Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1397-1434, 1994
Copyright X; 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All mhts reserved
0022-5096194 $7.00 + 0.00
Pergamon
00225096(94)E0030--8
NUMERICAL
SIMULATIONS
OF FAST CRACK
IN BRITTLE
SOLIDS
GROWTH
of Engineering,
Brown University,
Providence,
RI 02912, U.S.A
ABSTRACT
Dynamic crack growth is analysed numerically for a plane strain block with an initial central crack subject
to tensile loading. The continuum
is characterized
by a material constitutive
law that relates stress and
strain, and by a relation between the tractions and displacement jumps across a specified set of cohesive
surfaces. The material constitutive relation is that of an isotropic hyperelastic solid. The cohesive surface
constitutive relation allows for the creation of new free surface and dimensional considerations
introduce
a characteristic
length into the formulation.
Full transient analyses are carried out. Crack branching
emerges as a natural outcome of the initial-boundary
value problem solution. without any ad hoc assumption regarding branching criteria. Coarse mesh calculations are used to explore various qualitative features
such as the effect of impact velocity on crack branching, and the effect of an inhomogeneity
in strength, as
in crack growth along or up to an interface. The effect of cohesive surface orientation on crack path is also
explored, and for a range of orientations
zigzag crack growth precedes crack branching.
Finer mesh
calculations are carried out where crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane. The crack accelerates
and then grows at a constant speed that. for high impact velocities, can exceed the Rayleigh wave speed.
This is due to the finite strength of the cohesive surfaces. A fine mesh calculation is also carried out where
the path of crack growth is not constrained.
The crack speed reaches about 45% of the Rayleigh wave
speed. then the crack speed begins to oscillate and crack branching at an angle of about 29 from the initial
crack plane occurs. The numerical
results are at least qualitatively
in accord with a wide variety of
experimental
observations
on fast crack growth in brittle solids.
1.
INTRODUCTION
13%
a wavy-crack
model in which the tendency of fast moving cracks to deviate from their
plane limits the apparent crack velocity to about half the Rayleigh wave speed. while
Slepyan (1993) has proposed a principle of maximum energy dissipation
to explain
limiting crack speeds. However, analyses relevant to these issues have relied on highly
idealized models. What has been lacking are full field solutions for fast moving cracks.
where the cracks are free to propagate away from the current crack plane.
In this investigation.
we carry out simulations of dynamic crack growth in isotropic
elastic solids. The theoretical
framework
is the cohesive surface decohesion
formulation
of Needleman
(1987). In previous work, attention
has been confined to
problems with a single cohesive surface. Here, to allow for a variety of possible
crack growth paths. potential surfaces of decohesion are interspersed throughout
the
material. The material failure characteristics
are embodied in the geometrical
and
constitutive
characterization
of the cohesive surfaces. The discretization
is based on
a finite element formulation.
with volume finite elements (or, in two dimensions.
area
finite elements) bordered by cohesive surface elements. Although the creation of neM
free surface must be along finite element boundaries.
the location and path are
otherwise unrestricted.
Furthermore.
new free surface is not required to emanate
continuously
from a pre-existing crack.
Crack initiation
and crack growth are calculated directly in terms of the elastic
properties of the material and of the parameters characterizing
the cohesive surface
separation
law. which include a strength and the work of separation
per unit area.
Hence, a characteristic
length enters the formulation.
This framework has been used
to address issues regarding void nucleation
(Needleman.
1987 : Tvergaard.
1990 ;
Povirk (It rd., 1991 ; Xu and Needleman,
1993), quasi-static crack growth (Needleman.
1990a,b; Tvergaard and Hutchinson
1992. 1993). stability of the separation process
(Suo ct al., 1992; Levy, 1994). and reinforcement
cracking in metal matrix composites
(Finot ct rd., 1994). The results obtained
here reproduce.
at least qualitatively.
a
variety of observed phenomena
on fast crack growth in brittle solids, including, for
example, crack branching.
the dependence
of crack speed on impact velocity and
abrupt crack arrest. There is no unified description
of these phenomena
within a
traditional
fracture mechanics framework.
The specific problem analysed is a block with an initial central crack. Plane strain
conditions
are assumed to prevail. The loading is tensile. with a constant imposed
velocity after a small rise time. The material is characterized
as an isotropic hypcrelastic solid and full finite strain transient
analyses are carried out. Although
the
strains generally remain small. the finite strain formulation
properly accounts for the
local large strains and rotations accompanying
separation of cohesive surfaces. In the
plane of deformation,
the cohesive surfaces are lines parallel to the coordinate
axes
and at 45 to them. Some calculations
exploring the effect of varying the cohesive
surface orientation
are also carried out. The cohesive surface constitutive
relation is
that given by Xu and Needleman
(1993). and allows for tangential as well as normal
separation.
Although attention is focused on brittle crack growth. computational
modelling of
the creation of new free surface along arbitrary paths is important
in a wide variety
of applications;
for example. in other branches of fracture mechanics and in the
analysis of manufacturing
processes such as machining. For ductile fracture of metals
Simulations
1399
3
_.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
The continuum
is characterized
by two constitutive relations ; a volumetric constitutive law that relates stress and strain, and a cohesive surface constitutive
relation
between the tractions and displacement
jumps across a specified set of cohesive
surfaces, that are interspersed throughout
the continuum.
A convected coordinate Lagrangian formulation
is employed with the initial undeformed configuration
taken as reference, so that all field quantities are considered to
be functions of convected coordinates,
J, which serve as particle labels, and time t.
Relative to a fixed Cartesian frame, the position of a material point in the initial
configuration
is denoted by x. In the current configuration
the material point initially
at x is at X. The displacement
vector u and the deformation
gradient F are defined by
u=x-x,
The undeformed
F_%,
8X
configuration
are
work is written
1987; Xu and
X.-P. XI
I400
and A. NEEDLEMAN
T = V.S.
The volumetric
constitutive
(5)
hyperelastic
solid so that
taken as
IZ = jE : I> : E.
(7)
Kirchholf
stress. S. and
(8)
F-1).
(9)
where I is the identity tensor, ( ) denotes the inverse. and ( ) denotes the transpose.
In component
form the moduli are taken to be
(10)
with E being Youngs modulus and 1Poissons ratio.
Although
a full finite deformation
formulation
is employed,
tinite strain and
rotation effects are negligible in the circumstances
considered.
except very locally
where new free surface is being created. The general features of the overall response
are accurately described by linear isotropic elasticity. For example. the speeds oi
dilatational,
shear and Rayleigh surface waves are [see, e.g. Freund (1990)]
Simulations
traction
1401
The specific form used for the potential C#Iis one given by Xu and Needleman
that allows for tangential, as well as normal, decohesion. Restricting attention
dimensions,
(1993)
to two
where n and tare the normal and tangent, respectively, to the surface at a given point
in the reference configuration,
and A,, = n *A and A, = t-A.
In (13).
(14)
where 4,Z is the work of normal separation,
4, is the work of tangential separation,
and AZ is the value of A,, after complete shear separation with T,,
= 0.The normal
work of separation, c$!,,and the shear work of separation, I$,, can be written as
Here, e = exp (I), and gmax and TV,, are the cohesive surface normal strength and
tangential strength, respectively, and 6,, and 6, are corresponding
characteristic lengths.
The cohesive surface tractions are obtained from (12) and ( 13) as
T,,=
-?exp(-?)kexp(-$)+z[l-exp(-$)][r-$11.
T,=
-f(2~~)${q+(~)$~exp(-$)exp(-$).
(16)
(17)
Figure l(a) shows the normal traction across the surface, T,,, as a function of A,,
with A, z 0. The maximum
value of - T,,is crmilr and occurs when A,, = 6,,. The
variation of T,with A,, given by (I 7) when A, = 0, is shown in Fig. 1(b). The maximum
value of 1T,1= z,,,~~
is attained when 1AI / = @6,/2.
In most of the computations
all cohesive surfaces are taken to have identical
cohesive properties. Unless specified otherwise, these are crrndl= E/10= 324.0 MPa,
= 755.4 MPa and a,, = 6, = 4.0 x lo-
m, so that (15) gives q = 1 with
2::
4, = 352.3 J rnd2. The remaining parameter in (13), (16) and (17), r, is taken to
be zero. In order to give some indication of the implications
of the cohesive surface
characterization
for fracture toughness, we note that for Mode I crack-like behavior
X.-P.
1402
XI
and A. NEEl)I.EMAh
1.5~
in plane strain .I,, = &,, (Rice, 196X). Using the relation K,, = b EJ,_ ( I - 11). the
material and cohesive surface parameters correspond to K,, == 1.14 MPa ,\: 111.
The c~~~t~put~~t~onsare carried out for a center cracked r~ct~llt~uI~~r block as shown
in Fig. 2. Plane strain conditions
are assumed to prevail and ;I Cartesian coordinate
system is used as reference, with the ,I. ,I. plane being the plane oldeformation.
The
length ofthe specimen is 3L and the width is I?II,. The tensile axis is aligned with the
I,-direction and a crack of initial length 2~1,lies along the line ,\. = 0. At / = 0. the body
is stress free and at rest. u(J~..I., 0) = 0 and h(~, .j-. 0) = 0. Attention is restricted to
de~orI~~~tioIls that remain symmetric about 3. = 0. with the region analyscd numcrially being J 2 0.
The boundary conditions on .I. = + L are
Simulations
t
Fig. 2. Geometry
V+(t)dt,
uz=
T=O
1403
on
block
y*=L
(18)
y2 = -L,
(19)
s
and
uz =
V_(t)dt,
T =0
on
c
where
VI tit,,
v
V+(f) =
ir
v,t/t,,
v
i 2,
for t 4 t, ;
i
V-(t)
Here, either
Symmetry
for I d t, ;
for t > t,,
(21)
traction
7nz,,O
(22)
1= 0.
(23)
free
T = 0,
The initial crack is specified by having J? = 0 as a cohesive surface for which G,,,, =
Gui.
r max=OforOd~~
In order to facilitate interpretation
of the results, dimensional
values are used for
the material, cohesive and geometric parameters.
Key dimensionless
groups include
VI/cd, amirn/E, a,/6,, and L/q,. In linear elasticity, the stress carried by the loading wave
is proportional
to V,, so that V,/c,, is a measure of this stress magnitude
relative to
E. The ratio of Vi/cd and amaxlE is a measure of the ratio of the stress carried by the
loading wave to the cohesive surface strength. Since the formulation
contains a
characteristic
length, the behavior depends on the ratio of the specimen size to this
characteristic
length. Crack-like behavior is obtained when all specimen dimensions
1404
= 1, KdC+[,
Wdr+/\
,,,,~/~d.S.
(24)
where
The work done by the imposed loading is partitioned into kinetic energy. strain energy
stored in the material volume and elastic energy stored in the cohesive surfaces. Over
the course of the deformation
history the relative proportions
of the three terms on
the right-hand side of (34) will vary substantially.
3.
NUMERICAL
IMPLEMENTATION
Simulations
1405
(a)
lb)
(cl
I406
this has been found preferable for explicit time integration procedures. from the point
of view of accuracy as well as computational
etficiency (Krieg and Key. 1973). An
explicit time integration
scheme that is based on the Newmark /i-method with /i = 0
is used to integrate (26) to obtain the nodal velocities and the nodal displacements
(Belytschko 01 trl.. 1976) via
(-[;
/,,
_,
(
iu,,_,
i/
iI:,,
i/
M -It,,
,.
(2X)
I-
I
+ -At,,
3
(29)
Here. the subscripts II and II + I refer to quantities evaluated at I,, and I,, , , . respectivei!.
At each time step, displacements
LJ,,, , are obtained from (27). The volumetric
constitutive
updating LISCS (U,,., , - U,,):A/,, to represent the displacement
rate components. The stress components.
5. and strain components.
I?,,. at I,, , are obtained
from
is
i I:.,,
tic,,),,, , = (fc,),,+- i,
A/t,.
(.30)
where CS)i/ and iE,,, i/ are related by the moduli (IO). The cohesive surface tractions
from
T,, and T, are calculated from ( 16) and ( 17). The force vector K,, , is determined
the left-hand side of (4) (there are no prescribed tractions on the external surlhcc).
Accelerations
and velocities at I,, , arc then obtained from (28) and (29).
The three meshes shown in Fig. 4 are used in the calculations.
In each case. the
mesh consists of a uniform region around the initial crack tip surrounded
by ;I
graduated mesh out to the block boundaries.
Rather coarse ~mxl~~s. ax shown in Fig.
4(a) with 40 x 40 quadrilaterals
and 12 x 40 squares of side length 0.075 mm, are used
to explore some qualitative features of the behavior of the model. This mesh has 6400
triangular elements and 38.400 degrees of freedom. The mesh in Fig. 4(b) consists of
100 quadrilaterals
in the .I,-direction and 40 quadrilaterals
in the I,-direction giving
16.000 triangular elements and 96,000 degrees of freedom. The uniform mesh in front
of the initial crack tip is comprised of X0 x 15 rectangles. In most calculations
using
this resolution. these are 0.01875 mm x 0.0 I X75 mm squares and so extend I .S mm in
front of the initial crack tip. A 700 x 120 quadrilateral
mesh (336.000
triangular
elements and 2,016.OOO degrees of freedom when aII element boundaries are cohesive
surfaces) is shown in Figs 4(c) and 4(d). In this case. the uniform region also extends
1.S mm in front of the initial crack tip. but has 600 x 40 square elements. with side
length 0.0025 mm.
Initially, there is a well-defined
crack tip location, namely the terminus of the
interval over which CJ,,
,,,, = T,,,,,, = 0. Once crack growth initiates, this is no longer the
case because of the continuous
dependence of the cohesive surface tractions on the
displacement jump A. For presentation
of the results, the largest value 0f.j. for which
(d)
(a)
a:
Simulations
I409
A,, 3 6,, is recorded together with the current time. This value of J is denoted by cl
and is identified with the current crack tip position. A quadratic polynomial
is fit
through three points of the a versus t curve, say (I,,_, , u,, and a,,, , , and the slope of
this quadratic at t,, is taken as the crack speed at t,,, ci,,. Note that this procedure does
not guarantee that the location so recorded is continuously
connected to the current
main crack. Presuming that there is such a continuous
connection
(the numerical
results indicate that this is generally the case), the value recorded numerically
corresponds to the projection of the current crack tip location on the initial crack line.
Some numerical experiments were carried out using other values of A,, to define the
crack location, e.g. 26,, or 5d,,, and the predictions of crack location and crack speed
were not sensitive to the precise choice.
4.
QUALITATIVE
BEHAVIOR
plotting
program
Tecplot
Inc.. Bellewe.
WA
1310
diagonals
at 45 to the coordiwte
:tscs and with each plonc strain i~rcil clement
surrounded
by cohesive surface elements. Clearly. the mesh ib not fine enough to
resolve detailed fields around the crack tip. Nevertheless. the analyses illustrate qualitative features of observed failure behavior. Note also that although crack branching
can only take place parallel to the coordinate
axes or at 1-45 to them, the o\er~ll
branching angle is noticeably less than 45 from the .1,-axis.
Figure 6 illustrates the elect of varying the impact velocity. Symmetric loading ib
imposed; in Fig. 6(a). V, = - J., == I.0 m s . lvhile in Fig. h(b) J, .= ..- 1~: = 15.0
n-l s . The main feature of the results is that the higher the impact velocity the lea
crack growth ther-c is before branchins.
With J., = I .O III s. crack br~tllcll~i~~ occurs
Simulations
0-3
Fig. 6. Deformed finite element meshes for blocks with L = I.5 mm, IV= 3 mm and N, = 0.3 mm.
Syn nmetric loading with V, = - V2 = 1 m SC. (b) Symmetric loading with V, = - V, = ISms~ .
ta)
tb)
Simulations
fa)
tb)
Fig. 8. Deformed finite element meshes for the blocks with t = 1.5 mm. tt = 3 mm and n, = 0.3 mm. (a)
The cohesive strength is reduced by 10% in y2 > 0 and increased by 10% in J, < 0, while the cohesive
strength along J. = 0 has the standard values CJ,,, = 324.0 MPa and r,,,;,, = 755.4 MPa. (b) The cohesive
strength has the standard values for 0 < ,I. < I mm and is increased by a factor of 3 for _I, 3 I mm.
1414
Simulations
1415
1200.0
T 600.0
E
.rn
400.0
200.0
0.0
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5 IO .O
t (WI
Fig. 9. Curves of crack speed, d. versus time, I, for the cases shown in Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 8(b). For
comparison
purposes, a curve of crack speed versus time is shown for a calculation where crack growth is
confined to 1. = 0. For the case in Fig. 7(a), crack speeds based on two definitions of crack position are
shown; A,, = 6,, and A,, = 56,,. The dashed line shows the Rayleigh wave speed.
curve
1316
24o i
-..- .- .-. -.-.. Work of imposed loading
energy, the strain energy and the elastic energy stored in the cohesive surfaces wcr~
computed and, to a very good ~~pl.oxinl~tioll.
their sum was equal to the work done
by the imposed loading throughout
the deformation
history.
5
_.
CRACK
GROWTH
Figure I1 (a) shows curves of crack speed. ir, versus time for three c~~lc~ll~iti~~lls
where crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane. The fine mesh in Figs 4(c)
and 4(d) is used for these calculations.
but symmetry about ,I. = 0 is imposed so that
only the region ,? 3 0 is analysed numerically.
The only cohesive surface is along
j* = 0 and symmetry about j = 0 is imposed by setting I = (/ = 0. with 6, 7t 0. so
that T = 0 on J = 0. Two block sizes are considered. In both cases. 11~= 10 mm and
(I, = 4.25 mm. For one block L_= I mm, while f. = 3 mm for the other. With f_ = I
mm. the first loading wave arrives at the crack plane at / = 0.48 ,us, the second zt
t = I .44 J~Sand the third at t = 2.39 ps. When L = 3 mm, the loading wave arrives at
I = 1.44 /IS and there are no further wave arrivals over the time interval considered.
The impact velocities are V, = 1Om sag with L = I mm and both I/, = I5 and 30 m
for five impact velocities for the block with II = 10
s1 with L = 3 mm. Calculations
mm and L = 3 mm are shown in Fig. I l(b) using the mesh in Fig. 4(b).
In Fig. 1l(a). when there are no wave reflections (L = 3 mm). the crack speed
increases smoothly to a limiting speed. With V, = I5 m s . a constant speed. just
below the Rayleigh wave speed. is reached when the crack has grown through 340
elements and the plateau corresponds
to growth through 250 elements (the uniform
region of the mesh extends 600 elements in front of the initial crack tip). With I, = 30
m s , ;i constant crack speed is reached after crack growth through 260 elements
and this is maintained
as crack growth extends through 330 elements. In this case.
however. the crack speed is 1010 m s-. which is 7.7% above the Rayleigh W;L\Y
Stmulations
1417
speed. Similar trends are seen in Fig. 1 I(b), with the limiting crack speeds being
slightly slower with the coarser mesh. The calculations in Fig. 11(b) show that as the
impact velocity increases, the crack speeds attained get closer together and appear to
be approaching a limiting value. The small amplitude, high frequency fluctuations in
Fig. I l(a) are a consequence of the discretization and the frequency of these fluctuations is lower in Fig. 11(b), where the mesh spacing is larger.
The good agreement between the limiting crack speeds in Figs 11(a) and 1l(b),
1000.0
L=Smm, V,&Omfs
L=3mm, V,=lSm/s
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
t (WI
1000.0
800.0
F
5600.0
.tU
400.0
200.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
p
v =30&s
/,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,/.,,,,,/.,,
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
4.5
5.0
t (Id
141x
,,,,
,.,,/I,,,,
,.,,,,,
,,,/,,,I
L=Smm
500.0 -
400.0
N~300.0
2
7
200.0
V,=l5m/s
/
i
100.0 -
0.0 ""
0.0
0.5
"""'1"""""'
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
"I
3.0
"4
"'
3.5
40
t (lls)
(c)
t.q! I I (~~oil//Jr/wr/)
where the node spacings in the miilorm mesh region ditter by 2~factor of 7.5. show\
that the crack speed exceeding the Rayleigh wave speed is not an artifact of the spatial
discretization.
Furthermore,
with I,, = 30 m s . a numerical experiment in\,olving
increasing the time step by a factor of 5 did not result in a significant change in the
crack speed. although the amplitude
of the high frequency fluctuations
about
the
111eat1 speed did increase substantially.
That the crack speed can exceed the Rayleigh wa\c speed IS a consquence
of the
cohesive surface model. Under quasi-static loading conditions and for non-vanishing
ci,,. decohesion
involves a combination
of crack-like propagation
and ;I lifting-of
mode of separation. Needleman (1990a). To see the implications
of this in the prcscnt
circumstances.
consider ;I plane
wave
impinging
on a cohesi\c surface capable of
purely normal separation.
q = I. = 0 in ( 16). If the stress cnrricd by the plane \va\c
exceeds (T,,,,,,. decohesion
can
occur
uniformly
along
the
surface (cdpe clttcts and
stability considerations
aside) in a lifting-off mode. so that the apparent
speed 01
propagation
along the surface is infinite. With a crack-like defect. the amount of lifoff increases with the amplitude of the loading wave and this can act to increase
the
speed of propagation
when the crack tip position is defined by an opening
displacement. At I., = 30 m s . the stress carried by the loading wave is 231~0 otrr,,,,,,. so that
the effects of the finite strength
are not negligible. Evidence for this is seen in the crack
speed versus time curve for the block with L = I mm and I , = IO 111
s . The rclati\cl\,
abrupt increase in crack speed at I 2 2.4 jts is associated with the art-i\21 of ;I retlected
loading wave.
Figure 1l(c) shows curves of Rices (1968) ./-integral \crsus time. where under
dynamic loading conditions
the computation
of J involves an area integral as well as
a line integral.
as in Nakamura CI N/. (I 985). Here, ./was computed on several contours
ignoring any contribution
of the cohesive surface. Suficiently
far away from the
current crack tip path independent
J values arc obtained. within 2.5!~1over the time
interval in Fig. I I (c) and with even less variation in the early stages of crack gro\vth
1419
X.-P.
of
1421
Fig. 15. Deformed finite element meshes at three stages of crack growth for a w = IO mm x L = I mm
black with V, = - Vz = IO m s- using a 700 x I20 ~~adrj~~t~ra~mesh. The extent ofthe region shoxvn is
0.767 mm in the y-direction and 0.4 mm in the ,y-dire&on and the left edge is the initial crack tip posirian.
(a) At t = 1.50jts. (b) At t = 1.75ps. fcf At I = 2.25 #is.
1422
225
200
17s
150
$25
toa
75
50
25
0
Fg.
17. Contours
of Cauchy
Simulations
1423
200
175
150
125
loo
75
50
25
0
I424
(4
Simulations
1425
(within 1% at initiation).
With V, = 10 and 15 m SK, crack growth begins when J
has increased to $,,. With V, = 30 m SK, crack growth begins when J = 346 J me2.
which is 1.8% below 4,,. This may be an effect of the lift-off that occurs at high stress
levels. In any case, J is nearly constant during the early stages of crack growth and
then exceeds 4,,. For the two cases with L = 3 mm, J is varying while there is a
clearly constant value of the crack speed. Values of J were also calculated for the
computations
in Fig. 1 l(b), but high frequency numerical
oscillations
in J were
obtained with the coarser mesh and these masked any trends.
Contours of the axial physical component of Cauchy stress, g2?, are shown in Figs
12 and 13. Figure 12(a) is for the calculation with V, = 15 m s- and b = 928 m s- .
while V, = 30 m ss and ir = 1010 m SK in Fig. 13(a) (recall that the Rayleigh wave
speed is 938 m s-l). For comparison
purposes, corresponding
contours from the
asymptotic
linear elastic field (Freund,
1990, p. 163), are plotted in the current
configuration
in Figs 12(b) and 13(b) for crack speeds of 870 and 910 m SK, respectively. These values of crack speed, with the amplitude of the singular field computed
from the current value of J, were chosen to provide a qualitative, visual match to the
location, shape and orientation
of the stress contours in the range between 100 and
150 MPa. In both cases, the high stresses very near the crack tip that are predicted by
the asymptotic field are reduced by the lift-off. This is particularly
evident in Fig. 13.
The contour plots in Figs 12 and 13 are taken from the last time step of each
calculation
and the fit in Fig. 12 is substantially
better than in Fig. 13. One possible
explanation
is that at higher speeds the region of dominance of the singular fields is
smaller so that the role of non-singular
terms is greater. Another explanation
for the
greater discrepancy
in Fig. 13 is that at the higher crack speed, the time for the
singular field to develop is greater. Although the crack speeds are constant, the stress
fields are evolving and appear to be tending to the linear elastic singular fields.
Approximately
at least, there does appear to be a ring where the stress field is
reasonably
described by the linear elastic singular field, but corresponding
to a
crack speed lower than the actual crack speed. In conventional
linear elastic fracture
mechanics the energy supplied to the crack tip vanishes at the Rayleigh wave speed
(Freund,
1990). If the crack tip stress field is described by a singular linear elastic
crack tip field with a positive energy release rate, that field must correspond
to one
for a crack speed less than the Rayleigh wave speed.
Figure 14 shows a curve of crack speed versus time for a calculation
for the block
with L = 1 mm and where all element boundaries
are cohesive surfaces. Symmetric
loading with V, = - VZ = 10 m SK and the fine mesh in Figs 4(c) and 4(d) is used.
For comparison
purposes. the crack speed versus time curve for the same block size
and loading conditions is repeated from Fig. 11. Crack initiation is somewhat delayed
because the additional
compliance
of the cohesive surfaces somewhat reduces the
stress concentration
at the initial crack tip. The crack speed at first increases smoothly.
then an oscillating crack speed versus time curve is obtained. The crack speed reaches
about 420 m s- (0.45~~) before the first large oscillation in crack speed, which occurs
between t = 1.40 and 1.42 ps. This is shortly before the arrival of the reflected stress
wave at t = 1.44 ps. There are then some high frequency, relatively low amplitude
oscillations in crack speed followed by an attempted branching that gives rise to the
large drop in crack speed at t = 1.57 ps. Crack growth then resumes on the initial
1426
X.-P.
I
Constrained
XU and A. NEEDLEMAN
crack path
z600.0
.!%
.a
400.0
crack plane and the crack speed increases. The crack bifurcates into two branches at
about I = 1.75 ~_ts. In the latter stages of crack growth the mean crack speed is
2350 m s (~0.37c,).
The oscillations
in crack speed for the calculation
with
unconstrained
crack growth are of larger amplitude and lower frequency than the
discretization
induced fluctuations.
Typically. from peak to trough. the crack has
grown through two quadrilateral
elements.
Three stages of crack growth are shown in Fig. 15. Crack growth is initially straight
and the stage shown in Fig. 15(a) is after the first large oscillation in the crack speed
versus time curve in Fig. 14. There is an initial attempt at branching
off the crack
plane that results in a slight asymmetry
about J. = 0. even though the block configuration and loading are symmetric about this axis. This unsuccessful
attempt at
branching results in the protuberance
on the lower crack surface in Fig. 15(b). Crack
branching is not quite symmetric, but for both branches the angle of crack branching
is about 29 in Fig. 15(c). After branching. the crack path changes direction to become
more or less parallel to the j,-axis. as in Figs 6 and 7(a). The initiation of additional
branching can be seen in Fig. 15(c), particularly
in the lower branch.
Figure 16 shows the current crack tip configuration
at three stages of deformation.
In Figs 16(a) and 16(b), the crack growth continues straight ahead. although openings
at k45
to the current crack plane are evident. Figure 16(b) shows that the crack
continued to grow along its initial line and that some of the micro-cracks in Fig. 16(a)
have healed. Figure 16(c) is near the beginning
of crack branching.
Some microcracking not directly connected to the current crack tip can be seen in Fig. 16(c).
In Fig. 17. contour plots of the axial physical component
of Cauchy stress, (T:?. are
shown at the same three stages of crack growth and to the same scale as in Fig. 15.
The first stage is before crack branching, and the expected shape of the elastic singular
field is evident. Even though the amount of crack branching
is small in Fig. 17(b).
Fig. 16.Deformed meshes near the current crack tip at three stages cfcrack growth for 8 M= t 0 mm x t = I
mm block with I/, -I - tl; = 10 m s-l using a 700 x IX! mesh. The extent of the region shawn is 0.07h7
mm in the ,v-directian and 0.04 mm in the )--dire&cm. (aa) At 2 = 125 $s, (b) At I = 1.50 jw. Ic) At
f = 1,75ps.
14%
X.-P.
XU and A. IcEEDLEMAI\;
the surrounding
stress field is affected. After substantial
branching.
Fig. 17(c). local
high stress fields have developed near the tip of each branch. However. the beginning
of further branching can be seen at this stage.
The contour plots of (TV),,,
the hoop stress component
in a polar coordinate system
centered at the current crack tip position with 0 measured from the J-axis. in Fig. IX
show the stress distribution
near the current crack tip (the same region as shown in
Fig. 16). At the stage shown in Fig. IS(a), the crack speed VU-sus time curve is still
smooth and crack growth is straight ahead. Figure 1X(b) is the same stage of crack
growth as Fig. 17(a) and there is crack growth along several directions
lrom the
current crack tip. It appears that each branch is essentially growing in a Mode I
fashion. However. the very local details are not resolved by the discretization
used
here. For example, the extensions at the tip of the main crack extend only one or two
elements and with the constant strain triangles. the detailed stress distribution
around
the new branches is not resolved. In any case, crack growth immediately
following
the stage in Fig. 18(b) is straight ahead and the additional
branches close. Figure
IX(c) is the same stage as Fig. 17(b) ; crack growth now continues along the branches
off the initial crack line and the opening directly in front of the main crack closes.
Some opening of the cohesive surfaces can be seen in the region around the main
crack tip as a consequence
of the relatively high stresses that occur away from the
main crack tip.
In all the calculations
so far. the cohesive surfaces not along the coordinate
axe\
have been taken to be at + 45 to them. Figures 19 and 20 show the effects of varying
this angle. Curves of crack speed versus time for cohesive surfaces at IS . 45 and 60
to the initial crack line are shown in Fig. 19. Figure 20 shows the modes of crack
growth for four cases; 15 , 30 . 45 and 60 cohesive surfaces (for clarity, curbus of
crack speed versus time are only shown for three of these cases in Fig. 19). In these
800.0 -
T600.0
g
.CU
Simulations
1429
6.
DISCUSSION
When crack growth is confined to the initial crack plane, and over a time scale
before wave reflections from the block boundaries reach the crack, the crack speed
reaches a plateau that increases with increasing impact velocity and that appears to
be reaching a limiting value for large impact velocities [Fig. 11(b)]. What is surprising
is that this plateau can exceed the Rayleigh wave speed. This can be understood as a
consequence of the finite strength of the cohesive surface; for V, = 30 m s-, the
stress carried by the loading wave is 23% of urnaxand the separation mode is a
combination ofcrack-like propagation and lift-off. It seems plausible that the Rayleigh
wave speed limit would be obtained as crmax---fcc, because for Mode I crack-like
behavior conventional fracture mechanics corresponds to the limit cmax-+ co and 6,, -+ 0
(with & remaining finite). It is interesting to note that crack speeds inferred from
linear elastic singular fields, as in Figs 12 and 13, are less than the Rayleigh wave
speed. Thus, the present results suggest the possibility that crack speeds determined
I430
experimentally
from a measure of crack position versus time and those determined
from a measure of the crack tip stress field could differ.
The calculations
provide a rationale for the result that very high crack speeds.
approaching
90% of the Rayleigh wave speed. have been measured in -anisotropic
solids, but that limiting crack speeds in isotropic solids are closer to 50% of the
Rayleigh wave speed (Field, 1971). The cohesive surface formulation
indicates that
what matters is the orientation
dependence
of strength, with the initial crack plane
being weaker than alternative
cleavage planes, so that crack growth off the initial
crack plane is suppressed. or at least delayed. Similarly, the observation
that very fast
crack speeds can be obtained
in isotropic solids when the initial crack plane is
intentionally
weakened (Lee and Knauss, 19X9) is consistent with the present results.
For fast cracks very large stresses occur over some distance around the crack. Some
microcracking
unconnected
to the main crack is seen in the computations
even though
the cohesive properties have been taken to be uniform. lf some statistical distribution
of defects were included in the problem formulation,
more extensive microcrackins
would be expected.
Yoffe (1951) observed that the hoop stress maximum shifts to about 60 from the
initial crack plane when the crack speed exceeds O.~C,. This has been identitied as the
speed for crack branching
given by linear elastic fracture mechanics.
so that the
general observation
that crack branching and crack surface roughening are associated
The picture of crack growth that
with crack speeds 20.4~, has been unexplained.
emerges from the calculations
here is as if the crack were performing a stability test
at each step. Some crack growth occurs along each cohesive surface emanating from
the current crack tip. A point is reached at which one or more of the incipient cracks
continue to grow and the remaining unload and close. The oscillations
in the crack
speed versus time curves occur shortly before crack branching and are not associated
with any dramatic change in the mode of crack growth; crack extension appears to
slow down as growth occurs along several alternative
branches and then speed up
when the crack extends along one or more of these branches and the others heal. This
scenario suggests that the crack speed oscillations are associated with the resistance
to crack growth being nearly the same for straight ahead growth as for growth along
the inclined branches.
Indeed, Rice ct (I/. (1994) have recently observed that the
analyses of Eshelby (1970) and Freund (1972) indicate that there is enough energy
available to create two crack surfaces as was available to create one when the crack
speed is about 0.45~,,.
Once the point of incipient branching
is reached, the branching
process can be
sensitive to small perturbations.
For example, the very small asymmetries induced by
the numerics leads to the somewhat asymmetric mode of crack growth in Fig. 15. The
sensitivity to numerical perturbations
is more pronounced
in Fig. 20. For the cases
with cohesive surfaces at + 15 and + 30 to the coordinate
axes, crack growth
initiates in a zigzag mode, even though the block configuration
and the loading are
symmetric. Within the context of the cohesive surface model. the tendency to zigzag
depends on the orientation
of the cohesive surfaces relative to the initial crack line.
The crack growth mode prior to branching is much like the wavy crack mode discussed
by Gao (1993).
The oscillations in the crack speed versus time curve in Fig. 14 are very much like
Simulations
1431
I431
Simulations
1433
in detail, the relation between the mode of crack growth and crack speed. The present
formulation, perhaps involving other cohesive surface and material constitutive
relations, can be used to investigate a variety of fracture processes that have not, at
least readily, been amenable to treatment within a conventional fracture mechanics
framework.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant DDM-9016568.
We are grateful to Professor L. B. Freund of Brown University for helpful discussions. A.N.s
work on this topic was stimulated by participation
in the program on Spatially Extended
Nonequilibrium
Systems at the Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California.
Santa Barbara during October-November
1992. The computations
were carried out on the
Cray C90 computer at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing
Center.
REFERENCES
Belytschko, T., Chiapetta,
R. L. and Bartel, H. D. (1976) Efficient large scale non-linear
transient analysis by finite elements. ht. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 10, 579.. 596.
Belytschko, T., Lu, Y. Y. and Gu, L. (1994) Element free Galerkin methods. ht. J. Numer.
Mcth. Engng 37, 229-256.
Broberg. K. B. (1979) On the behaviour of the process region at a fast running crack tip. H&h
Velocity D~~~r~~at~ana_fSoiid.~ (ed. K. Kawata and J. Shioiri), pp. 182-194. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Eshelby, J. D. (1970) Energy relations and the energy-momentum
tensor in continuum mechanics. Inelastic Behariur cfSo/ids (ed. M. F. Kanninen, W. F. Adler, A. R. Rosenfield and
R. I. Jaffe), pp. 77-l 15. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Field, J. E. (1971) Brittle fracture : its study and application. Cuntemp. Ph?Fs. 12, l-31.
Fineberg, J., Gross, S. P.. Marder, M. and Swinney, H. L. (1992) Instability in the propagation
of fast cracks. PhJs. Rec. B45, 5146--5154.
Finot, M., Shen, Y.-L., Needleman, A. and Suresh, S. (1994) Micromechanical
modelling of
reinforcement
fracture in particle-reinforced
metal-matrix composites. Metall. Trans. (to be
published).
Freund, L. B. (1972) Crack propagation
in an elastic solid subject to general loading-I.
Constant rate of extension. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 20, 129-140.
Freund, L. B. (1990) Dynamic Fracture Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gao, H. (1993) Surface roughening and branching instabilities in dynamic fracture. J. Hertz.
Phys. Solids 41,457-486.
Johnson, E. (1992) Process region changes for rapidly propagating
cracks. ht. J. Fract. 55,
47-63.
Johnson, E. (1993) Process region influence on energy release rate and crack tip velocity during
rapid crack propagation.
ht. J. Fract. 61, 183-187.
Krieg, R. D. and Key, S. W. (1973) Transient shell response by numerical time integration.
Int. J. Numrr. Meths. Engng 7, 273-286.
Kulakhmetova.
Sh. A., Saraikin, V. A. and Slepyan, L. 1. (1984) Plane problem of a crack in
a lattice. Me&. Solids 19, 102-108.
Lee, 0. S. and Knauss, W. G. (1989) Dynamic crack propagation along a weakly bonded plane
in a polymer. E-y. Mech. 29, 342-345.
Levy, A. J. (1994) Separation at a circular interface under biaxial load. J. Me&. Phys. Solids
42, 1087-I 104.
Marder. M. and Liu, X. (1993) Instability in lattice fracture. P&s. Rev. Lett. 71, 2417-2420.
1434