shapes of plastic zones
follow:
plane strain plane stress plane stress

(diffuse) (Dugdale)

L1.27
• We can estimate the plastic zone size, rp, by setting 22 = 0 in the LEFM
asymptotic solution, where 0 is the yield stress. This gives (for Mode I)
2 2
1  KI  1  KI 
rp       .
2  0  6  0 
• Since the tractions across the boundary of the plastic zone have no net
force or moments (St. Venant’s principle), the effect on the elastic field
surrounding the plastic zone decays rapidly with distance from the
boundary, becoming negligible at ~3rp.
• LEFM predicts infinite stress at the crack tip—obviously this is unrealistic.
• But we can use LEFM results if the region of inelastic deformation near
the crack tip is small enough that there is a finite zone outside this
region where the LEFM asymptotic solution is accurate.

L1.28
• If a is a characteristic dimension in the problem, such as remaining ligament

size or thickness or crack length, then, to have a finite zone rK in which the
K-field dominates, we need
2
1  K IC 
a / 5  rK  3rp   
2  0 
or 2
 K IC  ASTM Standard for
a  2.5   . validity of LEFM
 0 
• This is the limit on specimen size in ASTM Standard E-399 for a valid
KIC test.
• KIC is KC (the fracture toughness) in Mode I.
• The fracture toughness represents the critical value of K required
to initiate crack growth.

L1.29
• For some typical metal materials rp is calculated by matching the yield

stress to the Mises stress of the K field and the minimum characteristic
length is calculated using the ASTM standard limit.
• For materials with high fracture toughness the size of the specimen
for a valid fracture test is very large.
Characteristic
Material
T 0 KIC rp dimension
(ºC) (MPa) (MN/m3/2) (mm)
(mm)
A061-T651 (Al) 20 269 33 5 38
A075-T651 (Al) 20 620 36 0.35 8.4
AISI 4340 (Steel) 0 1500 33 0.05 1.2
A533-B (Steel) 93 620 200 11 260

Energy Considerations
L1.31
• Energy principles play an important role in studying crack problems.

• This is motivated by the fact that crack propagation always involves
dissipation of energy. Sources of energy dissipation include:
• Surface energy, plastic dissipation, etc.
• By considering fracture from an energetic point of view, crack
growth criteria can be postulated in terms of energy release rates.
• This approach offers an alternative to the K-based fracture
criteria discussed earlier and reinforces the connection
between global and local fields in fracture problems.
• The energy release rate is a global parameter while the stress
intensity factor is a local crack-tip parameter.

L1.32
• The energy available to grow a crack

is defined as
 ( PE )
G- ,
a Loads
where PE is the potential energy and

G is the Energy Release Rate.
• We consider the difference in the
energy for two essentially identical
specimens, one with crack length a,
the other with crack length a + Da.
• The area under the load-
displacement curve gives -PE for
elastic materials.

L1.33
• For isotropic linear elastic materials, one can show that
1 - v2 2
G K for plane strain
E
and
K2
G for plane stress.
E
• In a three-dimensional body under general loading that contains a crack
with a smoothly changing crack-tip line, the energy release rate
(assuming linear elasticity) per unit crack front length is
1 - v2 2 1 2
G ( K I  K II2 )  K III .
E 2G
• Thus, we see the stress intensity factors are directly related to the
energy release rate associated with infinitesimal crack growth in an
isotropic linear elastic material.

L1.34
• Initiation of crack growth in SSY

• The necessary condition for crack growth expressed in terms of the
energy release rate is G  GC.
• GC is a material property and represents the energy per unit crack
advance going into:
• the formation of new surfaces,
• the fracture process, and
• plastic deformation.
• As noted earlier, for linear elastic materials, G and K are related.
• This leads to an alternative condition for K  KC.
• Recall KC is the fracture toughness of the material.

The J-integral
L1.36
The J-integral
• The J-integral is used in rate-independent quasi-static fracture analysis

to characterize the energy release associated with crack growth.
• It can be related to the stress intensity factor if the material
response is linear.
• As will become apparent in the next section, it also has the
advantage that it provides a method for analyzing fracture in
nonlinear materials.

L1.37
The J-integral
• J is defined as follows:
x2
 u 

J   Wn1 - i  ij n j  ds

x1 
x1
• It is path independent when contours are taken around a crack tip.
• The definition of J assumes:
• The material is homogeneous in the crack direction.
• The material is elastic.
• For linear elastic materials, the value of J is equal to the energy
release rate associated with crack advance:
J G

L1.38
The J-integral
• J in small-scale yielding
• Choose , the contour for J, to fall entirely within the annular region in
which the K fields dominate.
3rp
• The integrand for J can be evaluated directly in terms of the (known) K

fields. Direct calculation for Mode I in a linear elastic material gives
1 - v2 2
J G  K I for plane strain and
E
1
J  G  K I2 for plane stress.
E
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics
L1.40
• LEFM applies when the nonlinear deformation of the material is confined

to a small region near the crack tip.
• For brittle materials, it accurately establishes the criteria for failure.
• However, severe limitations arise when the region of the material
subject to plastic deformation before a crack propagates is not
negligible.
• Nonlinear fracture mechanics attempts to extend LEFM to consider
inelastic effects.
• The theory is sometimes called Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics
(EPFM).
• However, the theory is not based on an elastic-plastic material
model, but rather a nonlinear elastic material.

L1.41
• Consider a material that has a power-law hardening form,
n
e  
a  ,
e0  0 
where 0 is the effective yield stress, e0 = 0 / E is the associated yield
strain, E is Young's modulus, and a and n are chosen to fit the stress-
strain data for the material.

L1.42
• For such a material, Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren (extended to mixed

mode loading by Shih) showed that the near-tip fields have the form
Loading parameter is J 1
 J  n1
 ij   0    ij ( ),
a e
 0 0 n 
I r
n
 J  n1
e ij  e 0   eij ( ),
a e
 0 0 n 
I r
n
 J  n1
ui - uî  ae 0 r   ui ( ).
a e
 0 0 n 
I r
• Here ui - uî is the displacement relative to the displacement of the crack

tip, uî . These fields are commonly referred to as the HRR crack-tip fields.

L1.43
• Why not elastic-plastic?

• The HRR field assumes a nonlinear
elastic power law material:
n
e  
a  
e0 0 
• Under monotonic loading, this
nonlinear elastic material can be
matched to the behavior of an
elastic-plastic material whose
hardening behavior is accurately
modeled by a power law.
• Thus, evaluating J allows us to
characterize the strength of the
singularity in the crack-tip region in
an elastic-plastic material subjected
to monotonic loading.

L1.44
• In unloading situations, the HRR fields do not describe the state around
the crack tip, and hence J does not characterize the strength of the
stress state ahead of a crack tip for plastic materials. Use caution when:
• The loading is not monotonic and an incremental plasticity material
is used
• Crack growth occurs under monotonic loading (individual material
particles may unload even when the overall structure is being
loaded).
• The HRR solution:
• Gives the leading term in an asymptotic expansion of the
deformation around the crack tip for a power law material; and
• Does not take into account finite-strain effects.

L1.45
• Some comments on the HRR fields

• The HRR fields, thus, describe the near-tip crack fields in terms of J.
• J gives the strength of the near-tip singularity in any power-law material
(nonlinear elastic or plastic) solid
• Recall that in LEFM K plays this role in linear elastic materials.
• J-based fracture mechanics is applied in much the same way as LEFM.
• Crack growth initiates when J reaches a critical value: J  JC .
• To apply the theory, must ensure conditions for J-dominance are
satisfied (discussed next).

L1.46
• J-dominance
• J-dominance refers to situations when J can be used as a method of
predicting fracture.
• In general, J is an adequate characterization when there exists a state of
high triaxial tension (high triaxiality) ahead of the crack tip.
• High triaxiality ahead of the crack tip leads to low fracture
toughness.
• Examples: states of small-scale and well-contained yielding (where
the plastic zone is surrounded by an elastic zone):
• Deeply notched bend specimen
d
c «d
c

L1.47
• In some situations the crack-tip stress field does not exhibit high triaxiality.
• Example: large-scale yielding (the plastic zone extends to the free
boundaries of the body):
• Fully plastic flow of single-edge cracked specimens under tension
loading
• Shallow cracks under bending
• Center-cracked panel
• A two-parameter approach can be used to extend the fracture

characterization to such cases (discussed next).

L1.48
• Two-parameter fracture mechanics

• The Williams’ expansion of the Mode I stress field about a sharp crack in
a linear elastic body with respect to r, the distance from the crack tip, is
KI
 ij (r , )  fij ( )  T 1i1 j  O(r1/2 ).
2 r
• The T-stress thus represents a stress parallel to the crack faces.
• The magnitude of the T-stress affects the size and shape of the
plastic zone and the region of tensile triaxiality ahead of the crack
tip.
• For positive T-stress, J-dominance exists and a single parameter J
can be used for a fracture criterion.
• For negative T-stress, a two-parameter approach (J, T) is required
to characterize the stress fields.

Mixed-Mode Fracture
L1.50
Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Under general loading almost all theories for the direction of crack growth
assume or predict that the continued crack growth will be with KII = 0.
• Can assume that macroscopic cracks growing with continuously
turning tangents will advance straight ahead, presumably under Mode
I conditions.
• The crack curvature will evolve in such a way as to maintain this in
response to the loading.
• If the loading changes such that the local crack-tip stress field
experiences a large change in local stress intensities, mixed-mode
fracture will occur.

L1.51
Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Different criteria for homogeneous,

isotropic linear elastic materials have
been proposed, including:
• The maximum tangential
stress criterion.
• The maximum energy release
rate criterion.
• The KII = 0 criterion.
• Although all three imply that
KII = 0 as the crack extends, they
predict slightly different angles for
crack initiation.
Comparison of predictions of crack
propagation direction for different
ratios of KII / KI

Interfacial Fracture
L1.53
• Many engineering applications involve bonded materials.

• Examples:
• adhesive joints;
• protective coatings;
• composite materials;
• etc.
• Engineers must be able to predict the strength of the bond.
• Interfacial fracture mechanics provides a method by which to do this.
• It extends LEFM to predict the behavior of cracks between two
linear elastic materials.

L1.54
• Once a crack has started to grow in an

isotropic, homogeneous material, it
generally does so in an opening mode;
that is, in Mode I.
• A crack lying on an interface can
kink off the interface and grow
under Mode I conditions, or it can
grow along the interface under
mixed mode conditions.
• Whether the crack kinks off the
interface or propagates along it is
frequently determined through energy
considerations.

L1.55
• If the crack kinks off the interface, the fact that there is an interface is
important only in how it influences the stress and strain fields.
• If the crack grows along the interface, it grows under mixed mode
conditions due to material asymmetry and possibly (though not
necessarily) under mixed remote loading conditions.
• In such situations the conditions for crack growth depend on the
interface properties. It is not sufficient to define crack initiation and
growth criterion based on the conventional fracture toughness, KC.
• Specifically KC = KC ().
• Toughness depends strongly on the mode mixity .

L1.56
• Asymptotic fields
• The asymptotic stress field for an interfacial crack between linear elastic
materials is given by
 K * ie 
 ij  Re  r  ij ( , e ) 
 2 r 
where K* = K1  iK2 is the complex stress intensity factor (i.e., it has real
and imaginary parts) and  ij  , e  is a complex function of the angle
and material mismatch parameter e :
1 1-   ( - 1) - 2 (1 - 1)
e log , where   1 2 , and
2 1  1 ( 2  1)  2 (1  1)
 3 -
 for plane stress
   1 
3 - 4 for plane strain, axi, 3D

L1.57
• The complex exponent rie indicates that the stresses will oscillate near
the crack tip:
• Both the stresses and crack opening displacements will oscillate wildly
as the crack tip is approached.
• At some distance ahead of the crack tip, the fields settle down.
• The fracture criterion should be measured at this point. Provided the
location of this point is the same in different specimens, a fracture
criterion is valid.

Creep Fracture
L1.59
Creep Fracture
• High-temperature fracture
• For temperatures above 0.3M (where M is the melting temperature on
an absolute scale), metals will typically creep.
• In plastics creep can occur even at room temperature.
• There are typically two mechanisms that are active in creep fracture:
• Blunting of the crack tip due to a relaxing stress field.
• This tends to retard crack growth.
• Accumulation of creep damage (microcracks, void growth, and
coalescence).
• This enhances crack growth.
• Steady-state creep crack growth occurs when the two effects balance
one another.

L1.60
Creep Fracture
• The stress state around a crack tip in a material that can creep is more
complicated than for the corresponding plasticity problem.
• Because of the time-dependent effects there is no one parameter that
can characterize the stress state around the crack tip for all
possibilities.
• This makes measuring the relevant parameters more difficult.
• Hence, creep fracture is not as well established as elastic-plastic
fracture.
Initially, the crack-tip field is the elastic field.

Stationary crack: O(e cr )  O(e el ) around the
crack tip (RR field); around this field O(e )  O(e )
el cr
(K field).
Growing crack: region develops where O(e )  O(e )
el cr
(HR field), which is in turn surrounded by the RR

field. Eventually the HR field envelops the RR
field (which ultimately disappears).

L1.61
Creep Fracture
• Contour integrals
• The contour integral for creep fracture is called the C(t)-integral.
• It plays an analogous role to the J-integral in the context of time-
dependent creep fracture.
• Its development assumes a power law creep material:
n
  
e  e el  e cr   e0  

E  0 
• The C(t)-integral is proportional to the rate of growth of the crack-tip
creep zone for a stationary crack under small-scale creep conditions:
 n u j 
C (t )   
 r 0  n  1
 ijeij n1 - ni  ij
x1 
 ds.
• Under steady-state creep conditions, when creep dominates throughout

the specimen, C(t) becomes path independent and is known as C*.

L1.62
Creep Fracture
• Asymptotic fields for stationary crack

• The near tip stress and strain fields were obtained by Riedel and Rice in
terms of C(t). They are known as the RR fields and are analogous to the
HRR fields in power law hardening plasticity.
C(t) acts like a time-dependent
loading parameter 1
 C (t )  n1
 ij   0    ij ( , n) Crack tip fields are
e
 
 0 0 n 
I r similar to those for
an elastic-plastic
n material
 C (t )  n1
eijcr  e0   eij ( , n)
e
 
 0 0 n 
I r
Here In is a function of n and the magnitude of  ij ( , n) is approximately
1.

L1.63
Creep Fracture
• Small-scale vs. extensive creep

• For the case of no crack growth the
K
loading parameters that characterize the   ( )
r
crack-tip fields are reasonably well
understood.
• Under small-scale creep conditions
with secondary creep, K is the loading Small-scale creep
parameter characterizing the crack-tip
field.
• For extensive secondary creep C* is
a loading parameter characterizing
creep
the crack-tip field upon which a zone
fracture criterion may be based.
• Suitable criteria for crack extension that
will predict an initiation time for crack
growth for general cases are not yet Extensive creep
available.
Fatigue
L1.65
Fatigue
• Fatigue is a special kind of failure in which cracks gradually grow under

a prolonged period of subcritical loading.
• It is the single most common cause of failure in metallic structures.
Damage at the ball grid array

(BGA) in a solder joint after
2700 thermal loading cycles
• The Paris Law can be used to predict crack growth as a function of

cycles (or time):
da
 C (DK ) n , where
dN
DK  K max - K min

L1.66
Fatigue
• Abaqus offers a direct cyclic low-cycle fatigue capability based on the

Paris Law.
• Models progressive damage and failure both in bulk materials and
at material interfaces for a structure subjected to a sub-critical cyclic
loading.
• For more advanced fatigue analysis capabilities, consult
www.safetechnology.com.
• fe-safe is a suite of fatigue analysis software that has a direct
interface to Abaqus.

Modeling Cracks
Lecture 2
L2.2
Overview
• Crack Modeling Overview

• Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions
• Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions
• Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips
• Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture
• Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options

Crack Modeling Overview
L2.4
• A crack can be modeled as either

• Sharp
• Small-strain analysis
• Singular behavior at the crack tip
• Requires special attention
• In Abaqus, a sharp crack is modeled
using seam geometry
• Blunted
• Finite-strain analysis
• Non-singular behavior at crack tip
• In Abaqus, a blunted crack is modeled
using open geometry
• For example, a notch

L2.5
• Mesh refinement
• Crack tips cause stress concentrations.
• Stress and strain gradients are large as a crack tip is approached.
• The finite element mesh must be refined in the vicinity of the crack
tip to get accurate stresses and strains.
• The J-integral is an energy measure; for LEFM, accurate J values can
generally be obtained with surprisingly coarse meshes, even though the
local stress and strain fields are not very accurate.
• For plasticity or rubber elasticity, the crack-tip region has to be
modeled carefully to give accurate results.

L2.6
• The crack-tip singularity in small-strain analysis

• For mesh convergence in a small-strain analysis, the singularity at the
crack tip must be considered.
• J values are more accurate if some singularity is included in the
mesh at the crack tip than if no singularity is included.
• The stress and strain fields local to the crack tip will be modeled
more accurately if singularities are considered.
• In small-strain analysis, the strain singularity is:
• Linear elasticity   r -½
• Perfect plasticity   r -1
• Power-law hardening   r -n/(n+1)

Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two
Dimensions
L2.8
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions
• In two dimensions…
• The crack is modeled as an internal edge
partition embedded (partially or wholly) inside
a face.
• This is called a seam crack
• The edge along the seam will have
duplicate nodes such that the elements
on the opposite sides of the edge will not
share nodes.
• Typically, the entire 2D part is filled with a
quad or quad-dominated mesh.
• At the crack tip, a ring of triangles are
inserted along with concentric layers of
structured quads.
• All triangles in the contour domains must
be represented as degenerated quads.

L2.9
• Example: Slanted crack in a plate

• In Abaqus/CAE a seam is defined by
through the Crack option underneath the
Special menu of the Interaction module.
• The seam will generate duplicate
nodes along the edge.
Seam
Create face partition to represent

the seam; assign a seam to the
partition.

L2.10
• To define the crack, you must specify

• Crack front and the crack-tip
• Normal to the crack plane or the
direction of crack advance
• The crack advance direction is
called the q vector.
Crack tip
same as The crack extension direction (q vector)
crack defines the direction in which the crack
Select the vertex at either front in would extend if it were growing.
end as the crack front. this case
(Repeat for the other end.) It is used for contour integral
calculations.

L2.11
• Other options for defining the crack front and crack tip
Crack front for a

geometric instance
Crack tip for an

orphan mesh
Crack front may be:

Vertex/Node
Edges/Element edges Crack tip may be:
Faces/Elements Vertex/Node
Geometric Orphan Geometric Orphan

Instances Mesh Instances Mesh

L2.12
• Example: crack on a symmetry plane

• If the crack is on a symmetry plane, you
do not need to define a seam.
• This feature can be used only for
Mode I fracture.
Crack normal
Crack tip

L2.13
• Modeling the crack-tip singularity with second-order quad elements

• To capture the singularity in an 8-node isoparametric element:
• Collapse one side (e.g., the side made up by nodes a, b, and c) so
that all three nodes have the same geometric location at the crack
tip.
• Move the midside nodes on the sides connected to the crack tip to
the ¼ point nearest the crack tip.

L2.14
• If nodes a, b, and c are free to move independently, then

A B
  as r  0
r r
everywhere in the collapsed element.
• If nodes a, b, and c are constrained to move together, A = 0:
• The strains and stresses are square-root singular (suitable for
linear elasticity).
• If nodes a, b, and c are free to move independently and the midside
nodes remain at the midsides, B = 0 :
• The singularity in strain is correct for the perfectly plastic case.
• For materials in between linear elastic and perfectly plastic (most metals),
it is better to have a stronger singularity than necessary.
• The numerics will force the coefficient of this singularity to be small.

L2.15
• Usage:
Quarter-point midside
The crack tip nodes are nodes on the sides
independent: r -1 singularity connected to the crack tip
3 The crack tip nodes are
constrained: r -½ singularity
4 2
1, 2
1,2,3,4
3 1
1,1,2,3

L2.16
• Aside: Controlling the position of midside nodes for orphan meshes

• Singularity controls cannot be applied to orphan meshes.
• Use the Mesh Edit tools to adjust their position.

L2.17
• If the side of the element is not collapsed but the midside nodes on the
sides of the element connected to the crack tip are moved to the ¼
point:
• The strain is square root singular along the element edges but not in
the interior of the element.
• This is better than no singularity but not as good as the collapsed
element.
nodes moved to ¼ points

L2.18
• Angular resolution
• We need enough elements to resolve the angular dependence of the
strain field around the crack tip.
• Reasonable results are obtained for LEFM if typical elements
around the crack tip subtend angles in the range of 10 (accurate) to
22.5 (moderately accurate).
• Nonlinear material response usually requires finer meshes.

L2.19
• Modeling the crack-tip singularity with first-order quad elements

• Collapsing the side of a first-order quadrilateral element with
independent nodes on the collapsed side gives
A
  as r  0.
r

L2.20
• Example: Slanted crack in a plate

• To enable the creation of degenerate quads, you must create swept
meshable regions around the crack tips (using partitions) and specify a
quad-dominated mesh.
24 elements around
crack tip: 15 angles
Quarter-
point
nodes
CPE8R elements; typical nodal

connectivity shows repeated node
at crack tip:
Quad-dominated mesh + swept 8, 8, 583, 588, 8, 1969, 1799, 1970
technique for the circular regions Quadratic element type
surrounding the crack tips assigned to part All crack-tip elements repeat node 8 in
this example (nodes are constrained).

L2.21
• Example (cont’d):
Alternate meshes
• No degeneracy:
With swept meshable region: With arbitrary mesh,

CPE6M elements at crack tip — singularity only along edges
cannot be used for fracture connected to crack tip.
studies in Abaqus.
• Degenerate with
duplicate nodes:
CPE8R elements at crack tip but no
repeated nodes:
1993, 1992, 583, 588, 2016, ...
Coincident nodes
located at crack tip

L2.22
• Example (cont’d): Deformed shape
Arbitrary mesh;
Focused mesh; deformation
deformation scale
scale factor = 100
factor = 100

Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three
Dimensions
L2.24
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions
• In three dimensions…
• The seam crack is modeled as a
face partition that is either partially
or totally embedded into a solid
body.
• This can be done by
partitioning or using a cut
(Boolean) operation. Penny-shaped seam
Quarter model
crack: Full model
• The face along the seam will have
duplicate nodes such that the
elements on the opposite sides of
the face will not share nodes.
• Wedge elements must be created
along the crack front.
• Generally, this will require
partitioning. Wedge elements Meshed model

L2.25
• Options for defining the crack front and crack line
Crack front for a

geometric instance Crack line for an
orphan mesh
Crack front may be:

Edges/Element edges Crack line may be:
Faces/Element faces Edges/Element edges
Cells/Elements
Geometric Orphan
Geometric Orphan Instances Mesh
Instances Mesh

L2.26
• Specifying the crack growth direction in three dimensions

• In 3D you can specify either the
• normal to the crack plane (only when the crack is planar)
or the
• virtual crack extension direction (the q vector).
• Only a single q vector can be defined for geometric instances.
• The implications of this will be discussed shortly.

L2.27
• Modeling the crack-tip singularity in three dimensions

• 20-node and 27-node bricks can be used with a collapsed face to create
singular fields.
C3D20(RH) midplane
edge plane
2 nodes collapsed to
the same location
crack line
midside nodes
moved to ¼ points
the same location

L2.28
• On an edge plane (orthogonal to the

crack line):
Double-edge notch specimen

(symmetry model)
A
 as r  0 A B
r   as r  0 B
r r  as r  0
r
Crack line
Edge plane nodes Edge plane nodes

displace independently displace together

L2.29
• On a midplane for 20-node bricks:

• If the two nodes on the collapsed face at the midplane can displace
independently,   r -1 at the midplane (i.e., element interior).
• If on each plane there is only one node along the crack line, no
singularity is represented within the element.
• In either case the interpolation is not the same on the midplane as
on an edge plane.
• This generally causes local oscillations in the J-integral values
along the crack line.

L2.30
• On a midplane for 27-node bricks with all the extra nodes on the
element faces:
midplane
C3D27(RH)
edge plane
same location
centroid
crack line
3 nodes collapsed to same

location

L2.31
• If all midface nodes and the centroid node are included and moved with
the midside nodes to the ¼ points, the singularity can be made the same
on the edge planes and midplane.
• Abaqus does not allow the centroid node to be moved from the
geometric centroid of the element.
• Therefore, the behavior at the midplane will never be the same as at
the edge planes.
• This usually causes some small oscillation of the crack fields along
the crack line.
• The midface node marked “A” is frequently omitted.
• This creates differences in interpolation between the midplane and
the edge planes and, hence, causes further oscillation in the crack-
tip fields.
• These oscillations are minor in most cases.

L2.32
• Example: Conical crack in a half-

space
• A conical crack in an infinite half-
space is considered.
• Only the aspects related to the
geometric modeling are
considered here.
• The results of this analysis
(J-integral values, etc) will
be considered in the next
lecture.
• The modeling procedure is
outlined next.

L2.33
1 Example (cont’d): Create the basic geometry
• Because of symmetry, only a quarter model is created
a = 15
r = 10
q = 45º
Large solid block (300 × 300 × 300)

used to represent the half-space. Conical shell of revolution (revolved 90º);
this will be used to cut the block.

L2.34
2 Example (cont’d): Merge the block and cone
• This will create the edges and surface

necessary to define the seam and the crack.
Instance and merge the

two parts to create a
new part. The instance
must be independent.

L2.35
3 Example (cont’d): Define the seam and the crack front/line
Only one q vector can be defined

for geometry. The q vectors will
be adjusted at the end of the
modeling process by editing an
orphan mesh.

L2.36
4 Example (cont’d): Partition the block for meshing
The regions surrounding the

crack front are partitioned to
permit structured meshing.
A small curved tube is centered

at the crack tip; this region is
meshed with a single layer of
wedge elements. This mesh is
swept along the length of the
tube.

L2.37
• Aside: Why is the small curved tube needed?
The swept meshing technique sweeps a

mesh through a cross section.
For the curved tube, this implies the
sweep direction is along its length. In
order for Abaqus to automatically create
a focused mesh at the crack tip,
however, it would need to sweep around
the circumference.
To overcome this, two concentric tubes
are used; the smaller one is meshed
with a single layer of wedge elements
(which is then swept along the length of
the tube).
If only a single curved tube was created
(shown at right), the mesh around the
crack tip would be arbitrary—not
focused (wedge elements not created).

L2.38
• Aside: What about the seam?

• After all the partitions are created for meshing purposes, the definition of
the seam remains intact.
Mesh seam

L2.39
5 Example (cont’d): Mesh the part
• Specify appropriate edge seeds to create

a focused mesh around the crack front
with minimal mesh distortion.

L2.40
6 Example (cont’d): Adjust the q vectors

• As noted earlier, only a single q vector
can be defined for geometry. As seen in
the figure, the vector that was defined is
only accurate at the left end of the crack
line.
• Individual q vectors can be defined on To take advantage of the input file
approach, define a set that
an orphan mesh, however. Thus, contains the conical region before
either… writing the input file. Then you will
be able to easily create a display
• Create a mesh part (Mesh module) group based on this set when
manipulating the orphan mesh.
or
• Write an input file and import the
model
• This approach has the
advantage that it preserves
attributes (sets, loads, etc).
L2.41
• For the orphan mesh, adjust each

vector individually
To redefine
this particular
vector, select
these nodes
as the start
and end points
of the vector.

L2.42
• For all elements, the singularities are modeled best if the element edges
are straight.
• In three dimensions the planes of the element perpendicular to the crack
line should be flat.
• If they are not, when the midside nodes are moved to the ¼ points,
the Jacobian of the element at some integration points may be
negative.
• One way to correct this is to move the midside nodes slightly away
from the ¼ points toward the midpoint.

L2.43
• Example: Conical crack model

Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips
L2.45
• Finite-strain analyses:
• Singular elements should not be used (normally).
• The mesh must be sufficiently refined to model the very high strain
gradients around the crack tip if details in this region are required.
• Even if only the J-integral is required, the deformation around the
crack tip may dominate the solution and the crack-tip region will
have to be modeled with sufficient detail to avoid numerical
problems.

L2.46
• Physically, the crack tip is not perfectly sharp, and such modeling makes it
difficult to obtain results.
• Instead, we model the tip as a blunted notch, with a suggested radius
 10-3rp.
• Here, rp is the size of the plastic zone (discussed in Lecture 1).
• The notch must be small enough that under the applied loads, the
deformed shape of the notch no longer depends on the original
geometry.
• Typically, the notch must blunt out to more than four times its
original radius for this to be true.

L2.47
• Geometric modeling of blunt cracks

• In 2D, the geometry of a blunted (or
open) crack is modeled as a cut
having a significant thickness.
• Meshing is done in the usual way.
• A very fine mesh is required at
the crack tip.
• This can be achieved by simply
assigning small element sizes to
the notch.

L2.48
• 3D open cracks can be created in

Abaqus/CAE in one of two ways:
• Adding a Cut feature in the Penny shaped open
Part module. crack: Full model
• Subtracting a flaw from the
original part with a Boolean
operation in the Assembly
module.
• Hex meshing more difficult
Quarter model Meshed model
due to irregular geometry.
• Creating a fine mesh at the
crack front generally requires
many partitions.
Partitions to control mesh Refined mesh

L2.49
• The size of the elements around the notch must be about 1/10 th the
notch-tip radius. Biased edge seeds can
reduce the size of the mesh
by focusing small elements
towards the crack tip.
SEN specimen
crack-tip mesh
rnotch
10% of rnotch

L2.50
• For J-integral evaluation, the region on the surface of the blunted notch
should be used to define the crack front.
Crack tip
region
q vector
Crack surface
The blunted notch
is detected
surface is the crack
automatically Symmetry plane
front region
• For the J- and Ct-integrals to be path independent, the crack surfaces
must be parallel to one another (or parallel to the symmetry plane).
• If this is not the case, Abaqus automatically generates normals on
the crack surface.
• If the notch radius shrinks to zero, all nodes that would be at the crack
tip should be included in the crack-tip node set.

L2.51
• If the mesh is so coarse that the integration points nearest the crack tip
are far from the tip, most of the details (accurate stresses and strains) of
the finite-strain region around the crack tip will be lost.
• However, accurate J values may still be obtained if cracks are
modeled as sharp.

L2.52
• Example: SEN specimen
Deformed shape
Moderate blunting
Undeformed
shape
Severe blunting
Deformed vs Undeformed Shapes Contours of PEEQ

L2.53
• In situations involving finite rotations but small strains, such as the

bending of slender structures, a small keyhole around the crack tip
should be modeled.
crack-front
region
• The region defining the crack front for the contour integral consists
of the region on the keyhole.
• The elements should not be singular.

Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For
Fracture
L2.55
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture
• For curved regions cannot generate wedges at the center using a hex-
dominated approach and then sweep along the length of the region.
• This was discussed earlier in the context of the conical crack problem.
• To create a focused mesh in this case, embed a small tube within a
larger concentric tube. Mesh the smaller tube with a single layer of
wedge elements; the surrounding regions are meshed with hex
elements.
Sweep direction

L2.56
• Partition for a penny-shaped crack

• Illustrates the limitation that the path for the partition must be
perpendicular to its bounding surfaces; thus, cannot properly partition
along the arc of a circle as shown in this example:
Tangent direction of arc
arc (not a semi-circle as

in previous example)
Cross-sectional
view of block
Partition by sweeping
circular edge along arc

L2.57
• The workaround is to partition the face with circular arcs, and then
partition the cell using the n-sided patch technique.
Face partition n-sided patch
Note that the cross-sectional area of the swept

region is not constant along its length because
the tangents at the ends are not perpendicular Resulting mesh around
to the block (generalized sweep meshing) the crack front using
wedge elements

Modeling Cracks with Keyword
Options
L2.59
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options
• Defining a crack with keyword options:

• The *CONTOUR INTEGRAL option is used to define both, the crack
itself and the fracture output, in an Abaqus input ( .inp) file.
• In this section, we focus solely on the crack-specific parameters of this
option.
• These include:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, SYMM, NORMAL
• In the next lecture, we discuss the output-specific parameters of this
option.
• As noted earlier, the main requirements in defining a crack are:
• Defining the crack front
• Defining the crack extension direction

L2.60
• Crack symmetry
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, SYMM
• The crack lies on a plane of
symmetry and only half the
structure is being modeled
• This feature should only be
used for Mode I problems.

L2.61
• Crack extension
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, NORMAL
• The NORMAL parameter is used to
define the normal to the crack plane
when the crack is planar.
• Usage:
*contour integral, normal
nx, ny, nz
nodeSet1, nodeSet2, ...
These sets define the crack front;
• In this case, give a list of the node the first node in each set defines
set names defining the crack front the crack tip node for that set.
from one end to the other end, in (An optional CRACK TIP NODES
sequential order, without missing parameter is available to specify
any points on the crack line. the crack tip nodes directly).
• In two-dimensional cases,
only one node set is needed.

L2.62
• Example: Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space

*Contour integral, symm, normal, ...
0.0, 1.0, 0.0
Crack-Front-1, Crack-Front-2, Crack-Front-3, ...
Crack-Front-1

L2.63
• If the NORMAL parameter is omitted, we must give the crack-tip node

set name, and the crack propagation direction q, at each node set
defining the crack front.
• Usage:
*contour integral, ...
nodeSet1, (qx)1, (qy)1, (qz)1
nodeSet2, (qx)2, (qy)2, (qz)2
:
• Data must start with the node set at one end and be given for each
node set defining the crack line sequentially until the other end of
the crack is reached.
• The first node in each set is the crack tip node for that set
unless the CRACK TIP NODES parameter is used.
• This format allows nonplanar cracks to be analyzed.

L2.64
• Example: conical crack in an infinite

half-space
*Contour integral, ...

Crack-Front-1, 0.707107, -0.707107, 0.
Crack-Front-2, 0.705994, -0.707107, 0.0396478
Crack-Front-3, 0.702661, -0.707107, 0.0791708
Crack-Front-1

L2.65
• Generating a focused mesh with keyword options

• Example: DEN specimen
• The focused mesh shown in the figure will be generated with the
use of keyword options.
• The options include
*NODE
*NGEN
*NFILL
*ELEMENT
*ELGEN

L2.66
• Node definitions
*node 12101 8101 4101
1, 0.0125, 0.0000
16001, 0.0125, 0.0000
101, 0.0250, 0.0000
4101, 0.0250, 0.0125
14101 2101
12101, 0.0000, 0.0125
16101, 0.0000, 0.0000
*ngen, nset=tip
1, 16001, 1000
*ngen, nset=outer 16101 101
101, 4101, 1000 tip
4101, 12101, 1000
12101, 16101, 1000 *NGEN generates nodes
incrementally between any two
previously defined nodes.
Start Increment in In this example, 17 crack-tip nodes
End node
node node number are created (contained in the set tip);
the 17 nodes on the outer boundary
are contained in set outer.

L2.67

This parameter generates quarter-
• Quarter-point nodes point nodes; the 1 indicates the first
*nfill, singular=1 bound represents the crack tip
tip, outer, 10, 10
Start set: End set: Node

first bound second bound number
8021
increment
4021
Number of
intervals between 2021
bounding nodes 4011 1021
11 21 31
*NFILL generate nodes for a region of a
mesh by filling in nodes between two
bounds.
In this example, 10 rows of nodes are
generated between each tip node and its
corresponding outer node.

L2.68
• Element definitions
*element, type=cps8r
1, 1, 21, 2021, 2001, 11, 1021, 2011, 1001
*elgen, elset=plate
1, 5, 20, 10, 8, 2000, 1000
First row of Nodes 1, 1001,
Total number of and 2001 are
elements rows coincident
1
2021
1021
*ELGEN generates elements
incrementally.
In this example, 5 elements form the
21 first row (extending radially outward
11 from the tip); a total of 8 rows of
elements (based on the first row) are
created around the crack tip.
1

L2.69
• Crack-tip nodes
• If the crack-tip nodes are permitted to behave independently, the
strength of the strain-field singularity is   r -1.
• The crack-tip nodes can be constrained using equations, multi-point
constraints, using repeated nodes in the element definition, etc. For
example, to constrain the crack-tip nodes with a multi-point
constraint:
*nset, nset=constrain, generate
1, 15001, 1000
*mpc
tie, constrain, 16001
• Only node 16001 is independent in this case.
• The strain-field singularity is   r -½.

Fracture Analysis
Lecture 3
L3.2
Overview
• Calculation of Contour Integrals

• Examples
• Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations
• J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
• Through Cracks in Shells
• Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Material Discontinuities
• Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials
• Workshop 1
• Workshop 2

Calculation of Contour Integrals
L3.4
• Abaqus offers the evaluation of J-integral values, as well as several

other parameters for fracture mechanics studies. These include:
• The KI, KII, and KIII stress intensity factors, which are used mainly
in linear elastic fracture mechanics to measure the strength of local
crack tip fields;
• The T-stress in linear elastic calculations;
• The crack propagation direction: an angle at which a preexisting
crack will propagate; and
• The Ct-integral, which is used with time-dependent creep behavior.
• Output can be written to the output database ( .odb), data (.dat), and
results (.fil) files.

L3.5
• Domain representation of J
• For reasons of accuracy, J is evaluated
using a domain integral.
• The domain integral is evaluated over
an area/volume contained within a
contour surrounding the crack tip/line.
• In two dimensions, Abaqus defines the
domain in terms of rings of elements
surrounding the crack tip.
• In three dimensions, Abaqus defines a
tubular surface around the crack line.

L3.6
• Different contours (domains) are

created automatically by Abaqus.
• The first contour consists of the
crack front and one layer of
elements surrounding it.
• Ring of elements from one
crack surface to the other (or Contour 1 Contour 2
the symmetry plane).
• The next contour consists of the
ring of elements in contact with the
first contour as well as the
elements in the first contour.
• Each subsequent contour is
defined by adding the next ring of Contour 4
Contour 3
elements in contact with the
previous contour.

L3.7
• The J-integral and the Ct-integral at steady-state creep should be

path (domain) independent.
• The value for the first contour is generally ignored.
• Examples of contour domains:
2nd contour 1st contour
2nd 1st Crack-tip node crack-front nodes

contour contour Crack-tip node

L3.8
• Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n,

TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS},
DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}
Specifies the number of contours (domains) This is the output

on which the contour integral will be frequency in
calculated increments
Note: In this lecture, we focus on the output-specific parameters of the *CONTOUR INTEGRAL
option. The crack-specific parameters SYMM and NORMAL were discussed in the previous lecture.

L3.9
• Usage (cont’d):

• J for J-integral output,

• C for Ct-integral output.
• T STRESS to output T-stress
calculations
• K FACTORS for stress intensity
factor output

L3.10
• Usage (cont’d):

Three criteria to calculate the crack

propagation direction at initiation
• Use with TYPE=K FACTORS to specify the criterion to be

used for estimating the crack propagation direction in
homogenous, isotropic, linear elastic materials:
• Maximum tangential stress criterion (MTS)
• Maximum energy release rate criterion (MERR)
• KII = 0 criterion (KII0)

L3.11
• Output files
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, OUTPUT
• Set OUTPUT=FILE to store the

contour integral values in the results
(.fil) file.
• Set OUTPUT=BOTH to print
the values in the data and
results files.
• If the parameter is omitted, the
contour integral values will be
printed in the data (.dat) file
but not stored in the results
(.fil) file.

L3.12
• Loads
• Loads included in contour integral calculations:
• Thermal loads.
• Crack-face pressure and traction loads on continuum elements as
well as those applied using user subroutines DLOAD and UTRACLOAD.
• Surface traction and crack-face edge loads on shell elements as
well as those applied using user subroutine UTRACLOAD.
• Uniform and nonuniform body forces.
• Centrifugal loads on continuum and shell elements.
• Not all types of distributed loads (e.g., hydrostatic pressure and gravity
loads) are included in the contour integral calculations.
• The presence of these loads will result in a warning message.

L3.13
• Other loads not included in contour integral calculations:

• Contributions due to concentrated loads are not included.
• If needed, modify the mesh to include a small element and
apply a distributed load to the element.
• Contributions due to contact forces are not included.
• Initial stresses are not considered in the definition of contour
integrals.

Examples
L3.15
Examples
• Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space

• Model characteristics
• The mesh is extended far enough
from the crack tip so that the finite
boundaries will not influence the
crack-tip solution.
• The radius of the penny-shaped
crack is 1.
• Two types of loading are
considered:
• Uniform far-field loading
• Nonuniform loading on the
crack face: p = Ar n.

L3.16
Examples
20
• Different mesh characteristics:
• Axisymmetric or three-dimensional
• Fine or coarse focused meshes
• With or without ¼ point elements
• Various element types used: 20
• First- and second-order

• With and without reduced integration
Axisymmetric model
Crack tip
Focused mesh around

crack tip

L3.17
Examples
• Fine mesh vs. coarse mesh (axisymmetric and 3D models)
0.08
0.0004
The fine mesh is shown to the left;

the coarse mesh above. The length
perpendicular to crack line of the
crack-tip elements are indicated.
~0.08

L3.18
Examples
• Axisymmetric model: geometry
Symmetry planes
Close up of crack tip region for

coarse mesh model (identical for
fine mesh model—only the inner
semicircular region is smaller)
Model geometry

L3.19
Examples
• Axisymmetric model: crack definition

Crack tip with extension direction
Set to 0.5 to use mid-

point rather than ¼ point
elements

L3.20
Examples
• 3D model: geometry and mesh Fine 3D mesh

• A 90 sector is modeled because
of symmetry. Symmetry planes
Additional partition
required for swept
mesh
On planes perpendicular to the crack

front, the mesh is very similar to the
axisymmetric mesh
Partitions used for coarse mesh model
In the circumferential direction around
(identical for fine mesh model—only
the crack line, 12 elements are used.
the inner semicircular region is smaller)

L3.21
Examples
• Why is the additional partition required?

• Without the additional partition, the region shown below would require
irregular elements at the vertex located on the axis of symmetry.
• This is not supported by Abaqus.
Irregular elements
required here
because revolving
about a point
A 7-node element
is an example of an
irregular element.

L3.22
Examples
• 3D model: crack definition

• Orphan mesh created to edit q
vectors.

L3.23
Examples
• Contour integral output requests (axisymmetric and 3D)
Separate output
requests are required
for J, K-factors, and the
T-stress.

L3.24
Examples
• Loads (axisymmetric and 3D)
The far-field load is suppressed.

L3.25
Examples
• Results
• MISES stress shown below for
the axisymmetric fine mesh.
J analytical  J numerical
100%
J analytical
Deformation scale
factor = 250
Analytical Contour 1 Contour 2 Contour 3 Contour 4 Contour 5

5.796E-02 5.8169E-02 5.8095E-02 5.8121E-02 5.8104E-02 5.8084E-02
Contour 6 Contour 7 Contour 8 Contour 9 Contour 10
5.8064E-02 5.8044E-02 5.8024E-02 5.8005E-02 5.7985E-02

L3.26
Examples
J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (reduced integration)

3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20R CAX8R
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
.0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
far field
Uniform
.0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
crack face
Nonuniform
.0358 .0356 .0357 .0356 .0358
crack face (n = 1)
Nonuniform
.0258 .0256 .0260 .0256 .0258
crack face (n = 2)
Nonuniform
.0201 .0199 .0206 .0200 .0202
crack face (n = 3)
• Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.

L3.27
Examples
J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (full integration)

3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 CAX8
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
.0580 .0577 .0572 .0578 .0580
far field
Uniform
.0580 .0577 .0572 .0578 .0580
crack face
Nonuniform
.0358 .0355 .0352 .0356 .0358
crack face (n = 1)
Nonuniform
.0258 .0255 .0253 .0255 .0258
crack face (n = 2)
Nonuniform
.0201 .0198 .0197 .0199 .0201
crack face (n = 3)

L3.28
Examples
J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (reduced integration)

3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20R C3D8R CAX8R CAX4R
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
.0580 .0574 .0580 .0563 .0574 .0581 .0562
far field
Uniform
.0580 .0574 .0580 .0563 .0574 .0581 .0562
crack face
Nonuniform
.0358 .0350 .0357 .0336 .0350 .0358 .0337
crack face (n = 1)
Nonuniform
.0258 .0250 .0260 .0234 .0250 .0258 .0236
crack face (n = 2)
Nonuniform
.0201 .0193 .0206 .0177 .0193 .0202 .0179
crack face (n = 3)

L3.29
Examples
J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (full integration)

3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 C3D8 CAX8 CAX4
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
.0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
far field
Uniform
.0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
crack face
Nonuniform
.0358 .0350 .0352 .0329 .0350 .0358 .0333
crack face (n = 1)
Nonuniform
.0258 .0249 .0253 .0229 .0250 .0258 .0232
crack face (n = 2)
Nonuniform
.0201 .0193 .0197 .0172 .0193 .0201 .0175
crack face (n = 3)

L3.30
Examples
• Conclusions
• 3D fine meshes with second-order elements are more sensitive to the
choice of integration rule when determining J.
• The results are still very accurate (within 2% of analytical value).
• The inclusion of the singularity helps most in the coarser meshes.
• For mesh convergence in small strain, the singularity must be
included.

L3.31
Examples
• Conical crack in a half-space

• At each node set along the crack front, the crack propagation direction is
different.

L3.32
Examples
• Three-dimensional model
• Displaced shape and Mises stress distribution of full three-
dimensional model.
Deformation scale factor = 1.e6

L3.33
Examples
• J values of three-dimensional mesh

• There is some oscillation between J values evaluated at corner
nodes compared to J values evaluated at midside nodes.
Variation of J with angular position
1.338E-07
1.336E-07 3D contour 5
J-integral
1.328E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)

L3.34
Examples
• Axisymmetric model and results
Contours 3-5 have

converged
Axisymmetric results are

used as reference results.

L3.35
Examples
• Comparison of axisymmetric and 3D results
Variation of J with angular position Variation of J with angular position

Contour 1 Contour 2
1.380E-07 1.334E-07
J-integral
1.333E-07
J -integral
1.360E-07
3D 1.332E-07 3D
1.340E-07
AXI 1.331E-07 AXI
1.320E-07 1.330E-07
1.300E-07 1.329E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)

Contour 3 Contour 5
1.336E-07 1.338E-07
1.336E-07
J-integral
J -integral
1.334E-07
3D 1.334E-07 3D
1.332E-07
AXI 1.332E-07 AXI
1.330E-07 1.330E-07
1.328E-07 1.328E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90

L3.36
Examples
• Since the three-dimensional mesh is quite coarse around the axis of

symmetry, these results are considered to be good—the error is less
than 0.5% for all but the first contour.
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results
3.5
3.0 Contour 1
% difference
2.5 Contour 2
2.0
Contour 3
1.5
1.0 Contour 4
0.5 Contour 5
0.0
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)

L3.37
Examples
• Submodeling
• We can use submodeling to create
two meshes that are significantly
smaller than the full three-
dimensional model.
• The top-right figure is the
coarse mesh global model in
the vicinity of the crack.
• The bottom-right figure shows
the refined submodel mesh
overlaid on the global model
mesh.

L3.38
Examples
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results

• J values of submodel:
4.5
• Inaccuracies are introduced 4.0 Contour 1
% difference
3.5
3.0 Contour 2
by the coarser mesh used in 2.5
Contour 3
2.0
the global model. 1.5
1.0
Contour 4
0.5 Contour 5
• Errors in J are less than 1%. 0.0
0 45 90
• CPU time was reduced by a Angle (degrees)
factor of 3.
Contour 5
1.326E-07
1.324E-07 3D contour 5 1.335E-07

J -integral
J-integral
3D contour 4 1.330E-07
1.322E-07 3D
1.320E-07 AXI
1.318E-07 1.315E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90

L3.39
Examples
• Compact Tension Specimen

• This is one of five standardized specimens defined by the ASTM for the
characterization of fracture initiation and crack growth.
• The ASTM standardized testing apparatus uses a clevis and a pin to
hold the specimen and apply a controlled displacement.

L3.40
Examples Prescribed load line displacement
• Model details Crack seam

• Plane strain conditions assumed.
• The initial crack length is 5 mm.
• Elastic-plastic material
• Low alloy ferritic steel q-vector
1/√r singularity modeled in

the crack-tip elements

L3.41
Examples
• Results
Small strain analysis Finite strain analysis

L3.42
Examples
At small to moderate strain levels,

Finite strain effects must be
the small and finite strain models
considered to represent this level of
yield similar results.
deformation and strain accurately.

Nodal Normals in Contour Integral
Calculations
L3.44
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations
• Sharp curved cracks

• For sharp cracks, if the crack faces
are curved, Abaqus automatically
determines the normal directions of Normals to top crack
surface nodes
the nodes on the portions of the crack
n (normal to
faces that lie within the contour crack plane)
integral domains.
q
Normals to bottom
• This improves the accuracy of the crack surface nodes
contour integral estimation.
• The normal is not used at the
crack-tip node, however.

L3.45
• Example: sharp curved crack
Contour # 1 2 3 4 5
J without normals 3.363 2.980 2.475 1.888 1.283
J with normals 3.600 3.602 3.605 3.605 3.605

L3.46
• Blunt cracks and notches

• All nodes on the notch should be included in the crack-tip node set.
• The J-integral results are more accurate since the q vector is
parallel to the crack surface in this case, as illustrated below.
Paths for contour

Crack surface integrals
Crack surface
q q
All nodes on blunted surface in
Single node in crack-tip node set; crack-tip node set; q parallel to
normals calculated on nodes of crack surface.
blunted surface; q not parallel to
crack surface.

J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
L3.48
J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
• Abaqus can calculate J (or Ct ) at multiple crack tips

• Abaqus/CAE: multiple crack tips and history
output requests
• Input file: repeated use of the *CONTOUR
INTEGRAL option.
• If the domain for one crack tip envelopes the other
crack tip, the J value will go to zero (as it should).

Through Cracks in Shells
L3.50
• Second-order quadrilateral shell elements must be used if contour

integral output is requested.
• Sides of S8R elements should not be collapsed. If a focused mesh is
used, the crack tip must be modeled as a keyhole whose radius is small
compared to the other dimensions measured in the plane of the shell.
Shell mesh Crack-tip mesh for S8R elements

L3.51
• S8R5 elements can be collapsed and midside nodes moved to the

1/4 points.
Shell mesh Crack-tip mesh for S8R5 elements
• The q vector must lie in the shell surface.

• It should be tangent to the surface.

L3.52
• Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load
• Mean radius R = 10.5 in

• Wall thickness t = 0.525 in
• Crack half-angle q = p / 4
• Longitudinal membrane stress = 100 psi

L3.53
• Model details
• Axial load is applied using
a shell edge load
• Symmetry used to reduce
mode size
Edge loads
symmetry

L3.54
• Modeling a crack with a keyhole
Crack front
q vector
Crack tip

L3.55
• Results
Deformed shape—axial loading
J values—axial loading

L3.56
• In shell element meshes, mechanical loads which act normal to the shell
surface and are applied within the contour integral domain are not taken
into account in the calculation of the contour integral.
• For example, pressure loads are not considered because they act
normal to the shell surface
• Conversely, axial edge loads are considered because they act in
the shell surface.
• Two workarounds exist:
• Run successive shell models with differing crack lengths and
numerically differentiate the potential energy
• Use solid elements (if the response is membrane dominated)

L3.57
• Using numerical differentiation to obtain J:
Potential energy:
 ( PE )
J = PE = ALLSE  ALLWK
a Constant Load
PE a Da  PE a
= .
Da
Constant Load
• The PE values should be obtained from two separate analyses, with

crack lengths differing by Da.
• The values of PE in the Abaqus data (.dat) file are generally not
printed to a sufficient number of figures to be useful for this
calculation and must be read from the results ( .fil) file.
• A similar technique can be used to get Ct at long times.

L3.58
• Using solid elements:

• If membrane deformation is dominant, the shell can be modeled
with a single layer of 20-node bricks since these solid elements
include loading contributions to contour integrals.

L3.59
• To obtain accurate values of J through the shell thickness with solid

elements, more than one element should be used in the thickness
direction.
J values will show significant path dependence unless
averaged.
• If only one element is used through the thickness, the values can be
averaged by thinking of J as a force per unit length:
• The average is calculated as if the J values were equivalent
nodal forces:
J A  4J B  JC
J shell
= . A
6 B
C

L3.60
• Aside: Generating a solid element mesh from a shell mesh.

• A shell mesh can easily be converted to a solid one using the ―Offset
Mesh‖ tool.
• Creates solid layers from a shell mesh.

L3.61
• Example: Circumferential through crack in

an internally pressurized, closed-end pipe
• The same pipe discussed earlier, now
subjected to 10 psi internal pressure +
axial load (which simulates the closed
end).
• Comparison of J values using one layer
of C3D20R elements through the
thickness :
J values  100 A
CONTOUR B
1 2 3 4 5 C
At Node A 2.0965 2.1317 2.1505 2.1557 2.1697
At Node B 3.7396 3.6992 3.7004 3.6968 3.6904
At Node C 5.0226 5.0501 5.0813 5.1471 5.2373
Averaged 3.6796 3.6631 3.6722 3.6817 3.6948

L3.62
• Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load revisited

• Now we revisit the problem in which the pipe is subjected to an axial
load.
• Comparison of J values using one layer of C3D20R elements through
the thickness:
J values  100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
At Node A 2.2122 2.2524 2.2700 2.2740 2.2850

At Node B 3.7629 3.7202 3.7212 3.7184 3.7136
At Node C 4.9560 4.9893 5.0175 5.0737 5.1492
Averaged 3.7033 3.6871 3.6954 3.7036 3.7148
Analytical 3.7181

L3.63
• Comparing these results with the

shell element results presented
earlier:
• Errors with respect to the
analytical solution for the 3D
model are less than 1%.
• Much closer agreement because
transverse shear effects are
considered in the 3D model.
• Only in-plane stress and strain
terms are included in the Abaqus
J calculations for shells.
• Transverse shear terms are
neglected.

Mixed-Mode Fracture
L3.65
Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Abaqus uses interaction integrals to

compute the stress intensity factors.
• This approach accounts for
mixed-mode loading effects.
• Note that the J- or Ct-integrals
do not distinguish between
modes of loading.
• Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL,
TYPE=K FACTORS
• Stress intensity factors can
only be calculated for linear
elastic materials.

L3.66
Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Example: Center slant cracked plate under tension
Element   

type  
22.5º CPE8 0.185 (2.9%)* 0.403 (0.2%)
22.5º CPE8R 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
67.5º CPE8 1.052 (3.6%) 0.373 (1.0%)
67.5º CPE8R 1.053 (3.8%) 0.374 (1.3%)
K0 =  p a
*Values enclosed in parentheses are

percentage differences with respect to
the reference solution. See Abaqus
Benchmark Problem 4.7.4 for more
information.
 = 22.5  = 67.5

Material Discontinuities
L3.68
• The J-integral will be path independent if the material is homogeneous in

the direction of crack propagation in the domain used for the contour
integral calculation.
• If there is material discontinuity ahead of the crack in this region, the
*NORMAL option can be used to correct the calculation of J so that
it will still be path independent.
• The normal to the material discontinuity line must
be specified for all nodes on the material
discontinuity that will lie in a contour integral domain.

L3.69
• Example: J-integral analysis of a two material

plate
• As an example, the figure shows a single-edge
notch specimen made from two materials in
which the material interface runs at an angle to
the sides of the specimen.
• The material containing the crack (left) has a
Young’s modulus of 2  105 MPa and a
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
• The uncracked material (right) has Young’s
modulus of 2  104 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio
of 0.1.
• The specimen is stretched by uniform
displacement at its ends.

L3.70
• J-integral analysis of a two material plate (cont’d)

• Along the material discontinuity, the normal to
the discontinuity is given using the *NORMAL
option.
• The normal needs to be defined on both
sides of the discontinuity.
*NORMAL
LEFT, NORM, 1.0, 0.125, 0.0
RIGHT, NORM, -1.0, -0.125, 0.0

L3.71
• The calculated J-integral values for 10 contours are as follows:
J (N/mm)
Contour
Without normals With normals
1 55681 55681
2 57085 57085
3 57052 57052
4 57058 57058
5 35188 57116
6 31380 57114
7 27536 57114
8 23512 57113
9 19172 57116
10 14181 57094
• The need for the normals on the interface (contours 5–10) is clear.

Numerical Calculations with
Elastic-Plastic Materials
L3.73
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials
• For Mises plasticity the plastic deformation is incompressible.

• The rate of total deformation becomes incompressible (constant
volume) as the plastic deformation starts to dominate the response.
• All Abaqus quadrilateral and brick elements suitable for use in J-integral
calculations can handle this rate incompressibility condition except for
the ―fully‖ integrated quadrilaterals and brick elements without the
―hybrid‖ formulation.
• Do not use CPE8, CAX8, C3D20 elements with these materials.
They will ―lock‖ (become overconstrained) as the material becomes
more incompressible.

L3.74
• Second-order elements with reduced integration (CPE8R,

C3D20R, etc.) work best for stress concentration problems in
general and for crack tips in particular.
• If the displaced shape plot shows a regular pattern of deformation,
this state is an indication of mesh locking.
• Locking can be seen in quilt contour plots of hydrostatic
pressure for first-order elements—the pressure shows a
checkerboard pattern.
• Change to reduced integration elements if you are using fully
integrated elements.
• Increase the mesh density if you already using reduced
integration elements.
• If these steps do not help, use hybrid elements.
• Hybrid elements must be used for fully incompressible materials (such
as hyperelasticity, linear elasticity with n = 0.5).

L3.75
• Results with elastic-plastic materials (and nonlinear materials in general)

are more sensitive to meshing than for small-strain linear elasticity.
• Meshes adequate for linear elasticity may have to be refined.
• The more complex the solution, the more J values tend to be path
dependent.
• A lack of path dependence can be an indication of a lack of mesh
convergence; however, path independence of J does not prove
mesh convergence.

Workshop 1
L3.77
Workshop 1
• Crack in a three-point bend specimen

• Two-dimensional geometry
• Mesh sensitivity study
• Focus vs. unfocused mesh
• Quarter-point vs. mid-side nodes

Workshop 2
L3.79
Workshop 2
• Crack in a helicopter airframe component

• Three-dimensional geometry
• Create mesh and evaluate response for cracks at different locations

Material Failure and Wear
Lecture 4
L4.2
Overview
• Progressive Damage and Failure

• Damage Initiation for Ductile Metals
• Damage Evolution
• Element Removal
• Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials
• Failure in Fasteners
• Material Wear and Ablation

Progressive Damage and Failure
L4.4
• Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage

and failure in engineering structures
• Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that
results from progressive degradation of the material stiffness.
• Stiffness degradation is modeled using damage mechanics.
• Progressive damage and failure can be modeled for:
• Ductile materials
• Continuum constitutive behavior
• Fiber-reinforced composites
• Interface materials
• Cohesive elements with a traction-separation law
• Damage and failure of cohesive elements are discussed in the next
lecture.

L4.5
• Two distinct types of ductile material

failure can be modeled with Abaqus
• Ductile fracture of metals
• Void nucleation, coalescence, and
growth
• Shear band localization
• Necking instability in sheet-metal
forming
• Forming Limit Diagrams
• Marciniak-Kuczynski (M-K) criterion
• Damage in sheet metals is not
discussed further in this seminar.

L4.6
• Components of material definition

Undamaged response
• Undamaged constitutive 
behavior (e.g., elastic-plastic A
with hardening) Damaged
response
• Damage initiation (point A)
• Damage evolution (path A–B)
• Choice of element removal
(point B)
Keywords
*MATERIAL
B
*ELASTIC
Multiple damage definitions are allowed 
*PLASTIC Typical material response showing
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=criterion progressive damage
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION=YES

Damage Initiation Criteria for
Ductile Metals
L4.8
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals
• Damage initiation defines the point of

initiation of degradation of stiffness
• It is based on user-specified criteria
• Ductile or shear
• It does not actually lead to damage
unless damage evolution is also specified
• Output variables associated with
each criterion
• Useful for evaluating the severity of
current deformation state
• Output
DMICRT
DMICRT > 1 indicates Ductile Shear

damage has initiated Different damage initiation criteria on
an aluminum double-chamber profile

L4.9
• Ductile criterion:
• Appropriate for triggering damage
due to nucleation, growth, and
coalescence of voids
• The model assumes that the
equivalent plastic strain at the onset
of damage is a function of stress
triaxiality and strain rate.
Pressure stress
• Stress triaxiality h = - p / q
Mises stress
• The ductile criterion can be used with
the Mises, Johnson-Cook, Hill, and
Drucker-Prager plasticity models,
Ductile criterion for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6
including equation of state. (Courtesy of BMW)

L4.10
• Usage:
• Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a
tabular function of
• Stress triaxiality
• Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=DUCTILE
 pl , h ,  pl , T , fi
Equivalent fracture strain Temperature and field
at damage initiation variable dependence
optional
• Output:
DUCTCRT (wD) The criterion for damage initiation is met when wD = 1.

L4.11
• Shear criterion:
• Appropriate for triggering damage
due to shear band localization
• The model assumes that the
equivalent plastic strain at the onset
of damage is a function of the shear
stress ratio and strain rate.
• Shear stress ratio defined as:
qs = (q + ks p) /tmax
• The shear criterion can be used with ks = 0.3

the Mises, Johnson-Cook, Hill, and
Drucker-Prager plasticity models,
including equation of state.
Shear criterion for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6
(Courtesy of BMW)

L4.12
• Usage:
• Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a
tabular function of
• Shear stress ratio
• Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=ks
 pl , q s ,  pl , T , fi ks is a material parameter
Equivalent fracture strain Temperature and field

at damage initiation variable dependence
optional
• Output:
SHRCRT (wS) The criterion for damage initiation is met when wS = 1.

L4.13
• Example: Axial crushing of an aluminum

double-chamber profile
Cross
section
Quasi-static buckling mode

L4.14
• Model details
• Steel base:
Rigid plate
• C3D8R elements with initial
• Enhanced hourglass control downward
velocity
• Elastic-plastic material
Aluminum
• Aluminum chamber: chamber
• S4R elements
• Stiffness hourglass control
• Rate-dependent plasticity
• Damage initiation
• General contact
• Variable mass scaling Steel base: bottom
is encastred.

L4.15
• Material definition : Keywords interface

Ductile criteria for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-
*MATERIAL, NAME=ALUMINUM T6 (Courtesy of BMW)
*DENSITY 7
strain at damage initiation

strain rate=0.001/s
2.70E-09 6
strain rate=250/s
*ELASTIC 5
7.00E+04, 0.33 4
*PLASTIC,HARDENING=ISOTROPIC,RATE=0 3
: 2
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE 1
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001 0
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
2.8377, 0.133, 0.001 stress triaxiality
:
Strain rate,  pl
4.4098, 0.000, 250
2.5717, 0.067, 250 Stress triaxiality, h
1.5018, 0.133, 250
: Equivalent fracture strain at
damage initiation, pl 
L4.16
• Material definition : Keywords interface (cont'd)

Shear criteria for Aluminum Alloy
*MATERIAL, NAME=ALUMINUM AA7108.50-T6 (Courtesy of BMW)
strain at damage initiation

0.8
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE 0.7
0.6
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001
0.5
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001 0.4
: 0.3
0.2 strain rate=0.001/s
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3
0.1 strain rate=250/s
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001 0
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
0.2530, 1.501, 0.001 shear stress ratio
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250 Strain rate,  pl
0.3025, 1.463, 250
0.3323, 1.501, 250
Shear stress ratio, qs
: Equivalent fracture strain at
damage initiation,  pl

L4.17
• Material definition :
Abaqus/CAE interface
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001
2.8377, 0.133, 0.001
:
4.4098, 0.000, 250
2.5717, 0.067, 250
1.5018, 0.133, 250
:

L4.18
• Material definition :
Abaqus/CAE interface (cont'd)
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001
0.2530, 1.501, 0.001
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250
0.3025, 1.463, 250
0.3323, 1.501, 250
:

L4.19
• Results (without damage evolution)
Ductile Shear
Quasi-static response

Damage Evolution
L4.21
Damage Evolution
• Damage evolution defines the post damage-initiation material behavior.

• That is, it describes the rate of degradation of the material stiffness
once the initiation criterion is satisfied.
• The formulation is based on scalar damage approach:
Stress due to undamaged response
 = (1 - d )
• The overall damage variable d captures the combined effect of all

active damage mechanisms.
• When damage variable d = 1, material point has completely failed.
• In other words, fracture occurs when d = 1.

L4.22
Damage Evolution
• Elastic-plastic materials Undamaged

response
• For a elastic-plastic material,
damage manifests in two forms 

• Softening of the yield stress (d = 0)
 y0
• Degradation of the elasticity - d
• The strain softening part of the softening
curve cannot represent a 0 Degradation of
elasticity
material property.
• The above argument is E E
(1 - d ) E
based on
• Fracture mechanics
 0pl  fpl 
considerations
Schematic representation of elastic-plastic
• Mesh sensitivity material with progressive damage.

L4.23
Damage Evolution
• To address the strain softening issue, Hillerborg’s (1976) proposal is

adopted.
• The fracture energy to open a unit area of crack, Gf , is assumed to be a
material property.
• The softening response after damage initiation is characterized by a
stress-displacement response (rather than a stress-strain response)
• This requires the introduction of a characteristic length L associated
with a material point.

L4.24
Damage Evolution
• The fracture energy is written as

 fpl u fpl
Gf =  0
pl
L y pl =  0
 y u pl
where u pl is the equivalent plastic displacement.

• The characteristic length L is computed automatically by Abaqus based
on element geometry.
• Elements with large aspect ratios should be avoided to minimize mesh
sensitivity.
• The damage evolution law can be specified either in terms of fracture
energy (per unit area) or in terms of the equivalent plastic
displacement.
• Both approaches take into account the characteristic length of the
element.
• The formulation ensures that mesh-sensitivity is minimized.

L4.25
Damage Evolution
• Displacement-based damage evolution

d d d
1 1 1
0 0 pl
0
u pl
u f u pl
u fpl u pl
(a) Tabular (b) Linear (c) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=DISPLACEMENT,
SOFTENING={TABULAR,LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}

L4.26
Damage Evolution
Undamaged
• Procedure for generating d vs u pl
response
table from tensile test data
d = 0; u = 0 
Plot true stress,  vs. total 
pl
1.
displacement u measured over  y0 u
pl
f
the gauge length L - d

2. For stress values in the softening
softening branch (i.e. beyond 0
damage initiation), compute
E E
damage parameter d from the E
(1-d)
expression  = (1 - d )
L L
L
3. Compute the corresponding u
plastic displacement u pl as u pl
shown in the schematic. pl d = 1; u = u pl pl
f
u f
4. In the absence of intermediate
data, choose linear softening Schematic representation of tensile test data
in stress – displacement space for
and provide value of
elastic-plastic materials

L4.27
Damage Evolution
• Energy-based damaged evolution
y y
2G f
 y0 u fpl =  y0 NOTE: The response is linear or
 y0 exponential only if the undamaged
Gf Gf response is perfectly plastic
u fpl u pl u pl
(a) Linear (b) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING={LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}

L4.28
Damage Evolution
• Example: Tearing of an X-shaped cross section
Tie constraints Fix this end
Pull and twist this Failure modeled with different mesh

this end densities
*damage initiation, criterion=fld

0.20,
*damage evolution, type=displacement, softening=tabular
0.0, 0.0
1.0, 0.003 damage-plastic displacement data pairs

L4.29
Damage Evolution
• Comparison of reaction forces and moments confirms mesh insensitivity

of the results.

L4.30
Damage Evolution
• Example: Axial crushing of an aluminum double-chamber profile

• Dynamic response with damage evolution
*Material, name=Aluminum
:
*Damage initiation, criterion=Ductile
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,
*Damage initiation, criterion=Shear, ks=0.3
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,

L4.31
Damage Evolution
• With damage evolution, the simulation response is a good approximation

of the physical response.
Simulation without Simulation with

damage evolution Aluminum double-chamber
damage evolution
after dynamic impact

Element Removal
L4.33
Element Removal
• Abaqus offers the choice to

remove the element from the
mesh once the material stiffness
is fully degraded (i.e., once the
element has failed).
• An element is said to have
failed when all section
points at any one
integration point have lost
their load carrying capacity.
• By default, failed elements
are deleted from the mesh.

L4.34
Element Removal
• Removing failed elements before complete degradation

• The material point is assumed to fail when the overall damage variable
D reaches the critical value Dmax.
• You can specify the value for the maximum degradation Dmax.
• The default value of Dmax is 1 if the element is to be removed from
the mesh upon failure.

L4.35
Element Removal
• Usage:
*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME=Ec-1, ELEMENT DELETION=YES, MAX DEGRADATION=0.9
:
** Refer to the section controls by name on the element section definition.
*SOLID SECTION, ELSET=Elset_1, CONTROLS=Ec-1, MATERIAL=Material_1
:

L4.36
Element Removal
• Retaining failed elements

• You may choose not to remove failed elements
from the mesh.
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION = NO
• In this case the default value of Dmax is

0.99, which ensures that elements will
remain active in the simulation with a
residual stiffness of at least 1% of the
original stiffness.
• Here Dmax represents
• the maximum degradation of the shear stiffness (three-dimensional),
• the total stiffness (plane stress), or
• the uniaxial stiffness (one-dimensional).
• Failed elements that have not been removed from the mesh can
sustain hydrostatic compressive stresses.
L4.37
Element Removal
• Output
• The output variable SDEG Failed elements removed
by default when STAUS
contains the value of D. output is available
• The output variable STATUS
indicates whether or not an
element has failed.
• STATUS = 0 for failed
elements
• STATUS = 1 for active
elements
• Abaqus/Viewer will
automatically remove failed
elements when the output
database (.odb) file includes failed
STATUS. elements
Deactivate status variable to view failed elements

Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Materials
L4.39
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials
• Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage

and failure in fiber-reinforced composites.
• Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that
results from progressive degradation of the material stiffness.
• Stiffness degradation is modeled using damage mechanics.
• The model must be used with elements with a plane stress formulation
(plane stress, shell, continuum shell, and membrane elements)
• Four different modes of failure are considered:
• fiber rupture in tension;
• fiber buckling and kinking in
compression;
• matrix cracking under transverse
tension and shearing; and
• matrix crushing under transverse
compression and shearing Common damage types in
composite laminates
L4.40
• User interface
• Damage Initiation
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HASHIN, ALPHA=<alpha>

XT,XC,YT,YC,SL,ST

L4.41
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,
TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING=LINEAR
Gft,Gfc ,Gmt,Gmc
• Viscous Regularization
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
ηft, ηfc, ηmt, ηmc

L4.42
• Output
• Initiation Criteria Variables
• HSNFTCRT – tensile fiber Hashin’s criterion
• HSNFCCRT – compressive fiber Hashin’s criterion
• HSNMTCRT – tensile matrix Hashin’s criterion
• HSNMCCRT – compressive matrix Hashin’s criterion
• Damage Variables
• DAMAGEFT – tensile fiber damage
• DAMAGEFC – compressive fiber damage
• DAMAGEMT – tensile matrix damage
• DAMAGEMC – compressive matrix damage

L4.43
• Output (cont'd)
• Status
• STATUS – element status (1 – present, 0 – removed)
• Energies
• Damage energy (ALLDMD,DMENER,ELDMD,EDMDDEN)
• Viscous regularization (ALLCD, CENER, ELCD, ECDDEN)

L4.44
• Example: Analysis of blunt notched fiber metal laminate

• Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are composed of:
• laminated thin aluminum layers
• Intermediate glass fiber-reinforced epoxy layers

L4.45
• Geometry of blunt notched fiber metal laminate (Glare 3 3/2–0.3)

1/8 part model Aluminum core
and exterior
a through-thickness hole glass fiber-reinforced

epoxy layers
• Through-thickness view of the laminate:
Example Problem 1.4.6, "Failure of

blunt notched fiber metal laminates”

L4.46
• Results
damage in matrix and damage in fibers

for one of glass fiber-reinforced epoxy layers Net blunt notch strength (MPa)
Test (De Vries, 2001) 446
Abaqus 453

L4.47
• Abaqus allows the import of the damage model

for fiber-reinforced composites from
Abaqus/Explicit to Abaqus/Standard.
• Details of the import capability will not be
covered in this lecture (please refer to
―Importing and transferring results,‖ Section
9.2 of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual).
• One typical application is the analysis of Barely
Visible Impact Damage (BVID) in composite
structures used in aerospace applications.
• Non-visible damage to composite structures is
a significant concern in the aerospace
industry.
from McGowan, D.M., and Ambur, D.R., NASA TM-110303

Damage-Tolerance Characteristics of Composite Fuselage
Sandwich Structures With Thick Facesheets

Damage in Fasteners
L4.49
Damage in Fasteners
• Connection methodologies—point fasteners

• Fastener (spot weld) compliance and failure are available in Abaqus.
multiple layers
attachment
points
radius of influence

L4.50
Damage in Fasteners
• Fastener failure
• Model combines plasticity and progressive damage S  0
– Response depends on loading angle (normal/shear)

N  90
– Stages:
Spot weld
• Rigid plasticity with
variable hardening F Plasticity + Damage

0
45
• Progressive damage
90
evolution using fracture damage
energy Plasticity
initiation
boundary
u pl
Schematic representation of the
predicted numerical response

L4.51
Damage in Fasteners
• Example
• Spot-welded hat section of three layers of sheet metals subjected to
severe compressive loading
Deformable fastener
still holding
Failed fasteners
Rigid spot welds Compliant spot welds with damage

Material Wear and Ablation
L4.53
• Material wear/erosion in Abaqus/Standard

• Many applications require the modeling
of wear/erosion of material at one or
more surfaces
• Capability enables modeling of material
wear/erosion on the surface of the body
• Idea is to erode material while receding
mesh away from surface (with same
number and topology of elements)
• Involves remeshing, state
mapping—handled through an
Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) Adaptive mesh domain for modeling
technique material wear. Wear extent/velocity
applied as mesh constraints
• User interface takes advantage of
existing adaptive meshing
framework to define mesh motion

L4.54
• Applications
• Geotechnical
• Well bore sand production
• Plastic strain, fluid velocity
• Aerospace
• Rocket motor ablation
• Pyrolysis, char formation
• Solid propellants
• Automotive
• Tire wear
• Disk brake wear
Fluid velocity dependent
• Manufacturing wear of a well bore
• Machining

L4.55
• User interface
*Adaptive mesh, elset=...
*Adaptive mesh constraint, type=[velocity|displacement],
User
*Adaptive mesh controls
• Adaptive mesh constraints define mesh motion (wear extent or velocity)
• Wear criterion
• General descriptions possible through user subroutine UMESHMOTION
• User access to solution variables
• Nodal
• Material
• Contact
• A local surface coordinate system is provided

L4.56
• Example of wear criterion

• Tire wear
• Use of CSLIP, CSHEAR, CPRESS
h =  E
Rate of recession Rate of frictional
of tread energy dissipation
Proportionality
constant

L4.57
• Example: erosion of material

from oil bore hole perforation
tunnel
• Setup consists of bore hole
with perforations, loaded by
weight of material above
• Pore pressure gradient leads
to flow into perforation
• Material wear rate controlled
by fluid flux, transport
Perforation tunnel
concentration, porosity, sand
production coefficient, and the Bore hole
local plastic deformation
Geometry of oil well
• Optimum design to minimize
wear rate
Courtesy of Exxon
• Example Problem 1.1.22

L4.58
• Analysis steps
• Geostatic
• Model change removal of well bore and casing (drilling operation)
• Apply pore pressure; establish steady state conditions
• Transient soils consolidation (during which the erosion occurs)
• Ablation relation:
V = 10 × (PEEQ - 0.028)
Erosion
velocity

L4.59
• Adaptive mesh constraints

*Adaptive mesh, elset=Adaptive-Zone, Freq=1, Mesh=40
*Adaptive mesh constraint, constraint type=Lagrangian
Lag
*Adaptive mesh constraint, type=velocity, user
Rock-Perf, 1, 1, 1.0 Lag: Nodes on back face of
adaptive domain
Adaptive-Zone Rock-Perf
Cut section of the adaptive mesh

domain showing the perforation tunnel

L4.60

subroutine umeshmotion(uref,ulocal,node,nndof,lnodetype,alocal,
• User subroutine $ ndim,time,dtime,pnewdt,kstep,kinc,kmeshsweep,jmatyp,jgvblock,lsmooth)
c
include 'aba_param.inc'
c
parameter (zero=0.d0, ten=10.d0, peeqCrit=0.028d0)
parameter (nelemmax=100)
dimension array(1000)
dimension ulocal(*)
dimension jgvblock(*),jmatyp(*)
dimension alocal(ndim,*)
dimension jelemlist(nelemmax),jelemtype(nelemmax)
locnum = 0
jtyp = 1
peeq = zero
nelems = nelemmax
call getNodeToElemConn(node,nelems,jelemlist,
$ jelemtype,jrcd,jgvblock)
call getVrmAvgAtNode(node, jtyp, 'PE', array, jrcd,
$ jelemlist, nelems, jmatyp, jgvblock)
peeq = array(7)
When NDIM=3 the 3-direction if (peeq .gt. peeqCrit) then

is normal to the surface ulocal(ndim) = ulocal(ndim)- ten*(peeq - peeqCrit)
end if
return ulocal passed in as the value determined by
end the mesh smoothing algorithm

L4.61
• Results
Material wear at bore hole/perforation junction Total volume lost due to erosion is available
with history output variable VOLC

L4.62
• Mesh smoothing
• Two options
• Original configuration projection
method
• Smoothing performed according
to the original configuration Original-configuration
smoothing
• Volume-based smoothing
• Either method can include a
geometric-based enhancement
Volumetric
smoothing

L4.63
• Smoothing permitted in conjunction with UMESHMOTION constraints

• Enables UMESHMOTION to describe normal mesh motions, while the
smoothing algorithm handles the tangential mesh motions.

L4.64
• Limitations
• Available for a subset of continuum elements
• Available only for following procedures using geometric nonlinearity
• Static
• Soils
• Coupled Temperature-Displacement
• Tracer particles not supported

Element-based Cohesive Behavior
Lecture 5
L5.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Element Technology
• Constitutive Response
• Viscous Regularization
• Modeling Techniques
• Examples
• Workshop 3 (Part 1)
• Workshop 4

L5.3
Overview
• Historical perspective
• The concept of a cohesive zone has been around for some time:
• Dugdale (1960) and Barenblatt (1962) were the first to apply the
concept of a cohesive stress zone to fracture modeling.
• Many extensions since then.
• For example, Needleman (1987) recognized that cohesive
elements are particularly attractive when interface strengths are
relatively weak compared to the adjoining materials.
• Examples: composite laminates and parts bonded with adhesives

Introduction
L5.5
Introduction
• Cohesive behavior is useful in modeling

adhesives, bonded interfaces, and gaskets.
• Models separation between two initially
bonded surfaces
• Progressive failure of adhesives
• Delamination in composites
• Idealize complex fracture mechanisms with
a macroscopic “cohesive law,” which
relates the traction across the interface to T-peel analysis: Cohesive elements are
used for modeling adhesive patches
the separation.
• The cohesive behavior can be:
• Element-based
• Modeled with cohesive elements
• Surface-based
• Modeled with contact pairs in
Failed adhesive is red
Abaqus/Standard and (CSDMG = 1)
general contact in Abaqus/Explicit
Rail crush: Cohesive surfaces
L5.6
Introduction
• Element-based cohesive behavior—cohesive elements

• Cohesive elements allow very detailed modeling of adhesive
connections, including
• specification of detailed adhesive material properties, direct control
of the connection mesh, modeling of adhesives of finite thickness,
etc.
• Cohesive elements in Abaqus primarily address two classes of
problems:
• Adhesive joints
• Adhesive layer with finite thickness
• Typically the bulk material properties are known
• Delamination
• Adhesive layer of “zero” thickness
• Typically the bulk material properties are not known

L5.7
Introduction
• The constitutive modeling depends on the class of problem:

• Based on macroscopic properties (stiffness, strength) for adhesive
joints
• Continuum description: any Abaqus material model can be used
• Modeling technique is relatively straightforward: cohesive layer
has finite thickness; standard material models (including damage).
• The continuum description is not discussed further in this lecture.
• Based on a traction-separation description for delamination
• Linear elasticity with damage
• Modeling technique is less straightforward: typical applications use
zero-thickness cohesive elements; non-standard constitutive law
• This application is the primary focus of this lecture

L5.8
Introduction
• In addition, the uniaxial response of a laterally unconstrained adhesive

patch can also be modeled
• This represents the behavior of a gasket.
• Limited capability for modeling gaskets with cohesive elements:
• The complexity of the response in the thickness direction is not
as rich as with gasket elements available in Abaqus/Standard.
• Compared to gasket elements, however, cohesive elements:
• are fully nonlinear (can be used with finite strains and
rotations);
• can have mass in a dynamic analysis; and
• are available in both Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit.
• The use of cohesive elements for modeling gaskets is not discussed
further in this lecture.

L5.9
Introduction
• Surface-based cohesive behavior—cohesive surfaces

• This is a simplified and easy way to model cohesive connections, using
the traction-separation interface behavior.
• It offers capabilities that are very similar to cohesive elements
modeled with the traction-separation constitutive response.
• However, it does not require element definitions.
• In addition, cohesive surfaces can bond anytime contact is
established (“sticky” contact)
• It is primarily intended for situations in which interface thickness is
negligibly small.
• It must be defined as a surface interaction property.
• Damage for cohesive surfaces is an interaction property, not a
material property.
• The kinematics of cohesive surfaces is different from that of cohesive
elements.
• By default, the initial stiffness of the interface is computed
automatically.
L5.10
Introduction
• Cohesive elements are the focus of this lecture.

• Cohesive surfaces are discussed in the next lecture.
• A workshop exercise will allow you to compare and contrast the two
cohesive modeling techniques in the context of a simple problem.

Element Technology
L5.12
Element Technology
Top face
• Element types*
• 3D elements
• COH3D8
• COH3D6 Bottom face
• 2D element
• COH2D4
• Axisymmetric element
• COHAX4
• These elements can be embedded
in a model via
• shared nodes or
• tie constraints.
*Cohesive pore pressure elements are also available.

L5.13
Element Technology
• Element and section definition
*ELEMENT, TYPE = COH3D8

*COHESIVE SECTION, ELSET =...,
RESPONSE = {TRACTION SEPARATION, CONTINUUM,
GASKET },
THICKNESS = { SPECIFIED, GEOMETRY},
MATERIAL = ...
Specify thickness in dataline (default is 1.0)

L5.14
Element Technology
• Default thickness of cohesive elements

• Traction-separation response:
• Unit thickness
• Continuum and gasket response
• Geometric thickness based on nodal coordinates

L5.15
Element Technology
• Output variables
• Scalar damage (i.e., degradation) variable
• SDEG
• Variables indicating whether damage initiation criteria met or exceeded
• Discussed shortly
• Element status flag
• STATUS

L5.16
Element Technology
• Import of cohesive elements

• The combination of Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit expands the
range of applications for cohesive elements.
• For example, you can simulate the damage in a structure due to an
impact event then study the effect of the damage on the structure's load
carrying capacity.

Constitutive Response
L5.18
• Delamination applications T
N
• Traction separation law
• Typically characterized by peak
strength (N) and fracture energy (GTC)
• Mode dependent
GT C
• Available in both Abaqus/Standard
and Abaqus/Explicit 
Typical traction-separation response
• Modeling of damage under the general 7
framework introduced earlier 6
Shear mode
• Damage initiation 5
GTC
• Traction or separation-based 3
Normal mode
criterion 2
• Damage evolution
1
• Removal of elements
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mode Mix
Dependence of fracture toughness

on mode mix
L5.19

• Linear elasticity
• Defines behavior before the
initiation of damage
• Relates nominal stress to nominal
strain
• Nominal traction to separation
with default choice of unit
thickness
• Uncoupled traction behavior:
nominal stress depends only on
corresponding nominal strain
• Coupled traction behavior is more
general
*ELASTIC, TYPE = { TRACTION,
COUPLED TRACTION }

L5.20
• The elastic modulus for the traction N

separation law should be interpreted as a
penalty stiffness. N max
• For example, for the opening mode:
Kn = Nmax / ninit
• In Abaqus, nominal stress and strain
quantities are used for the traction Kn
separation law. 1
• If unit thickness is specified for the
element, then the nominal strain n
 ninit  nfail
corresponds to the separation value.
• Elastic response governed by Kn.
Displacement at damage
• If you specify a non-unit thickness for initiation in normal
the cohesive element, you must scale (opening) mode
your data to obtain the correct
stiffness Kn. Example on next slide.
L5.21
• Example: Peel test model

N = En n Abaqus evaluates this…
= K n n …which is equivalent to this
 n =  n / heff  K n = En / heff
Assume separation at initiation  ninit = 1e-3

and Nmax = 6.9e9.
A For model A: use geometric thickness
heff = hgeom =1e-3 n =  ninit/heff = 1;
init
En=Knheff
Nmax = En = 6.9e9  Kn = 6.9e12
For model B: specify unit thickness
heff = 1  n =  n / heff =1e-3;
init init
Nmax = 6.9e9  En = Kn = 6.9e12
B
Geometric thickness (based
on nodal coordinates) of the
adhesive hgeom = 1e-3
L5.22
• Mixed mode conditions
• Maximum stress
(or strain) criterion:
 n t  s 
MAX  , ,  =1
 N max Tmax Smax 
 n for  n  0
n =
0 for  n  0
• Output:
• MAXSCRT
• MAXECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { MAXS, MAXE }

L5.23
• For example, for Mode I (opening mode) the MAXS condition implies
damage initiates when n = Nmax.
N Damage initiation point
N max
*Damage initiation,criterion=MAXS
290.0E6, 200.0E6, 200.0E6
n
Nmax Tmax Smax

L5.24
• Quadratic stress (or strain) interaction criterion:
2 2 2
 n   t    s 
      =1
 N max   Tmax   Smax 
• No damage initiation under
pure compression
• Output:
• QUADSCRT
• QUADECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION = { QUADS, QUADE }

L5.25
• Summary of damage initiation criteria

Maximum nominal stress criterion Maximum nominal strain criterion
       n s  t 
MAX  n , s , t  = 1 MAX  max , max , max  = 1
 N max Smax Tmax    n s  t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXE
N max , S max , Tmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
Quadratic nominal stress criterion Quadratic nominal stress criterion

2 2 2 2 2 2
 n    s   t    n    s   t 
      =1  max    max    max  = 1
 N max   Smax   Tmax    n    s   t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADE
N max , S max , Tmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
n: nominal stress in the pure normal mode n: nominal strain in the pure normal mode
s: nominal stress in the first shear direction s: nominal strain in the first shear direction
t: nominal stress in the second shear direction t: nominal strain in the second shear direction
n s t where n,s, and t are components of relative displacement
Note :  n = , s = , t =
To To To between the top and bottom of the cohesive element; and To
is the original thickness of the cohesive element.
L5.26
• Damage evolution 
• Post damage-initiation response 
defined by:
-d
 = 1 - d 
(1 - d )
• d is the scalar damage variable K0

d = 0: undamaged (1 - d ) Κ 0
d = 1: fully damaged 
d monotonically increases K0
Typical damaged response

L5.27
N
• Damage evolution is based on
energy or displacement N max
• Specify either the total Area under the curve
is the fracture energy
fracture energy or the post
damage-initiation effective
displacement at failure
GT C
• May depend on mode mix
• Mode mix may be defined in
terms of energy or traction
n
Displacement at failure  n
fail
in normal (opening) mode

L5.28
Traction
• Displacement-based damage evolution
Linear post-
• Damage is a function of an effective
initiation response
displacement:
= n   s2   t2
2
• The post damage-initiation softening

response can be either
• Linear
 init  fail 
• Exponential
• Tabular

L5.29
• Keywords interface for displacement-based damage evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = DISPLACEMENT,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL | TABULAR },
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = TABULAR
• For LINEAR and EXPONENTIAL softening:

• Specify the effective displacement at complete failure fail relative to
the effective displacement at initiation init.
• For TABULAR softening:
• Specify the scalar damage variable d directly as a function of
 –init.
• Optionally specify the effective displacement as function of mode mix in
tabular form.
• Abaqus assumes that the damage evolution is mode independent
otherwise.

L5.30
• Abaqus/CAE interface for displacement-based damage evolution

L5.31
• Energy-based damage evolution

• The fracture energy can be defined as a function of mode mix using
either a tabular form or one of two analytical forms:
• Power law
  
 GI   GII   GIII 
      =1
 GIC   GIIC   GIIIC 
• BK (Benzeggagh-Kenane)
 For isotropic failure

 Gshear 
GIC   GIIC - GIC    = GTC
(GIC = GIIC), the
response is insensitive to
 GT  the value of .
where Gshear = GII  GIII
GT = GI  Gshear

L5.32
• Keywords interface for energy-based damage evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = ENERGY,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL},
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = { TABULAR | POWER LAW | BK },
POWER = value
• Specify fracture energy as function of mode mix in tabular form, or

• Specify the fracture energy in pure normal and shear deformation modes
and choose either the POWER LAW or the BK mixed mode behavior

L5.33
• Abaqus/CAE interface for energy-based damage evolution

L5.34
• Example Normal (opening) mode:
• The preceding discussion was very Cohesive material law:

N max Traction, Damage Evolution
general in the sense that the full
range of options for modeling the
(nominal stress)
En
Kn =
constitutive response of cohesive
Traction
heff
Kn GIC
elements was presented.
1 (area under
• In the simplest case, Abaqus requires

entire curve)
that you input the adhesive thickness

 ninit  nfail
heff and 10 material parameters: Separation
*Elastic, type=traction
What do you do when you only
En, Et, Es
have 1 property and the adhesive
*Damage initiation, criterion = thickness is essentially zero?
maxs
Nmax, Tmax, Smax
Diehl, T., "Modeling Surface-Bonded Structures with
*Damage evolution, type=energy, ABAQUS Cohesive Elements: Beam-Type Solutions,"
mixed mode behavior=bk, power= ABAQUS Users' Conference, Stockholm, 2005.
GIC, GIIC , GIIIC

L5.35
• Example (cont’d)
• Common case: you know GTC for the surface bond.
• Assume isotropic behavior
GIC = GIIC = GIIIC = GTC
• For MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = BK, this makes the response
independent of  term, so set  = any valid input value (e.g.,
1.0)
• Bond thickness is essentially zero
• Specify the cohesive section property thickness heff = 1.0
 Nominal strains = separation; elastic moduli = stiffness
• Isotropy also implies the following:
En = Et = Es = Eeff (=Keff since we chose heff = 1.0)
Nmax = Tmax = Smax = Tult

L5.36
• Introduce concept of damage initiation ratio:
ratio= init /fail, where 0  ratio  1.
• Use GC and equation of a triangle to relate back to Keff and Tult :
2 GTC 2 GTC
Keff = Tult =
 ratio  2fail  fail
• The problem now reduces to two penalty terms: fail and ratio.
• Assume ratio = ½.
• Choose fail as a fraction of the typical cohesive element mesh size.
• For example, use fail = 0.050  typical cohesive element size
as a starting point.

L5.37
• Thus, after choosing the two penalty terms, a single (effective)
traction-separation law applies to all modes (normal + shear):
Effective properties:
Cohesive material law: *Cohesive section, thickness=SPECIFIED, ...
Tult Traction, Damage Evolution
1.0,
:
Eeff :
(nominal stress)
K eff = *Elastic, type=TRACTION

Traction
heff Keff, Keff, Keff

K eff GTC
1 (area under
*Damage initiation, criterion = MAXS
entire curve) Tult, Tult, Tult
*Damage evolution, type=ENERGY,
 init  fail mixed mode behavior=BK, power=1
Separation
GTC, GTC , GTC

L5.38
• What if the response is dynamic? What about the density?
• The density of the cohesive layer should also be considered a
penalty quantity.
• For Abaqus/Explicit, the effective density should not adversely affect
the stable time increment. Diehl suggests the following rule:
2 • Dtstable = stable time increment

 D tstable  without cohesive elements in the model
eff = Eeff  
 ft 2 D heff • ft2D = 0.32213 (for cohesive elements
  whose original nodal coordinates relate
to zero element thickness)
• The Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual provides additional guidelines

for determining a cohesive element density that minimizes the effect
on the stable time increment in Abaqus/Explicit.

Viscous Regularization
L5.40
• Cohesive elements have the potential to cause numerical difficulties in

the following cases
• Stiff cohesive behavior may lead to reduced maximum stable time
increment in Abaqus/Explicit
• Potentially addressed through selective mass scaling
• Unstable crack propagation may lead to convergence difficulties in
Abaqus/Standard
• Potentially addressed through built-in viscous regularization option
specific to cohesive elements

L5.41
• Viscous regularization
• Material models with damage often lead to severe convergence
difficulties in Abaqus/Standard
• Viscous regularization helps in such cases
• Helps make the consistent tangent stiffness of softening material
positive for sufficiently small time increments
• Similar approach used in the concrete damaged plasticity model in
Abaqus/Standard
 = 1 - dv 
1
dv =  d - dv 


L5.42
• Consistent material tangent stiffness
d
D = 1 - d  K 0 - f  

K0 is the undamaged elastic stiffness

f is a factor that depends on the details of the damage model
Dt
• Viscous regularization ensures that when  0 , D = (1 - d ) K 0

• “Offending” second term is eliminated when the analysis cuts back
drastically

L5.43
• User interface for viscous regularization
*COHESIVE SECTION, CONTROLS = control1

*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME = control1,
VISCOSITY = factor
• Add-on transverse shear stiffness may

provide additional stability
*COHESIVE SECTION
*TRANSVERSE SHEAR STIFFNESS
• Output
• Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD

L5.44
• Example: Multiple delamination

problem (Alfano & Crisfield, 2001)
– Industry standard Alfano- 12 layers
Crisfield nonsymmetric 2 layers
Initial cracks
delamination examples Interface elements
• Plies are initially bonded with

predefined cracks, then peeled
10 layers
apart in a complex sequence
• Example done in a a a
1 2 2
Abaqus/Standard and L
Abaqus/Explicit
• Effect of viscous regularization

is investigated

L5.45
 = 5.e - 4
 = 1.e - 3
=0
 = 1.e - 4  = 2.5e - 4

L5.46
• Effect of viscous regularization on convergence of multiple delamination

problem:
• Significant improvements with small regularization factor
Viscous Total number of

regularization increments
factor
0. 375
1.0e-4 171
2.5e-4 153
1.0e-3 164

Modeling Techniques
L5.48
Modeling Techniques
• Model problem: double-cantilever beam

• Alfano and Crisfield (2001)
• Pure Mode I
• Displacement control u
• Analyzed using
• 1D (B21),
-u
• 2D (CPE4I), and Initial crack
• 3D (C3D8I) elements
• Delamination assumed to occur along a straight line
• Beams: Orthotropic material
• Cohesive layer: Traction-separation with damage

L5.49
Modeling Techniques
• One-dimensional model
• Use tie constraints between the cohesive layer and the beams
• Require distinct parts for the beam and cohesive zone geometry
• Geometry

L5.50
Modeling Techniques
• One-dimensional model (cont’d)

• Assembly
Create 2 instances of the beam;

one of the cohesive zone
Position the parts to leave gaps

between them; this will later
facilitate picking surfaces

L5.51
Modeling Techniques

• Tie constraints
coh-top
beam-top
beam-bot
coh-bot
Define tie constraints between

mating surfaces.
The cohesive side should be the
slave surface (because it is a
softer material)
This approach is required when
quadratic displacement elements
are used.

L5.52
Modeling Techniques

• Properties: beam

L5.53
Modeling Techniques

• Properties: adhesive

L5.54
Modeling Techniques

• Meshing
1 Cohesive elements can only
be assigned to sweep
meshable regions
Sweep path must be aligned
with thickness direction
3 Assign seeds and mesh
Only one element

through the thickness
2 Assign cohesive element
type to the swept region

L5.55
Modeling Techniques

• Meshing (cont’d)
4 Edit the nodal coordinates of each part instance

so that they all have the same 2-coordinate
Toggle this off; otherwise, nodes will

project back to their original positions
Final mesh

L5.56
Modeling Techniques
• Two-dimensional model
• All geometry is 2D and planar
• Properties, attributes, etc. treated in a
similar manner to the 1D case presented
earlier
• Modeling options include:
• Shared nodes
• Tie constraints
• Similar to the 1D model

L5.57
Modeling Techniques
• Two-dimensional model (cont’d)

• Shared nodes
1 Define a finite thickness slit in the beam as shown below
• Use the actual overall thickness of the DCB

• The center region represents the cohesive layer
2 Mesh the part:

L5.58
Modeling Techniques

• Shared nodes (cont’d)
3 Edit the coordinates of the nodes along the interface

L5.59
Modeling Techniques

• Tie constraints
1 Create two instances of the beams and position them as shown

below.
• Suppress the visibility of the instances to facilitate picking

surfaces, etc.
2 Create a finite thickness cohesive layer, position it appropriately in

the horizontal direction, define surfaces, etc.
• After meshing, adjust the coordinates of all the nodes in the
cohesive layer so that they lie along the interface between the
two beams.

L5.60
Modeling Techniques
• Three-dimensional model
• All geometry is 3D
• Solid geometry for beams
• Solid or shell geometry for cohesive layer
• Modeling options include
• Shared nodes
• Tie constraints

L5.61
Modeling Techniques
• Three-dimensional model (cont’d)

• Shared nodes
1 Partition the geometry and

define a mesh seam
between these two faces

L5.62
Modeling Techniques

Mesh the part with solid

2
(continuum elements).
3 Create a orphan mesh
Mesh→Create Mesh Part

L5.63
Modeling Techniques
Tip 1: Remove elements from

top region with display groups
4 Create a single zero-thickness (select by angle)
solid layer by offsetting from the
midplane (selected by angle) of
the orphan mesh created in the
previous step
Tip 2: Use the selection

options tools to facilitate
picking. In particular, select
from interior entities.
Create a set for the new layer so you

can easily assign element type and
section properties.

L5.64
Modeling Techniques

5 Assign section properties and

the element type to the set
created in the previous step

L5.65
Modeling Techniques

• Tie constraints
• The cohesive region can be defined
as
• Solid (with finite thickness)
• Edit nodal coordinates of
cohesive elements as in
previous examples
• Shell geometry
• Mesh geometry then create
orphan mesh
• Offset a zero-thickness layer of
solid elements from the orphan
mesh
Define surfaces automatically to
facilitate tie constraints

L5.66
Modeling Techniques

• Tie constraints (cont’d)
When defining the tie constraints,

query the mesh stack direction to
determine when the “top” and
“bottom” surfaces should be used
Brown = top Purple = bottom

L5.67
Modeling Techniques
• What if I don't use Abaqus/CAE?

• In this case do the following in the preprocessor of your choice:
1. Generate the mesh for the structure and cohesive layer
(temporarily assigning an arbitrary element type to the cohesive
layer)
2. Position the layer of cohesive elements over the interface
3. Define surfaces on the structure and cohesive layer
4. Write the input file
Surface top-coh
Surface top-beam
Surface bot-beam Surface bot-coh

L5.68
Modeling Techniques
• Edit the input file:

5. Change the element type assigned to the cohesive layer
*element, elset=coh, type=coh2d4
6. Assign cohesive section properties

*cohesive section, elset=coh, material=cohesive,
response=traction separation, stack direction=2, controls=visco
1.0, 0.02
:
*material, name=cohesive
*elastic, type=traction
5.7e+14, 5.7e+14, 5.7e+14
*damage initiation, criterion=quads
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*damage evolution, type=energy, mixed mode behavior=bk, power=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0

L5.69
Modeling Techniques
• The stack direction defines the thickness direction based on the

element isoparametric directions.
• Set STACK DIRECTION = { 1 | 2 | 3 } to define the element
thickness direction along an isoparametric direction.
• 2D example (extends to 3D):
2 1
201 202 201 202
1 2
Thickness
101 102 direction 101 102
Element connectivity: 101, 102, 202, 201 Element connectivity: 102, 202, 201, 101
Stack direction = 2 Stack direction = 1

L5.70
Modeling Techniques
• Edit the input file (cont'd):

7. Define tie constraints between the surfaces
*tie, name=top, adjust=yes, position tolerance=0.002

Cohesive surface top-coh, top-beam
is the slave *tie, name=bot, adjust=yes, position tolerance=0.002
bot-coh, bot-beam
Setting adjust=yes will force Abaqus to The position tolerance should be large
move the slave (cohesive element) nodes enough to contain the slave nodes when
onto the master surface. By adjusting both measured from the master surface. In this
the top and bottom cohesive surfaces in this case the overclosure is equal to 0.001 on
way, a zero-thickness cohesive layer is either side of the interface so a position
produced. tolerance of 0.002 is sufficient to capture all
slave nodes.
0.001

L5.71
Modeling Techniques
• Results

L5.72
Modeling Techniques
• Effect of viscous regularization
Viscous Total number

regularization of increments
factor
1.e-5 636
2.5e-5 163
5.0e-5 129
1.0e-4 90

L5.73
Modeling Techniques
• Effect of mesh refinement

• Typically, you will need to use
a much finer mesh (for both
the stress/displacement and
cohesive elements) than may
be necessary for a problem
without cohesive elements.

L5.74
Modeling Techniques
• Non-planar geometry
• The technique for embedding a layer of solid elements into an orphan
mesh is not restricted to planar geometry.
• As an example, consider the following fiber-matrix pullout model
matrix
Orphan mesh
fiber

L5.75
Modeling Techniques
• Failure driven by mismatch in CTEs
View cut of the matrix-fiber interface at

100% of the applied load (magnified 5×) Failure levels at 38% of the applied load

L5.76
Modeling Techniques
• Cohesive elements on a symmetry plane

N
• The traction-separation law is based on
the separation between the top and N max
bottom faces of the cohesive element. GC
area =
• On a symmetry plane, however, the 2
separation that is computed is ½ the
actual value. 2Kn
• To account for this, specify: 1
• 2 the cohesive stiffness that would
be used in a full model. n
 ninit  nfail
• ½ the fracture toughness that would 2
2
be used in a full model.
• Linear equations between the 2 En En
nodes on the top and bottom faces 2Kn = =
heff heff / 2
in the lateral directions.

L5.77
Modeling Techniques
Symmetric model (top)
• Symmetry example overlaid on full model
Constraint on lateral
displacements
Symmetric model
Full model
Constitutive thickness is
same as for the full model so
double the elastic modulus to
double the cohesive stiffness

Examples
L5.79
Examples
• Composite components in
aerospace structures
(Courtesy: NASA)
• Stress concentrations
around stiffener
terminations and flanges
• Residual thermal strains at
the interface at room
temperature
• Analysis of the effects of
residual strains on Beginning of separation After separation
skin/stiffener debonding
• Delamination initiation and Abaqus/Standard simulation of skin/stiffener debonding
propagation
Example Problem 1.4.5

L5.80
Examples
Abaqus/Standard simulation of
skin/stiffener debonding

L5.81
Examples
• Electronic packaging
(Courtesy: INTEL)
• Solder to motherboard fracture

due to static overload
• Experiments to assess integrity of
solder joints under various loading
conditions (e.g., board bending)
• Strain in motherboard at
which solder joint fails
Ball grid array

L5.82
Examples
Debonded solder balls
Damage severity in cohesive layer between

motherboard and solder balls

L5.83
Examples
• Delamination of a composite
• This model is a representative of composite
delamination.
• It comprises 3 layers of composite with
adhesive layers applied between
composite layers.
• The composite delaminates under the
impact of a heavy mass displayed in
light greenish shade in the animation.
Cohesive layers

L5.84
Examples
• Impact of moving mass with a stationary wall

• Brick wall modeled with adhesives applied
to each face of each brick.
• Simulating damage of the (stationary) wall
from high velocity impact with a heavy
mass
• Analysis performed in Abaqus/Explicit.
• This model is a representative of several
problems that can be modeled using
cohesive elements
Section of the model illustrating
• Hydroplaning the application of cohesive
• Machining layers around the bricks.
• Oil Drilling
• Excavation
• Effect of explosion on a building.
L5.85
Examples
• Deformation sequence

Workshop 3 (Part 1)
L5.87
Workshop 3 (Part 1)
• Crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using element-based

cohesive behavior
• Generate cohesive element mesh
• Define/assign traction-separation behavior and damage properties
Layer of
cohesive
elements

Workshop 4 (Optional)
L5.89
Workshop 4 (Optional)
• Crack growth in a helicopter airframe

• Use the mesh offset tool to create a layer of cohesive elements
• Impose symmetry conditions on the cohesive elements using linear
equations
Cohesive element
thickness shrunk to zero

Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Lecture 6
L6.2
Overview
• Surface-based Cohesive Behavior

• Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
• Workshop 3 (Part 2)

L6.4
• Surface-based cohesive behavior provides a simplified way to model

cohesive connections with negligibly small interface thicknesses using the
traction-separation constitutive model.
• It can also model “sticky” contact (surfaces can bond after coming into
contact).
• The cohesive surface behavior can be defined for general contact in
Abaqus/Explicit and contact pairs in Abaqus/Standard (with the
exception of the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation).
• Cohesive surface behavior is defined as a surface interaction property.
• To prevent overconstraints in Abaqus/Explicit, a pure master-slave
formulation is enforced for surfaces with cohesive behavior.

L6.5
• User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive

L6.6
• The formulae and laws that govern surface-based cohesive behavior are
very similar to those used for cohesive elements with traction-separation
behavior: traction
• linear elastic traction-separation,
• damage initiation criteria, and GC
• damage evolution laws. separation
• However, it is important to recognize that damage in surface-based
cohesive behavior is an interaction property, not a material property.
• Traction and separation are interpreted differently for cohesive elements
and cohesive surfaces:
Cohesive elements Cohesive surfaces
Relative displacement ()
between the top and bottom
of the cohesive layer
separation Nominal strain () = Contact separation ()
Initial thickness (To)
traction Nominal stress () Contact force (F)

Contact stress (t) =
Current area (A) at
each contact point
L6.7
• Linear elastic traction-separation behavior

• Relates normal and shear stresses to the normal and shear separations
across the interface before the initiation of damage.
• By default, elastic properties are based on underlying element stiffness.
• Can optionally specify the properties.
• Recall this specification is required for cohesive elements.
• The traction-separation behavior can be uncoupled (default) or coupled.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, TYPE= { UNCOUPLED, COUPLED}

Optional data line to specify Knn, Kss, Ktt

L6.8
• Controlling the cohered nodes

• The slave nodes to which cohesive behavior is applied can be controlled
to define a wider range of cohesive interactions: Can include:
• All slave nodes
• Only slave nodes initially in contact
• Initially bonded node set
1• Applying cohesive behavior to all slave nodes (default)
• Cohesive constraint forces potentially act on all nodes of the
slave surface.
• Slave nodes that are not initially contacting the master surface
can also experience cohesive forces if they contact the master
surface during the analysis.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = CURRENT CONTACTS

L6.9
2 Applying cohesive behavior only to slave nodes initially in contact
• Restrict cohesive behavior to only those slave nodes that are in

contact with the master surface at the start of a step.
• Any new contact that occurs during the step will not experience
cohesive constraint forces.
• Only compressive contact is modeled for new contact.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = ORIGINAL CONTACTS

L6.10
3 Applying cohesive behavior only to an initially bonded node set

(Abaqus/Standard only)
• Restrict cohesive behavior to a subset of slave nodes defined
using *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT.
• All slave nodes outside of this set will experience only
compressive contact forces during the analysis.
• This method is particularly useful for modeling crack
propagation along an existing fault line.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = SPECIFIED CONTACTS

L6.11
• Example: Double cantilever beam (DCB)

• Analyze debonding of the DCB model using the surface-based cohesive
behavior in Abaqus/Standard.
• To model debonding using surface-based cohesive behavior,
• you must define:
1• contact pairs and initially bonded crack surfaces;
2• the traction-separation behavior;
3• the damage initiation criterion; and
4• the damage evolution.
• You may also
5• specify viscous regularization to facilitate solution convergence
in Abaqus/Standard. u
• Note: Steps 3, 4, and 5, will be
covered later in this lecture.
-u
Initial crack Cohesive interface
Note: Only the Keywords interface is illustrated in the example;
the Abaqus/CAE interface is illustrated in the workshop exercise.
L6.12
1
• Define contact pairs and initially bonded crack surfaces
• The initially bonded portion of the slave surface (i.e., node set bond)
is identified with the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
option.
*NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE

1, 121, 1
*SURFACE, NAME=TopSurf
_TopBeam_S1, S1
bond *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
TopSurf
BotSurf *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
Note: Frictionless contact is assumed. slave surface master surface a list of slave nodes
that are initially bonded

L6.13
2• Define traction-separation behavior

t
• In this model, the cohesive behavior is only
enforced for the node set bond.
Kn (Ks , Kt)
• Use the ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS 1
parameter to enforce this behavior.

• Recall the default elastic properties are based
on underlying element stiffness. Here we Kn, Ks, and Kt: normal and
specify the properties. tangential stiffness components
...
bond
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf
BotSurf TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 Optional
Kn Ks Kt
L6.14

t
• Damage modeling for cohesive
surfaces 
tnmax tsmax , ttmax 
• Damage of the traction-separation
response for cohesive surfaces is
defined within the same general
framework used for cohesive 
 nmax  smax ,  tmax  
 nf  sf ,  t f  
elements. tnmax , tsmax , and ttmax :
• The difference between the two peak values of the contact stress
approaches is that for cohesive  nmax ,  smax , and tmax :
surfaces damage is specified as peak values of the contact separation
part of the contact interaction
properties.  nf ,  sf , and  t f :
separations at failure

L6.15
• User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive

L6.16
• Damage initiation criteria
Maximum stress criterion Maximum separation criterion

 tn ts tt    n s  t 
MAX  max , max , max  1 MAX  max , max , max  1
 tn ts tt    n s  t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXU
tnmax , tsmax , ttmax  nmax ,  smax , tmax
Quadratic stress criterion Quadratic separation criterion

2 2 2 2 2 2
 tn   ts   tt    n    s   t 
 max    max    max   1  max    max    max   1
 tn   ts   tt    n    s   t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADU
tnmax , tsmax , ttmax  nmax ,  smax , tmax
tn: normal contact stress in the pure normal mode n: separation in the pure normal mode
ts: shear contact stress along the first shear direction s: separation in the first shear direction
tt: shear contact stress along the second shear direction t: separation in the second shear direction
Note: Recall the damage initiation criteria for the cohesive elements: if the initial constitutive thickness To = 1,
then  = /To = . In this case, the separation measures for both approaches are exactly the same.

L6.17
• Example: Double cantilever beam

3• Define the damage initiation criterion
• The quadratic stress criterion is specified for this problem.
...
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
tnmax tsmax ttmax

L6.18
• For surface-based cohesive behavior, damage evolution describes the
degradation of the cohesive stiffness.
• In contrast, for cohesive elements damage evolution describes the
degradation of the material stiffness.
• Damage evolution can be based on energy or separation (same as for
cohesive elements).
• Specify either the total fracture energy (a property of the cohesive
interaction) or the post damage-initiation effective separation at
failure. t
• May depend on mode mix 

• Mode mix may be defined
in terms of energy or traction GTC

 nf  sf ,  t f  

L6.19
• Separation-based damage evolution

• Damage is a function of an effective t Linear post-
separation: initiation response

 n   s2   t2
2
• As with cohesive elements, the post

damage-initiation softening response can 
 nf  sf ,  t f  
be either:
• Linear
• Exponential
• Tabular

L6.20
• Separation-based damage evolution (cont’d)

• Usage:
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = DISPLACEMENT,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL | TABULAR },
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = TABULAR

L6.21
• Energy-based damage evolution

• As with cohesive elements, the energy-based damage evolution criterion
can be defined as a function of mode mix using either a tabular form or
one of two analytical forms:
Power law Benzeggagh-Kenane (BK)

   
 GI   GII   GIII   Gshear 
      1 GIC   GIIC - GIC     GTC
 GIC   GIIC   GIIIC   T 
G
where Gshear  GII  GIII
GT  GI  Gshear

L6.22
• Energy-based damage evolution (cont’d)

• Usage:
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = ENERGY,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL},
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = { TABULAR | POWER LAW | BK },
POWER = value

L6.23

4
• Define damage evolution
• The energy-based damage evolution based on the BK mixed mode
behavior is specified.
...
 TopSurf, BotSurf
G 
GIC   GIIC - GIC   shear   GTC *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
 GT  TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
bond ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
TopSurf
BotSurf *DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0

GIC GIIC GIIIC

L6.24
• Viscous regularization
• Can be specified to facilitate solution convergence in Abaqus/Standard
for surface-based cohesive behavior when stiffness degradation occurs.
• Output:
• Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD

L6.25

5
• Specify a viscosity coefficient for ...
the cohesive surface behavior *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond *SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
TopSurf 5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
BotSurf
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0
1.e-5
viscosity coefficient, 

L6.26

• Summary of the input for the traction-separation response
Cohesive elements Cohesive surfaces

*COHESIVE SECTION, MATERIAL=cohesive, *SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
RESPONSE=TRACTION SEPARATION, *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELSET=coh_elems, CONTROLS=visco
, 0.02
*MATERIAL, NAME=cohesive 5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
*ELASTIC, TYPE=TRACTION *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7 MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, 280.0, 280.0, 280.0
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284 *DAMAGE STABILIZATION
280.0, 280.0, 280.0 1.e-5
*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME=visco,
VISCOSITY=1.e-5

L6.27
• Results
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive elements
Failed cohesive elements

u2
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive surfaces
u2

Element- vs. Surface-based
Cohesive Behavior
L6.29
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Preprocessing
• Cohesive elements
• Gives you direct control over the cohesive element mesh density
and stiffness properties.
• Constraints are enforced at the element integration
points.
• Refining the cohesive elements relative to the
connected structures will likely lead to improved
constraint satisfaction and more accurate results.
Integration points on an
• Cohesive surfaces 8-node cohesive element
• Are easily defined using contact interactions and cohesive

interaction properties.
• A pure master-slave in formulation is used.
• Constraints are enforced at the slave nodes.
• Refining the slave surface relative to the master surface will likely lead
to improved constraint satisfaction and more accurate results .

L6.30
Initial configuration:
• Must be bonded at the start of the analysis.
• Once the interface has failed, the surfaces do not re-bond.
• Cohesive surfaces
• Can bond anytime contact is established
(i.e., “sticky” contact behavior).
• Cohesive interface need not be bonded at the start of the
analysis.
• You can control whether debonded surfaces will stick or not stick if
contact occurs again.
• By default, they do not stick.

L6.31
Constitutive behavior:
• Allow for several constitutive behavior types:
• Traction-separation constitutive model
• Including multiple failure mechanisms
• Continuum-based constitutive model
• For adhesive layers with finite thickness
• Uses conventional material models
• Uniaxial stress-based constitutive model
• Useful in modeling gaskets and/or single adhesive patches
• Must use the traction-separation interface behavior.
• Intended for bonded interfaces where the interface thickness is
negligibly small.
• Only one failure mechanism is allowed.

L6.32

 Le 
Influence on stable time increment (Abaqus/Explicit only): t   
 cd 
• Often require a small stable time increment.
• Cohesive elements are generally thin and sometimes quite stiff.
• Consequently, they often have a stable time increment that is
significantly less than that of the other elements in the model.
• Cohesive surface behavior with the default cohesive stiffness
properties is formulated to minimally affect the stable time increment.
• Abaqus uses default contact penalties to model the cohesive
stiffness behavior in this case.
• You can specify a non-default cohesive stiffness values.
• However, high stiffnesses may reduce the stable time increment.

L6.33
Mass:
• The element material definitions include mass.
• Do not add mass to the model.
• Indented for thin adhesive interfaces; thus, neglecting adhesive
mass is appropriate for most applications.
• However, nonstructural mass can be added to the contacting
elements if necessary.

L6.34
Summary:
• Are recommended for more detailed adhesive connection modeling.
• Additional preprocessing effort (and often increased computational
cost) is compensated for by gaining:
• Direct control over the connection mesh
• Additional constitutive response options
• E.g., model adhesives of finite thickness
• Provides a quick and easy way to model adhesive connections.
• Negligible interface thicknesses only
• Surfaces can bond anytime contact is established
(“sticky” contact)
• Model contact adhesives, Velcro, tape, and other bonding agents
that can stick after separation.

Workshop 3 (Part 2)
L6.36
Workshop 3 (Part 2)
• Crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using surface-based

cohesive behavior
• Repeat the element-based exercise using surface-based behavior
• Use default traction-separation elastic properties
• Compare with element-based results

Virtual Crack Closure Technique
(VCCT)
Lecture 7
L7.2
Overview
• Introduction
• VCCT Criterion
• Output
• VCCT Plug-in
• Comparison with Cohesive Behavior
• Examples
• Workshop 5

Introduction
L7.4
Introduction
• Motivation is aircraft composite

structural analysis
• To reduce the cost of laminated
composite structures, large
integrated bonded structures are
being considered.
• In primary structures,
bondlines and interfaces
between plies are required to
carry interlaminar loads.
• Damage tolerance
requirements dictate that
bondlines and interfaces carry
required loads with damage.
Modeling debonding along

skin-stringer interface

L7.5
Introduction
• Analysis requirements for composite damage

• Apply Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) to bondlines and
interfaces
• 2D and 3D delaminations
• Propagation
• Mode separation
• Multiple cracks
• Non-linear behavior (e.g., postbuckling)
• Composite structure
• Practical (CPU time, minimum set of models)

L7.6
Introduction
• VCCT uses LEFM concepts

Pure Mode I
• Based on computing the Modified VCCT
energy release rates for
normal and shear crack-tip
deformation modes.
• Compare energy release
rates to interlaminar fracture Node numbers
toughness. are shown
Nodes 2 and 5 will start to release when:
1 v1,6 Fv,2,5
• See Rybicki, E. F., and Kanninen,  GI  GIC Mode II treated
2 bd
M. F., "A Finite Element Calculation similarly
where
of Stress Intensity Factors by a
GI  mode I energy release rate
Modified Crack Closure Integral,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, GIC  critical mode I energy release rate
Vol. 9, pp. 931-938, 1977. b  width
Fv ,2,5  vertical force between nodes 2 and 5
v1,6  vertical displacement between nodes 1 and 6

VCCT Criterion
L7.8
VCCT Criterion
• The debond capability is used to perform the crack propagation analysis

for initially bonded crack surfaces.
• The crack propagation analysis allows for five types of fracture criteria:
1
• Critical stress criterion
2
• Crack opening displacement criterion
3
• Crack length vs. time criterion
4
• VCCT criterion
5
• Low-cycle fatigue criterion
• Defining case 4, “VCCT criterion,” is the subject of this lecture.
• The details of cases 1, 2, and 3 are not discussed here. Please
consult the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual for more details.
• The details of case 5 will be discussed later in Lecture 8 “Low-cycle
Fatigue.”

L7.9
VCCT Criterion
• When using VCCT to model crack propagation,

• you must:
1• define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces;
2• define initially bonded crack surfaces;
3• activate the crack propagation capability; and
4• specify the VCCT criterion.
• you also may:
• define spatially varying critical energy release rates;
• use viscous regularization, contact stabilization, and/or automatic
stabilization to overcome convergence difficulties for unstable
propagating cracks;
• use a linear scaling technique to accelerate convergence for VCCT.

L7.10
VCCT Criterion
• Defining the VCCT criterion is not currently supported in Abaqus/CAE.

• However, the VCCT plug-in is available and allows you to interactively
define the debond interface(s).
• The details of the VCCT plug-in will be discussed later in this
lecture.
• Downloaded from “VCCT plug-in utility,” SIMULIA Answer 3235.

L7.11
VCCT Criterion
• Example: Double cantilever beam (DCB)

• Analyze debonding of a DCB model using the VCCT criterion.
• Steps required for setting up the model include:
• Define slave (TopSurf) and master (BotSurf) surfaces along the debond
interface.
• Define a set (bond) containing the initially bonded region (part of TopSurf
in this example).
• The Keywords interface is illustrated in this example.
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf

L7.12
VCCT Criterion
1• Define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces

• Potential crack surfaces are modeled as slave and master contact
surfaces.
• Any contact formulation except the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface
formulation can be used.
• Cannot be used with self-contact.
bond *NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE

1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf
BotSurf *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf, BotSurf
Note: The frictionless interaction property is assumed.
slave surface master surface

L7.13
VCCT Criterion
2• Define initially bonded crack surfaces

• The initially bonded contact pair is identified with the *INITIAL
CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT option.

1, 121, 1
bond _TopBeam_S1, S1
*SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf
BotSurf TopSurf, BotSurf
slave surface master surface a list of slave nodes

that are initially bonded

L7.14
VCCT Criterion
• The unbonded portion of the slave surface will behave as a regular

contact surface.
• If the node set that includes the initially bonded slave nodes is not
specified, the initial contact condition will apply to the entire contact pair.
• In this case, no crack tips can be identified, and the bonded
surfaces cannot separate.
• For the VCCT criterion, the initially bonded nodes are bonded in all
directions.

L7.15
VCCT Criterion
3• Activate the crack propagation capability

• The DEBOND option is used to activate crack propagation in a given
step.
• The SLAVE and MASTER parameters identify the surfaces to be
debonded. *NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE
1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
_BotBeam_S1, S1
bond *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf, BotSurf
TopSurf TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf

L7.16
VCCT Criterion
4• Specify the VCCT criterion

• The BK law model is used in this *NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE
example. 1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
BK law: *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf

 GII  GIII  _BotBeam_S1, S1
GequivC  GIC   GIIC  GIC    *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
 GI  GII  GIII 
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond *STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
TopSurf *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
BotSurf
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
GIC GIIC GIIIC 

L7.17
VCCT Criterion
• The crack-tip node debonds when the fracture criterion, f,

Gequiv
f  ,
GequivC
reaches the value 1.0 within a given tolerance, ftol:
1  f  1  ftol .
where
Gequiv is the equivalent strain energy release rate, and
GequivC is the critical equivalent strain energy release rate calculated
based on the user-specified mode-mix criterion and the bond
strength of the interface.
• For the VCCT criterion, the default value of ftol is 0.2.
• Use following option to control ftol:
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=ftol

L7.18
VCCT Criterion
• In the DCB model, the tolerance is set to 0.1.

1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
_BotBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond *STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
TopSurf *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
BotSurf
MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284

L7.19
VCCT Criterion
• In addition to the BK law model, Abaqus/Standard also provides two

other commonly used mode-mix criteria for computing GequivC: the Power
law and the Reeder law models.
• An appropriate model is best selected empirically.
• Power law
am an ao
Gequiv  G   G   G 
 I    II    III 
GequivC  GIC   GIIC   GIIIC 
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER
GIC, GIIC, GIIIC, am, an, ao
• Reeder law
• Applies only to three-dimensional problems

  GIII    GII  GIII 
GequivC  GIC   GIIC  GIC   GIIIC  GIIC      
  GII  GIII   Gi 

*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=REEDER
GIC, GIIC, GIIIC, 

L7.20
VCCT Criterion
• Spatially varying critical energy release rates

• The VCCT criterion can be defined with varying energy release rates by
specifying the critical energy release rates at all nodes on the slave
surface.
• In this case, the critical energy release rates should be interpolated
from the critical energy release rates specified at the nodes with the
*NODAL ENERGY RATE option.
• However, the exponents (e.g., ) are still read from the data lines
under the *FRACTURE CRITERION option.
*NODAL ENERGY RATE

node ID1, GIC, GIIC, GIIIC
model data
...
*STEP
*STATIC
...
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, NODAL ENERGY RATE

L7.21
VCCT Criterion
• Viscous regularization for VCCT

• Can be used to overcome some *NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE
convergence difficulties for 1, 121, 1
unstable propagating cracks. _TopBeam_S1, S1
• Example: DCB *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
• Set the value of the viscosity *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
coefficient to 0.1. TopSurf, BotSurf
bond *STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
TopSurf *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
BotSurf
MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED
MODE BEHAVOIR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284

L7.22
VCCT Criterion
• In addition, contact and automatic stabilization that are not specific to

VCCT can be also used to aid convergence.
• They are built into Abaqus/Standard and are compatible with VCCT.
• Note that the crack propagation behavior may be modified by the
damping forces.
• Therefore, monitor the damping energy (ALLVD or ALLSD) and
compare it with the total strain energy in the model (ALLSE) to
ensure that the results are reasonable in the presence of damping.
• ALLVD stores the damping energy generated from viscous
regularization.
• ALLSD stores the damping energy generated from contact
stabilization and automatic stabilization.

L7.23
VCCT Criterion
• Linear scaling to accelerate convergence for VCCT

• Abaqus provides a linear scaling technique to quickly converge to the
critical load state. This reduces the solution time required to reach the
onset of crack growth.
• This technique works best for models in which the deformation is
nearly linear before the onset of crack growth.
• Once the first crack-tip node releases, the linear scaling calculations will
no longer be valid and the time increment will be set to the default value.
• Usage:
*CONTROLS, LINEAR SCALING

where  is the coefficient of linear scaling.
• For details of linear scaling to accelerate convergence for VCCT, see
“Crack propagation analysis,” Section 11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis
User’s Manual.

L7.24
VCCT Criterion
• Tips for using the VCCT criterion

• Crack propagation problems using the VCCT criterion are numerically
challenging.
• To help you create a successful model, several tips for using the VCCT
criterion are provided:
• The master debonding surfaces must be continuous.
• The tie MPCs should NOT be used for the slave debonding surface
to avoid overconstraints.
• A small clearance between the debonding surfaces can be specified
to eliminate unnecessary severe discontinuity iterations during
incrementation as the crack begins to progress.
……
• Note: More tips are provided in “Crack propagation analysis,” Section
11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual.

Output
L7.26
Output
• The following output options are

provided to support the VCCT
criterion:
• Abaqus/CAE supports the surface
output requests for VCCT.
*OUTPUT, FIELD, FREQUENCY=freq

*CONTACT OUTPUT, MASTER=master,
SLAVE=slave
*OUTPUT, HISTORY, FREQUENCY=freq

*CONTACT OUTPUT, [(MASTER=master,
SLAVE=slave)|(NSET=nset)]

L7.27
Output
• The following bond failure quantities can be requested as surface output:

DBT The time when bond failure occurred
DBSF Fraction of stress at bond failure that still remains
DBS Stress in the failed bond that remains
OPENBC Relative displacement behind crack.
CRSTS Critical stress at failure.
ENRRT Strain energy release rate.
EFENRRTR Effective energy release rate ratio.
BDSTAT Bond state (=1.0 if bonded, 0.0 if unbonded)
• All of the above variables can be visualized in Abaqus/Viewer.
• The initial contact status of all of the slave nodes is printed in the data
(.dat) file.

L7.28
Output
• Example: DCB
• Request surface output: bond
...
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond TopSurf
BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280, 280, 280, 2.284
...
*OUTPUT, FIELD, VAR=PRESELECT
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf field output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT
*OUTPUT, HISTORY
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, NSET=bond history output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT
*NODE OUTPUT, NSET=tip
U2, RF2
*END STEP

L7.29
Output
• Results
VCCT

VCCT Plug-in
L7.31
VCCT Plug-in
• VCCT plug-in
• provides an interactive interface to define the debond interface(s).
• supports the following keyword options required for VCCT analysis:
*DEBOND, SLAVE=slave, MASTER=master, OUTPUT=[fil|dat|both], VISCOSITY= 

MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=[BK|POWER|REEDER], TOLERANCE=ftol,
NODAL ENERGY RATE
*NODAL ENERGY RATE
*CONTROLS, LINEAR SCALING
• For details please refer to “VCCT plug-in utility,” SIMULIA Answer 3235.

L7.32
VCCT Plug-in
• Example: Double Cantilever Beam (DCB)

• The VCCT plug-in is discussed in the context of the Keywords interface
presented earlier.
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf initially bonded region
master surface
slave surface

L7.33
VCCT Plug-in
1• Define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces

• Frictionless contact is assumed.
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=IntProp-1

1.
*FRICTION
0.0
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=IntProp-1
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf

L7.34
VCCT Plug-in
2• Define the VCCT criterion

2a
• Select the fracture criterion, viscosity
coefficient, and cutback tolerance.
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf

L7.35
VCCT Plug-in
2b
• Specify critical strain energy release rates
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf

L7.36
VCCT Plug-in
• The VCCT plug-in also supports defining spatially varying critical energy
release rates.
• Click mouse button 3 to manage the table.
*NODAL ENERGY RATE

...
*STEP
*STATIC
...
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, NODAL ENERGY RATE

L7.37
VCCT Plug-in
3• Define the VCCT bonded interface

• Select the initially bonded region,
the crack propagation output file
and frequency, and the debond
initiation step.
• Note: The VCCT plug-in
allows specification of linear
scaling.

*STEP, NAME=Step-1
*STATIC, NLGEOM
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284

L7.38
VCCT Plug-in
• The relevant keywords

surface interaction
will be generated when
Abaqus/CAE writes the initial contact conditions
input file.
debond
fracture criterion
field output
history output

Comparison with Cohesive Behavior
L7.40
• VCCT and cohesive behavior are very similar in their application and
formulation.
• Both theories
• are used to model interfacial shearing and delamination crack
propagation and failure,
• use an elastic damage constitutive theory to model the
material's response once damage has initiated, and
• dissipate the same amount of fracture energy between damage
initiation and complete failure.

L7.41
• The fundamental difference between VCCT and cohesive behavior is in

the way crack propagation is predicted.
• In VCCT an existing flaw is assumed.
• VCCT is appropriate for brittle crack propagation problems.
• However, cohesive behavior can model damage initiation.
• Damage initiation in cohesive behavior is based strictly on the
predefined ultimate (normal and/or shear) stress/strain limit.
• Cohesive behavior can be used for both brittle and ductile crack
propagation problems.

L7.42
• VCCT may be viewed as more fundamentally based on fracture

mechanics.
• The damage initiation and damage evolution are both based on
fracture energy, whereas cohesive behavior use the fracture energy
only during damage evolution.
• Applicability of VCCT is limited to “self-similar” crack propagation
analyses.
• This implies a steady-state running crack.
• Difficult to reproduce in practice.

L7.43
• Summary: Complementary techniques for modeling of debonding
VCCT Cohesive behavior

Use the debond framework (surface based) Interface elements (element based) or
contact (surface based)
Assumes an existing flaw Can model crack initiation
Brittle fracture using LEFM occurring along a Ductile fracture occurring over a smeared
well defined crack front crack front modeled with spanning cohesive
elements or cohesive contact
Requires GI, GII, and GIII Requires E, σmax, GI, GII, and GIII
Crack propagates when strain energy release Crack initiates when cohesive traction
rate exceeds fracture toughness exceeds critical value and releases critical
strain energy when fully open
Crack surfaces are rigidly bonded when Crack surfaces are joined elastically when
uncracked. uncracked.
Available only in Abaqus/Standard Available in Abaqus/Standard and
Abaqus/Explicit
• Both are needed to satisfy general fracture requirements

Examples
L7.45
Examples
• Verification problems
• DCB
• SLB
• ENF
• Alfano-Crisfield
• Alfano, G., and M. A. Crisfield, “Finite Element Interface Models for
the Delamination Analysis of Laminated Composites: Mechanical
and Computational Issues,” International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, vol. 50, pp. 1701–1736, 2001.
• Also available as Abaqus Benchmark Problem 2.7.1 with cohesive
elements
• NASA Panel
• Reeder, J.R., Song, K., Chunchu, P.B., and Ambur, D.R.,
“Postbuckling and Growth of Delaminations in Composite Plates
Subjected to Axial Compression,” AIAA 2002-1746.

L7.46
Examples
• Compression Buckling/Delamination Single Disbond (Unreinforced)
Multiple crack tips

Buckling driven delaminations
30000
Euler buckling
25000
20000
Load (lb)
FEA
15000
closed form
10000
5000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)

L7.47
Examples

L7.48
Examples
• Compression Buckling/Delamination Multiple Disbonds (Unreinforced)
Multiple cracks can also be addressed

L7.49
Examples

L7.50
Examples
• T-Joint Pull–off Model

L7.51
Examples
• Postbuckling Behavior of Skin-Stringer Panels
• VCCT can be applied to

determine the global
strength and failure mode
for typical aerospace
composite structures like
this skin/stringer panel Courtesy Boeing

L7.52
Examples
Displacement
imposed at corner nodes
Contact surfaces defined
for region of fracture

L7.53
Examples
Crack tip
Initially debonded nodes
Initially bonded nodes

L7.54
Examples
The Abaqus Tech Brief on skin/stringer bonded joint

analysis can be downloaded from www.simulia.com

L7.55
Examples

Workshop 5
L7.57
Workshop 5
• Crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using VCCT

• Repeat the cohesive-based exercises using VCCT and compare results

Low-cycle Fatigue
Lecture 8
L8.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials
• Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces

Introduction
L8.4
Introduction
• Low-cycle fatigue analysis is a quasi-static analysis of a structure

subjected to sub-critical cyclic loading.
• It can be associated with thermal as well as mechanical loading.
• In Abaqus can simulate low-cycle fatigue in:
• bulk ductile materials
• material interfaces

L8.5
Introduction
• Low-cycle fatigue analysis uses the direct cyclic procedure to directly

obtain the stabilized cyclic response of the structure.
• The direct cyclic procedure combines a Fourier series
approximation with time integration of the nonlinear material
behavior to obtain the stabilized cyclic solution iteratively using a
modified Newton method.
• You can control the number of Fourier terms, the number of
iterations, and the incrementation during the cyclic time period
to improve the accuracy.
• Within each loading cycle, it assumes geometrically linear behavior and
fixed contact conditions.
• Geometric nonlinearity can be included only in any general step
prior to a direct cyclic step
• For more details, please see “Low-cycle fatigue analysis using the direct
cyclic approach,” Section 6.2.7 of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual.

L8.6
Introduction
• Defining low-cycle fatigue analysis
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE, [CETOL=tolerance, DELTMX=max]

t0, T, tmin, tmax, n0, nmax, n, imax
Nmin, Nmax, N, Dtol
where t0: initial time increment

T: time of a single loading cycle
controls the incrementation
tmin: minimum time increment allowed
tmax: maximum time increment allowed
n0: initial number of terms in the Fourier series
controls the Fourier
nmax: maximum number of terms in the Fourier series series representations
n: increment in number of terms in the Fourier series
imax: maximum number of iterations allowed in a step controls the iteration
N: total number of cycles allowed in a step
Nmin: minimum increment in N over which the damage is extrapolated forward controls damage
Nmax: maximum increment in N over which the damage is extrapolated forward extrapolation in
the bulk material
Dtol: damage extrapolation tolerance

Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials
L8.8
• Abaqus/Standard offers a general capability for modeling the

progressive damage and failure of ductile materials due to stress
reversals and the accumulation of inelastic strain energy when the
material is subjected to sub-critical cyclic loadings.
• Damage in low-cycle fatigue is defined within the same general
framework of modeling progressive damage and failure (continuum
damage approach):
• a constitutive behavior of undamaged ductile materials;
• a damage initiation criterion; and
• a damage evolution response.
• The damage initiation and evolution are characterized by the stabilized
accumulated inelastic hysteresis strain energy per stabilized cycle.
• Note: Damage initiation and evolution for low-cycle fatigue analysis is
currently not supported in Abaqus/CAE.

L8.9
• Example: Thermal cycling failure of solder joint

• Solder joint reliability analysis of automotive electronics under cyclic
thermal loading.
The crack propagates forward

L8.10

electronic chip
• Quarter-symmetry model:
solder joints gullwing
• Solder material (63Sn/37Pb) leads
• Modeled using temperature-
dependent elasticity and printed
power-law creep. circuit
board
• Low-cycle fatigue analysis run for
801 cycles. Quarter-symmetry model
• Each thermal cycle is 1920

seconds.
• Define the low-cycle fatigue analysis
step
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
Temperature load in once cycle

L8.11
• Damage initiation criterion for ductile damage in low-cycle fatigue

• The onset of damage in low-cycle fatigue is characterized by the
accumulated inelastic hysteresis energy per cycle, w, in a material
point when the structure response is stabilized in the cycle.
• The cycle number (N0) in which damage is initiated is given by
N0  c1wc2
where c1 and c2 are material constants.
• Note: c1 depends on the system of units in which you are working;
care is required to modify c1 when converting to a different system
units.
• The initiation criterion can be used in conjunction with any ductile
material.
• Damage initiation criterion output:
CYCLEINI Number of cycles to initialized the damage

L8.12
• Defining damage initiation criterion

*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
*ELASTIC
31976, 0.4, 273
20976, 0.4, 398 N0  c1wc2 Quarter-symmetry model
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c1 33.3, -1.52 c2
...
*STEP, INC=800
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100 solder joint
50, 100, 801, 1.1
bond pad
underneath
solder joint

L8.13
• Damage evolution for ductile damage in low-cycle fatigue

• Once the damage initiation criterion is satisfied at a material point, the
damage state is calculated and updated based on the inelastic
hysteresis energy for the stabilized cycle.
• The rate of the damage (dD/dN) at a material point per cycle is given by
dD c3wc4

dN L
where c3 and c4 are material constants, L is the characteristic length
associated with the material point, and D is the scalar damage variable.
• The details of choosing characteristic length will be discussed later.
• Note: c3 depends on the system of units in which you are working;
care is required to modify c3 when converting to a different system
units.

L8.14
• Defining damage evolution

*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
*ELASTIC
31976, 0.4, 273 dD c3wc4
20976, 0.4, 398  Quarter-symmetry model
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273 dN L
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
33.3, -1.52
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c3 9.88E-4, 0.98 c4
...
*STEP, INC=800
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1

L8.15
• Results
Damage initiation at joint toe Damage evolution Damage evolution

Cycle number 199 Cycle number 749 Cycle number 801

L8.16
• Characteristic length associated with an integration point

• The characteristic length implemented in the damage evolution model is
based on the element geometry and formulation:
Element type Characteristic length used in

the damage evolution model
first-order element typical length of a line across the element
second-order element half of the typical length of a line across the element
beam and truss characteristic length along the element axis
membrane and shell characteristic length in the reference surface
axisymmetric element characteristic length in the rz plane only

cohesive element the constitutive thickness

L8.17
• The characteristic length is used because the direction in which fracture

occurs is not known in advance.
• Therefore, elements with large aspect ratios will have rather
different behavior depending on the direction in which the damage
occurs.
• Some mesh sensitivity remains because of this effect, and
elements that are as close to square as possible are
recommended.
• However, since the damage evolution law is energy based,
mesh dependency of the results may be alleviated.

L8.18
• Difficulties associated with element removal and LCF

• When elements are removed from the model, their nodes remain in the
model even if they are not attached to any active elements.
• When the solution progresses, these nodes might undergo non-
physical displacements in Abaqus/Standard.
• For example, applying a point load to a node that is not
attached to an active element will cause convergence
difficulties since there is no stiffness to resist the load.
• It is the user’s responsibility to prevent such situations.

Low-cycle Fatigue at
Material Interfaces
L8.20
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces
• Delamination growth in composites due to sub-critical cyclic loadings is a

widespread concern for the aerospace industry.
• The low-cycle fatigue criterion available in Abaqus models progressive
delamination growth at interfaces in laminated composites subjected to
sub-critical cyclic loadings.
• The interface along which the delamination (or crack) propagates
must be indicated in the model.
• The onset and growth of fatigue delamination at the interfaces are
characterized by the relative fracture energy release rate
• The fracture energy release rates at the crack tips in the
interface elements are calculated based on the VCCT
technique.

L8.21
• The onset and fatigue delamination growth

at the interfaces are characterized by using
the Paris Law, which relates crack growth
rates da/dN to the relative fracture energy
release rate G,
G = Gmax – Gmin
where Gmax and Gmin correspond to the
strain energy release rates when the
structure is loaded up to Pmax and Pmin,
respectively.
• The Paris regime is bounded by Gthresh and
Gpl.
a: crack length
• Below Gthresh, there is no fatigue crack N: number of cycles
initiation or growth. G: strain energy release rate
• Above Gpl, the fatigue crack will grow Gthresh: strain energy release rate threshold
at an accelerated rate. Gpl: strain energy release rate upper limit
GequivC: critical equivalent strain
energy release rate
L8.22
• GequivC is calculated based on the

user-specified mode-mix criterion
and the bond strength of the interface.
• This was discussed in Lecture 7
“VCCT.”
• Onset of fatigue delamination
• The fatigue crack growth initiation
criterion is defined as:
N
f   1.0,
c1G c2
where c1 and c2 are material

constants. a: crack length
• The interface elements at the N: number of cycles
crack tips will not be released G: strain energy release rate
unless the above equation is Gthresh: strain energy release rate threshold
Gpl: strain energy release rate upper limit
satisfied and Gmax  Gthresh.
energy release rate
L8.23
• Fatigue delamination growth

• Once the delamination growth criterion
is satisfied at the interface, the crack
growth rate da/dN can be calculated
based on G.
• da/dN is given by the Paris Law if
Gthresh< Gmax< Gpl, da
 c3G c4
dN
da
 c3G c4
dN
a: crack length
where c3 and c4 are material N: number of cycles
constants. G: strain energy release rate
Gthresh: strain energy release rate threshold
Gpl: strain energy release rate upper limit
energy release rate
L8.24
• Fatigue crack growth governed by the Paris Law a: crack length

N: number of cycles
If Gthresh < Gmax < Gpl N: incremental number of cycles
G = Gmax(Pmax) – Gmin(Pmin) c1, c2 , c3, c4: material constants
1 2
Calculate the relative fracture Crack initiation: No  c1G c2
energy release rate, G, when da
the structure is loaded between its Crack evolution:  c3G c4
maximum and minimum values. dN
aN N  aN  Nc3G c 4
If N + N > No
N + N
3
Release the most Damage extrapolation: Calculate
critical element the incremental number of cycles,
N, for each crack tip and find
minimum cycles to fail, Nmin
• Repeat the above process until the maximum number of cycles is

reached or until the ultimate load carrying capability is reached.

L8.25
• The syntax used to define the low-cycle fatigue criterion and the
corresponding output requests is similar to those used for the VCCT
criterion except the following:
• For the low-cycle fatigue criterion, set TYPE=FATIGUE on the
*FRACTURE CRITERION option:
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=[BK|REEDER]

c1, c2, c3, c4, Gthresh/GequivC, Gpl/GequivC, GIC, GIIC
GIIIC, , , fv
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER

c1, c2, c3, c4, Gthresh/GequivC, Gpl/GequivC, GIC, GIIC
GIIIC, am, an, ao, , fv
• By default, Gthresh/GequivC = 0.01 and Gpl/GequivC = 0.85.
• Note: Defining the low-cycle criterion is not currently supported in
Abaqus/CAE.

L8.26
• Example: Low-cycle fatigue prediction for the DCB model

• This case consists of the following steps:
• Step 1: VCCT analysis
• This step can be used to check whether the peak loading leads
to static crack propagation.
• Step 2: Low-cycle fatigue analysis
• This step assesses the fatigue life of the DCB model subjected
to sub-critical cyclic loading.
bond
u2 u2
 =0.001
TopSurf
BotSurf
0 t
0 0.5 1
displacement loading in one cycle u2
L8.27
• Partial input:
... *STEP, INC=5000
*CONTACT PAIR, SMALL SLIDING *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
Model TopSurf, BotSurf 0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
data *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT ,,1000
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
*STEP, NLGEOM MASTER=BotSurf
*STATIC *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,
... Step 2:
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, Fatigue
analysis 0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
MASTER=BotSurf 280,2.284
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, *OUTPUT, FIELD
Step 1: MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
VCCT *CONTACT OUTPUT
280, 280, 280, 2.284 BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
analysis
*OUTPUT, FIELD ENRRT
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, ...
MASTER=BotSurf *END STEP bond
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
ENRRT
*END STEP
TopSurf BotSurf

L8.28

...
*CONTACT PAIR, SMALL SLIDING
• The procedure to complete the DCB model TopSurf, BotSurf
model through the first step (the data *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
VCCT analysis) is exactly the same TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
as that discussed in Lecture 7 *STEP, NLGEOM
“VCCT.” *STATIC
...
1• Define contact pairs for potential *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
crack surfaces MASTER=BotSurf
2• Define initially bonded crack MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
surfaces Step 1: 280, 280, 280, 2.284
VCCT
*OUTPUT, FIELD
3• Activate the crack propagation analysis
*CONTACT OUTPUT
capability in the first step BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
ENRRT
4• Specify the VCCT criterion in the
...
first step (a static, general step) *END STEP bond
• The details of defining the low-cycle
fatigue analysis (the second step)
will be discussed next. TopSurf BotSurf

L8.29
5• Define the low-cycle fatigue analysis ...

*STEP, INC=5000
• The following data are used to define this Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
low-cycle fatigue analysis: *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
• Initial time increment: 0.25 sec
,,1000
• Time of a single loading cycle: 1 sec
• Initial number of terms in the Fourier
series: 25
• Maximum number of terms in the
Fourier series: 25
• Maximum number of iterations
allowed in the step: 5
• Total number of cycles allowed in bond
the step: 1000
• Default values are used for all other
TopSurf BotSurf
entries.

L8.30
6• Activate the crack propagation capability ...

*STEP, INC=5000
• Similar to the VCCT analysis, the Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
*DEBOND option is used to activate the *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
crack propagation in the low-cycle
,,1000
fatigue analysis step. *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
• The SLAVE and MASTER MASTER=BotSurf
parameters identify the surfaces to
be debonded.
bond
TopSurf BotSurf

L8.31
7• Specify the low-cycle fatigue criterion ...

*STEP, INC=5000
• In this model, the material constants are Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
assumed to be the following: *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
• c1 = 0.5, ,,1000
N
f   1.0 *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
• c2 = –0.1 c1G c2 MASTER=BotSurf
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,
• c3 = 4.8768E–6 da
 c3G c4 MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
dN
0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
• c4 = 1.15 280,2.284
• Note: The values of these material GIC GIIC
constants should be determined GIIIC 
experimentally.
bond
• The BK model (default) is used.
TopSurf BotSurf

L8.32
8• Request output ...

*STEP, INC=5000
• The output options for the low-cycle Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
fatigue criterion are same as those for *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
the VCCT criterion.
,,1000
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
MASTER=BotSurf
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
280,2.284
*OUTPUT, FIELD
*CONTACT OUTPUT
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
ENRRT bond
TopSurf BotSurf

L8.33
• Results
initially bonded nodes delamination
N=1 N=11
N=21 N=51
N is the number of cycles
L8.34
• More results
delamination growth after 100

loading cycles
crack length vs. cycle

number

Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)
Lecture 9
L9.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Basic XFEM Concepts
• Damage Modeling
• Creating an XFEM Fracture Model
• Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation
• Example 2 – Propagation of an Existing Crack
• Example 3 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack Propagation
• Modeling Tips
• Current Limitations
• Workshop 6
• References

Introduction
L9.4
Introduction
• The fracture modeling methods discussed so far only permit crack

propagation along predefined element boundaries
• This lecture presents a technique for modeling
bulk fracture which permits a crack to be located
in the element interior
• The crack location is independent of the mesh

L9.5
Introduction
• This modeling technique…

• Can be used in conjunction with the cohesive zone model or the virtual
crack closure technique
• Delamination can be modeled in conjunction with bulk crack
propagation
• Can determine the load carrying capacity of a cracked structure
• What is the maximum allowable flaw size for safe operation?
• Applications of this technique include the modeling of bulk fracture and
the modeling of failure in composites
• Cracks in pressure vessels or engineering structures
• Delamination and through-thickness crack modeling in composite plies

L9.6
Introduction
• Some advantages of the method:

• Ease of initial crack definition
• Mesh is generated independent of crack
• Partitioning of geometry not needed as when a crack is represented
explicitly
• Nonlinear material and nonlinear geometric analysis
• Arbitrary solution-dependent crack initiation and propagation path
• Crack path does not have to be specified a priori
• Mesh refinement studies are much simpler
• Reduced remeshing effort
• Improved convergence rate for the finite element solution (stationary
crack)
• Due to the use of singular crack tip enrichment

L9.7
Introduction
• Mesh-independent Crack Modeling – Basic Ingredients

1. Need a way to incorporate discontinuous geometry – the crack – and
the discontinuous solution field into the finite element basis functions
• eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM)
2. Need to quantify the magnitude of the discontinuity – the displacement
jump across the crack faces
• Cohesive zone model (CZM)
3. Need a method to locate the discontinuity
• Level set method (LSM)
4. Crack initiation and propagation criteria
• At what level of stress or strain does the crack initiate?
• What is the direction of propagation?
• These topics will be discussed in this lecture

Basic XFEM Concepts
L9.9
Basic XFEM Concepts
• eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) Background

• XFEM extends the piecewise polynomial function space of conventional finite
element methods with extra functions
• The solution space is enriched by the extra “enrichment functions”
• Introduced by Belytschko and Black (1999) based on the partition of unity
method of Babuska and Melenk (1997)
• Can be used where conventional FEM fails or is prohibitively expensive
• Appropriate enrichment functions are chosen for a class of problems
• Inclusion of a priori knowledge of partial differential equation behavior into
finite element space (singularities, discontinuities, ...)
• Applications include modeling fracture, void growth, phase change ...
• Enrichment functions for fracture modeling
• Heaviside function to represent displacement jump across crack face
• Crack tip asymptotic function to model singularity

L9.10
Basic XFEM Concepts
• XFEM Displacement Interpolation

Heaviside enrichment term
H(x) Heaviside distribution
aI Nodal enriched DOF (jump discontinuity)
NG Nodes belonging to elements cut by crack
 
 4 
u (x)   N I (x)  u I  H (x )a I   Fa (x)b I 
h a

  a 1
I N  I N G  
 I N  
uI Nodal DOF for conventional shape functions NI Crack tip enrichment term
Fa(x) Crack tip asymptotic functions
baI Nodal DOF (crack tip enrichment)

NG Nodes belonging to elements containing crack tip

L9.11
Basic XFEM Concepts
• The crack tip and Heaviside enrichment functions are multiplied by the
conventional shape functions
• Hence enrichment is local around the crack
• Sparsity of the resulting matrix equations is preserved
• The crack is located using the level set method (discussed shortly)
• Heaviside function
• Accounts for displacement jump across crack
H(x) = 1 above crack
n
s
 1 if (x  x* )  n  0
H ( x)    x*
1 otherwise  x
H(x) = 1 below crack
Here x is an integration point, x* is the closest point to x on the crack face and n is the unit normal at x*

L9.12
Basic XFEM Concepts
• Crack Tip Enrichment Functions (Stationary Crack Only)

• Account for crack tip singularity
• Use displacement field basis functions for sharp crack in an isotropic
linear elastic material
   
[ Fa ( x), a  1 - 4]  [ r sin , r cos , r sin  sin , r sin  cos ]
2 2 2 2
Here (r,  ) denote coordinate values from a polar coordinate system located at the crack tip

L9.13
Basic XFEM Concepts
• Phantom Node Approach (Crack Propagation Implementation)

• Implementation of XFEM fitting into the framework of conventional FEM
• Discontinuous element with Heaviside enrichment is treated as a
superposition of two continuous elements with phantom nodes
• Does not include the asymptotic crack tip enrichment functions
• Introduced by Belytschko and coworkers (2006) based on the
superposed element formulation of Hansbo and Hansbo (2004)

L9.14
Basic XFEM Concepts
• Level Set Method for Locating a Crack

• A level set (also called level surface or isosurface) of a real-valued function
is the set of all points at which the function attains a specified value
• Example: the zero-valued level set of f (x, y) : x2  y2  r2 is a circle of
radius r centered at the origin
• Popular technique for representing surfaces in interface tracking problems
• Two functions F and Y are used to completely describe the crack
• The level set F = 0 represents the crack face
• The intersection of level sets Y = 0 and F = 0 denotes the crack
front
• Functions are defined by nodal values whose spatial variation is
determined by the usual finite element shape functions (example
follows)
• Function values need to be specified only at nodes belonging to
elements cut by the crack

L9.15
Basic XFEM Concepts
• Calculating F and Y
• The nodal value of the function F is the signed distance of the node from
the crack face
• Positive value on one side of the crack face, negative on the other
• The nodal value of the function Y is the signed distance of the node from
an almost-orthogonal surface passing through the crack front
• The function Y has zero value on this surface and is negative on the
side towards the crack
F=0 Y=0
Node F Y
1 0.25 1.5 1 2
2 0.25 1.0 0.5
3 4
3 0.25 1.5
4 0.25 1.0
1.5
Damage Modeling
L9.17
Damage Modeling
• Damage modeling is achieved through the use of a traction-separation

law across the fracture surface
• It follows the general framework introduced in earlier lectures
• Traction-free crack faces at failure
• Damage properties are specified as part of the bulk material definition
Damage initiation
Failure

L9.18
Damage Modeling
• Damage Initiation
• Two criteria available at present  max
• Maximum principal stress criterion (MAXPS) f  0
 max
• Initiation occurs when the maximum principal stress reaches
critical value
 max
• Maximum principal strain criterion (MAXPE) f 
 max
0
• Initiation occurs when the maximum principal strain reaches

critical value
• Crack plane is perpendicular to the direction of the maximum principal
stress (or strain)
• Crack initiation occurs at the center of the element
• However, crack propagation is arbitrary through the mesh
• The damage initiation criterion is satisfied when 1.0 ≤ f ≤ 1.0 + ftol
where f is the selected damage criterion and ftol is a user-specified
tolerance value
L9.19
Damage Modeling
• Any of the damage evolution models for traction-separation laws
discussed in the earlier lectures can be used
• However, it is not necessary to specify the undamaged traction-
separation response

L9.20
Damage Modeling
• Damage Stabilization
• Fracture makes the structural response nonlinear and non-smooth
• Numerical methods have difficulty converging to a solution
• As discussed in the earlier lectures, using viscous regularization helps
with the convergence of the Newton method
• The stabilization value must be chosen so that the problem definition
does not change
• A small value regularizes the analysis, helping with convergence
while having a minimal effect on the response
• Perform a parametric study to choose appropriate value for a class
of problems

L9.21
Damage Modeling
• Damage stabilization can currently be defined in Abaqus/CAE only

through the keyword editor

Creating an XFEM Fracture Model
L9.23
• Steps
1. Define damage criteria in the material model
2. Define an enrichment region (the associated material model should
include damage)
• Crack type – stationary or propagation
3. Define an initial crack, if present
4. If needed, set analysis controls to aid convergence
• Steps will be illustrated later through examples
• Crack initiation and propagation in a plate with a hole
• Propagation of an existing crack
• Delamination and through-thickness crack propagation in a double
cantilever beam
• The next few slides describe step-dependent enrichment activation
and postprocessing

L9.24
• Step-dependent Enrichment Activation

• Crack growth can be activated or deactivated in analysis steps
*STEP
.
.
1
.
*ENRICHMENT, NAME=Crack-1, ACTIVATE=[ON|OFF]

L9.25
• Output Quantities
• Two output variables are especially useful
• PHILSM
• The signed distance function F used to represent the crack
surface
• Needed for visualizing the crack
• STATUSXFEM
• Indicates the status of the element with a value between 0.0
and 1.0
• A value of 1.0 indicates that the element is completely cracked,
with no traction across the crack faces
• Any other output variable available in the static stress analysis
procedure

L9.26
• Postprocessing
• The crack location is specified by the zero-valued level set of the signed
distance function F
• Abaqus/CAE automatically creates an isosurface view cut named
Crack_PHILSM if an enrichment is used in the analysis
• The crack isosurface is displayed by default
• Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack isosurface
displayed
• Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the
overlaid elements according to the phantom nodes approach
• If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower”
element are plotted (corresponding to negative values of F)
• Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only from
the “lower” element (on the side with negative values of F)

Example 1 – Crack Initiation and
Propagation
L9.28
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation
• Model crack initiation and propagation in a plate with a hole

• Crack initiates at the location of maximum stress concentration
• Half model is used taking advantage of symmetry

L9.29
1 Define the damage criteria
• Damage initiation *MATERIAL

.
.
.
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, TOL=0.05
Damage initiation tolerance (default 0.05)

L9.30
1 Define the damage criteria (cont’d)
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, TOL=0.05
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER LAW, POWER=1.0
2870.0, 2870.0, 2870.0

L9.31
1 Define the damage criteria (cont’d)
• Damage stabilization
Keyword interface
1.e-5
Coefficient of viscosity m
• Abaqus/CAE interface currently not available

• The keyword editor may be used to add stabilization through
Abaqus/CAE.

L9.32
2 Define the enriched region
Pick enriched region

Propagating crack
Specify contact interaction

(frictionless small-sliding contact only)

L9.33
2 Define the enriched region (cont’d)
Keyword interface
*ENRICHMENT, TYPE=PROPAGATION CRACK, NAME=CRACK-1,
ELSET=SELECTED_ELEMENTS, INTERACTION=CONTACT-1
Frictionless small-sliding contact interaction
3 No initial crack definition is needed
• Crack will initiate based on specified damage criteria

L9.34
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior
• Set reasonable minimum and maximum increment sizes for step

• Increase the number of increments for step from the default value of
100
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.

L9.35
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior (cont’d)
• Use numerical scheme applicable to discontinuous analysis
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS

L9.36
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior (cont’d)
• Increase value of maximum number of attempts before abandoning

increment (increased to 20 from the default value of 5)
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
*CONTROLS, PARAMETER=TIME INCREMENTATION
, , , , , , , 20
8th field

L9.37
• Output Requests
• Request PHILSM and STATUSXFEM in addition to the usual output for
static analysis

L9.38
• Postprocessing
• Crack isosurface (Crack_PHILSM) created and displayed automatically
• Field and history quantities of interest can be plotted and animated as
usual

Example 2 – Propagation of an Existing
Crack
L9.40
Example 2 – Propagation of an Existing Crack
• Model with crack subjected to mixed mode loading

• Initial crack needs to be defined
• Crack propagates at an angle dictated by mode mix ratio at crack tip

L9.41
1 Define damage criteria in the material model as described in Example 1

2 Specify the enriched region as in Example 1
3 Define the initial crack
• Two methods are available to define initial crack in Abaqus/CAE
1. Create a separate part representing the crack surface or line and
assemble it along with the part representing the structure to be
analyzed
2. Create an internal face or edge representing the crack in the part
• Method 1 is preferred as it takes full advantage of the mesh-
independent crack representation possible using XFEM
• Meshing is easier using this method
• Method 2 will create nodes on the internal crack face
• Element faces/edges are forced to align with the crack

L9.42
3 Define the initial crack (cont’d)
The crack location can be an edge or a

surface belonging to the same
instance as the enriched region or to a
different instance (preferred)
** Model data
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=ENRICHMENT
901, 1, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.5
901, 2, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.4
901, 3, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.4
901, 4, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.5
Element Number
Enrichment Name
Relative Node Order in Connectivity

F Y

L9.43
• The other steps are as described in Example 1 and are in line with
those necessary for the usual static analysis procedure

Example 3 – Delamination and
Through-thickness Crack Propagation
L9.45
Example 3 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack
• Model through-thickness crack propagation using XFEM and

delamination using surface-based cohesive behavior in a double
cantilever beam specimen
• Interlaminar crack grows initially
• Through-thickness crack forms once interlaminar crack becomes long
enough and the longitudinal stress value builds up due to bending
• The point at which the through-thickness crack forms depends upon the
relative failure stress values of the bulk material and the interface

L9.46
Example 3 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack
• This model is the same as the double cantilever beam model presented
in the surface-based cohesive behavior lecture except:
• Enrichment has been added to the top and bottom beams to allow
XFEM crack initiation and propagation

Modeling Tips
L9.48
Modeling Tips
• General Information
• Averaged quantities are used in an element for determining crack
initiation and the propagation direction
• The integration point principal stress or strain values are averaged
• A new crack always initiates at the center of the element
• Within an enrichment region, a new crack initiation check is performed
only after all existing cracks have completely separated
• This may result in the abrupt appearance of multiple cracks
• Complete separation is indicated by STATUSXFEM=1
• Cracks cannot initiate in neighboring elements
• Crack propagates completely through an element in one increment
• Only the initial crack tip can lie within an element

L9.49
Modeling Tips
• The enrichment region must not include “hotspots” due to boundary

conditions or other modeling artifacts
• Otherwise, unintended cracks may initiate at such locations
• Damage initiation tolerance
• A larger value may result in multiple cracks initiating in a region
• Small value results in small increment size and convergence difficulty
• Damage stabilization
• As mentioned earlier, judicious use of viscous regularization can aid in
convergence
• Initial crack should bisect elements if possible
• Convergence is more difficult if crack is tangential to element boundaries
• Use displacement control rather than load control
• Crack propagation may be unstable under load control

L9.50
Modeling Tips
• Limit maximum increment size and start with a good guess for initial
increment size
• In general, this is a good approach for any non-smooth nonlinearity
• Analysis controls
• Can help obtain a converged solution and speed up convergence
• Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack
isosurface displayed
• Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the overlaid
elements according to the phantom nodes approach
• If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower” element
are plotted (on the side with negative values of F)

L9.51
Modeling Tips
• When defining the crack using Abaqus/CAE, extend the external crack
edges beyond base geometry
• This helps avoid incorrect identification of external edges as internal due
to geometric tolerance issues
Top View
Defining a through-thickness crack in a cylindrical vessel

Current Limitations
L9.53
Current Limitations
• Implemented only for the static stress analysis procedure

• Can use only linear continuum elements
• CPE4, CPS4, C3D4, C3D8 and their reduced integration/incompatible
counterparts
• Element processing is not done in parallel
• On SMP machines, only the solver runs in parallel
• Cannot run in parallel on DMP machines
• Contour integrals for stationary cracks not currently supported
• Cannot model fatigue crack growth
• Intended for single or a few non-interacting cracks in the structure
• Shattering cannot be modeled
• An element cannot be cut by more than one crack
• Crack cannot turn more than 90 degrees in one increment
• Crack cannot branch
L9.54
Current Limitations
• The first signed distance function F must be non-zero

• If the crack lies along an element boundary, a small positive or negative
value should be used
• This slightly offsets the crack from the element boundary
• Only frictionless small-sliding contact is considered
• The small-sliding assumption will result in nonphysical contact behavior
if the relative sliding between the contacting surfaces is indeed large
• Only enriched regions can have a material model with damage
• If only a portion of the model needs to be enriched define an extra
material model with no damage for the regions not enriched
• Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only
from the “lower” element (corresponding to negative values of F)

Workshop 6
L9.56
Workshop 6
• In this workshop, you will

continue with the analysis of a
cracked beam subjected to pure
bending using XFEM
• This workshop demonstrates:
• The ease of meshing and initial
crack definition compared to the
techniques presented in earlier
lectures
• The use of analysis controls

References
L9.58
References
1. I. Babuska and J. Melenk, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (1997), 40:727-758

2. T. Belytschko and T. Black, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng (1999), 45:601-620
3. A. Hansbo and P. Hansbo, Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng (2004),
193:3523-3540
4. J. H. Song, P. M. A. Areias and T. Belytschko, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng
(2006), 67:868-893

Fracture Lecture of Abaqus

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Fracture Lecture of Abaqus

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• This lecture is optional.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Objective of fracture mechanics

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• For engineering materials, such as metals, there are

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Brittle fracture in polycrystalline materials displays either cleavage

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Ductile fracture has a dimpled, cup-and-cone fracture appearance .

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Fracture process zone

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• The objective of LEFM is to predict the critical

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Stress intensity factor

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Asymptotic crack tip solutions

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• The leading-order terms of the asymptotic solution are:

r is the distance from the crack tip,

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• In reality, the crack tip is surrounded by the fracture process zone

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Some comments on fracture toughness

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Experimentally, the fracture toughness KC is a function of specimen

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Aside from temperature and thickness, the fracture toughness is also a

Variation in fracture toughness

• The resistance curve is used to predict crack growth stability.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

• Crack growth and stability

• The condition for stable continued crack growth is

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Small-scale yielding (SSY) means the region of inelastic deformation at

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

plane strain plane stress plane stress

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• If a is a characteristic dimension in the problem, such as remaining ligament

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• For some typical metal materials rp is calculated by matching the yield

A061-T651 (Al) 20 269 33 5 38

A075-T651 (Al) 20 620 36 0.35 8.4

AISI 4340 (Steel) 0 1500 33 0.05 1.2

A533-B (Steel) 93 620 200 11 260

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

• Energy principles play an important role in studying crack problems.