Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 8 (1987) 137-150 137

North-Holland

INTERACTIVE FINITE E L E M E N T ANALYSIS OF FRACTURE P R O C E S S E S :

AN INTEGRATED A P P R O A C H

P.A. W A W R Z Y N E K and A.R. I N G R A F F E A

Department of Structural Engineering and Program of Computer Graphics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N Y 14853, U.S.A.

A fracture analysis program has been developed which incorporates the concepts of finite element analysis, fracture
mechanics, computer graphics, finite element postprocessing, automatic mesh generation, and data base design. The program
FRANC (FRacture ANalysis Code) is a tool which allows a practicing engineer or a researcher to perform an incremental
fracture analysis at his desk. The program draws on a substantial experience base and this paper describes the philosophy of
the program and the integration of its parts. Also, a number of example problems will be presented which show some results
of incremental fracture analyses.

1. Introduction more rigorous mathematical manner. In addition

Computational fracture mechanics is a field
which has reached, although it is relatively young,
a certain level of maturity. It is possible, using
techniques developed over the past twenty years,
to obtain numerically accurate stress-intensity fac-
tor values for an arbitrary structure and to per-
form many types of non-linear fracture analyses.
A problem is that numerical fracture work is
usually done within the framework of the finite
element method and the analyst is often forced to
use programs and tools which were not designed
for fracture mechanics investigations. In the case
of a discrete crack model the analyst is often
forced to mesh the area around the crack tip by
hand because most preprocessors will not easily
place crack tip elements of the proper size and
shape around a crack tip. Also, for the discrete
model, to extract stress-intensity values the analyst
must post-process the FEM results or formulate
elements which have stress-intensities as nodal
variables. In the non-discrete or smeared crack
model the analyst must introduce constitutive rules
which simulate the fracture process and also must
heed constraints in meshing because the size of the
elements in the mesh can affect profoundly the
simulated fracture process.
In the past twenty years there have also been
many developments in fields related to computa-
tional fracture mechanics. The finite element
method has been applied to a much wider range of
problems and has been formulated in a much
to developments within the finite element method
itself there have been great strides made in the
areas of finite element preprocessing and post-
processing. Much of the tedious and error prone
work of creating a finite element mesh can now be
done in an automatic or semi-automatic manner.
With postprocessing tools the analyst can often
just look at a picture of the results and extract
response quantities from the region of interest
rather than sifting through pages of computer
output. Driving the developments in preprocessing
and postprocessing software are the developments
in interactive computer graphics hardware and
software. It is now possible to use a minicom-
puter-based workstation that will sit on or under
an analyst's desk to perform finite element analy-
sis. These workstations typically have speed and
power which exceed that of main frame computers
of ten or fifteen years ago. These workstations
also have graphic capabilities which were only
available in expensive or prototype systems until
recently. A workstation provides the ideal en-
vironment in which an analyst can interact with a
computational simulation. Finally, the field of
solid modeling has fostered the development of
data-base designs which can efficiently store and
manipulate polygonal information necessary for
finite dement preprocessing, postprocessing, and
analysis.
All of the above mentioned topics (finite ele-
ment analysis, fracture mechanics, computer
graphics, finite element postprocessing, automatic

0167-8442/87/$3.50 © 1987, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

138 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. lngraffea / Interactioe finite element analysis
mesh generation, and data base design) have been
brought together in the development of the FRac-
ture ANalysis Code (FRANC). The resulting pro-
gram allows an analyst to model discrete cracks
propagating through a structure and to monitor
the important fracture mechanics parameters at
each step of the analysis. The analyst works in an
interactive computer graphics environment where
the model being analyzed is constantly displayed.
The analyst navigates through the various portions
of the program by means of menus which are
always displayed next to the model. Menu choices
are picked and interaction with the model is per-
formed by pointing with a mouse or a digitizing
tablet, By pointing to the screen, rather than typ-
ing commands, a natural dialogue is developed
between the analyst and the program. Also by
incorporating preprocessing and postprocessing
features into one program the analyst can adjust
analysis parameters or view intermediate results
without leaving the program.
The next six sections describe in detail the
topics which influenced the design of FRANC. The
eighth section discusses how these topics are in-
tegrated. The ninth section shows a number of
example problems which highlight the program's
capabilities. The final section contains a summary
of the paper.
2. Finite element analysis
The finite element method is used in FRANC to
compute the displacements and stresses in an arbi-
trary structure subjected to arbitrary boundary
conditions. In order to compute accurately the
parameters which govern fracture processes it is
necessary to compute accurately displacements
near crack tips in a given problem.
In FRANC the finite d e m e n t procedures are
viewed as a collection of subroutines which are
invoked by the user interface under the user's
direction. The finite element routines formulate
element stiffness matrices, assemble the equi-
librium equations, and solve for nodal displace-
ments.
FRANC supports analysis for plane stress, plane
strain, and axisymmetry. Material types include
linear-elastic, isotropic materials and linear-elas-
tic, orthotropic materials. In addition to six- and
eight,noded isoparametric dements, six-noded in-
terface or joint elements are provided. These ele-
ments allow the analyst to decouple shear and
normal behavior along an interface. FRANC also
has a limited amount of non-linear analysis capa-
bility. Interfaces and joint elements can be em-
bedded with behavior which allows their normal
and shear stiffness to be a non-linear function of
the element's relative nodal displacements [1].
Quadratic order elements were chosen because
of the ease with which they can be used to model
the singular stress fields near the tip of a crack in
a linear-elastic body. Henshell [2] and Barsoum [3]
showed that by moving the side nodes of a
quadratic element from center-point to the
quarter-point it is possible to reproduce a singular
stress distribution emanating from one corner of
the element. The first terms for the stress and
displacement expansions around a crack tip in a
linear-elastic body for Mode I loading are:
Kl
o= f(O),
and
Ki/r
u = -6-V,-f4 g(O),
where o is any of the stress components, K I is the
Mode I stress intensity factor, r is the distance
from the crack tip, G is the modulus of rigidity, u
is either of the displacement components, and [
and g are trigonometric functions of O, the angle
from the crack plane. The stress and displacement
relations along one side of a quadratic element
with the side nodes at the center point are:
o=a+br.
and
u = c + d r - r er 2.
If the side nodes are moved to the quarter point
these relations become:
q-
o=a +b' -.
' V F
and
u = c' + d ' r + e'¢~.
One can see that quarter-point elements can faith-
fully model at least the first term in the theoretical
expansion for the stress and displacement around
the tip of a crack.
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis 139

3. Fracture mechanics
KE I0! ~Min
Because FRANC was developed to perform
analyses of fracture problems, a number of frac-
ture concepts are embodied in the program. Most
--0.5
KIc
of the fracture concepts are for two-dimensional,
linear-elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), but
there are some extentions for non-linear fracture
0
0 i i i i
0.5 1.0
I i i I i II

analysis.
The important parameters for L E F M are stress
KI/KIc
intensity factors (SIF's). These scalar values quan- Fig. 1. Fracture propagation envelope in the normalized
tify the stress state near a tip of a crack and K t - K n plane for the minimum strain energy density propa-
gation theory. The square labeled 1 represents the current
govern crack propagation. Because the SIF's con- position of a crack tip in this plane.
trol the fracture process it is imperative that these
values be computed accurately and efficiently.
FRANC uses the displacement correlation tech- point will move along a line which radiates from
nique for computing SIF's. This method computes the origin. FRANC allows proportional load adjust-
stress intensities by substituting displacements ment and also allows the analyst to group loads
computed from a finite element analysis into the into load sets which can be adjusted in a non-pro-
theoretical expressions for the near-tip displace- portional manner. This is desirable for problems
ments and solves for the SIF value. This was first which have one type of load which remains con-
suggested by Chan et al. [4]. They used one point stant and another varying load which controls the
along the crack face for a correlation point. Shih fracture process. Some examples of this type of
et al. [5] showed that, by using the nodal displace- loading would be a constant dead load on a
ments from the four crack face nodes in the structure with a varying live load or a bore hole
quarter-point singular elements, more accurate with constant in-situ stresses and a pressurizing
estimate of the SIF's can be obtained. The correla- force driving a crack.
tion expressions were generalized for the case of The program will, at the analyst's discretion,
orthotropic materials by Boone et al. [6] and inde-
pendently by Saouma et al. [7].
FRANC can model quasi-static crack propa-
gation and crack propagation due to fatigue load-
ing. In the case of quasi-static crack propagation
the crack will propagate according to a given
propagation theory. These theories relate the stress
intensities K~ and K H to the fracture toughness
Kk. The three propagation theories implemented
in VRANC are the sigma theta max theory [8], the G
theta max theory [9], and the S theta min theory
[101.
Each of these three theories can be manipulated
to form a fracture envelope in the KI/KIc-Kn/KIc
plane. Figure 1 is a plot of the fracture envelope
for the sigma theta max theory. The square labeled
number one indicates the location of a crack tip in
this space. A crack tip whose SIF's place it on the
failure envelope is at the point of imminent propa-
gation. In the case of a linear-elastic analysis a
crack tip can move in this space by adjusting the
Fig. 2. The program displays the predicted direction of crack
magnitudes of the loads in the problem. If all the propagation based on the stress intensity values at the crack tip
loads are adjusted in a proportional manner the and a specified fracture propagation theory.
140 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.tZ Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis
automatically adjust the load factors to place a
crack at the point of imminent propagation. For
the proportional load case this is a simple linear
relation. For the non-proportional load case, how-
ever, this is a non-linear relation and the program
iterates to find the load factor that will properly
locate the crack tip on the fracture surface.
The propagation theories mentioned above are
also used to find the direction of crack propa-
gation. Since the equations derived from these
theories are transcendental, the propagation angle
cannot be solved for directly; rather, the equations
are solved in an iterative manner to find the
propagation angle. Figure 2 is a plot of how the
program displays the predicted crack direction to
the analyst.
4. Mesh generation
When performing a discrete crack analysis the
geometry of the crack is represented explicitly at
each step, The main tenant of the discrete crack
method, and also the main criticism of the method,
is that the mesh must be modified at each step to
reflect the current crack configuration, For a dis-
crete crack program to be usable it must contain
an algorithm which will aid the analyst in propa-
gating a crack through a mesh.
It would be ideal to have a remeshing algorithm
which would produce an acceptable mesh auto-
matically and which would work for all geometries
and mesh topologies. This goal, however, while
achievable would have required development time
in FRANC which was better spent on others parts
of the program. The remeshing strategy adopted
in FRANCis to let the computer create a trial mesh
using a fairly simple algorithm and let the user
modify the mesh if it is not satisfactory [11]. This
technique exploits the interactive nature of the
program and insures that the decision about the
suitability of a mesh lies with the analyst and not
with the program.
The remesh algorithm proceeds as follows:
(1) The current crack tip to be propagated is
identified by the user and the new crack tip loca-
tion is specified by the user or computed by the
program.
(2) Elements in the region of the old and new
crack tip are deleted taking the precaution that
structural boundaries are retained.
(3) The structural boundary is modified to re-
flect the crack extension.
(4) A rosette of quarter-point crack tip ele-
ments is placed around the new crack tip.
(5) A transition mesh is generated by the com-
puter which links the existing mesh with the ex-
tended crack faces and new quarter-point ele-
ments. This mesh is created by optimizing the
internal angles of the triangular dements [12].
(6) The transition mesh is displayed and the
analyst has three choices:
a) The analyst can accept the trial mesh in
which case the element stiffness matrices for
the new elements are computed and the
topological information is placed in the data
base.
b) The analyst can delete additional ele-
ments outside of the remesh region so the
mesh generation routine has more room to
work. Elements are selected for deletion by
pointing to them with the mouse or tablet
pen. This technique is usually effective for
removing elements with poor aspect ratios.
After elements are deleted the algorithm
returns to Step 5.
c) The analyst can add additional nodes to
the interior of the transition region. The
nodal locations are specified by either point-
ing to their location or by entering their
exact coordinates. This technique is effec-
tive for eliminating elements which are large
relative to neighboring elements. After in-
ternal nodes are added the algorithm re-
turns to Step 5.
This remesh strategy has been found to give the
analyst a large amount of flexibility in creating an
acceptable mesh around a crack tip quickly. A
typical remesh may take 30 seconds to a minute of
the analyst's time.
Figure 3 shows four of the steps in a remesh
sequence. Figure 3(a) shows the region around the
crack tip with elements deleted. This corresponds
to Step 1 of the remesh algorithm. Figure 3(b)
shows the mesh after the crack has been extended
and quarter-point singular elements have been
inserted around the new crack tip. This plot is
after Step 4 of the algorithm. The mesh after Step
5 is shown in plot 3(c). This proposed mesh has
some elements with undesirable aspect ratios and
sizes. Plot 3(d) shows the final mesh. Additional
elements were deleted and internal nodes added to
improve the transition mesh.
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis
Fig. 3. A typical remesh sequence for crack propagation: (a)
elements around the crack tip are deleted, (b) the crack is
extended and quarter-point singular elements are added, (c)
the program generates a trial transition mesh, (d) the transition
mesh can be improved by deleting additional elements and
adding internal nodes.
5. Postprocessing
It is difficult to overestimate the value of
powerful postprocessing tools while performing
finite element analyses. The effective use of the
finite element method is still somewhat of an art
and an analyst needs to be provided with as much
information about an analysis as possible. This
information allows him to gauge the quality of the
analysis and to increase his knowledge and experi-
ence with the method.
Postprocessing tasks fall loosely into three over-
lapping areas: mesh quality indication, behavior
indication, and quantitative response indication.
Mesh quality indicators inform the analyst as to
the quality of the model. This type of post-
processing is done to answer questions such as:
Is the discretization fine enough?
Are the boundary conditions approximated
properly?
Is the loading properly simulated?
These tools essentially indicate if the proper prob-
lem was modeled and if the model was accurate
enough for the purposes of the analysis [13].
The second type of postprocessing tools are
tools which show the behavior of the system under
141
analysis. Perhaps the most powerful and profound
aspect of the finite element method is that it
allows an analyst to understand the behavior of a
system under analysis in a qualitative way. This
qualitative understanding aids in the first step of
the engineering process which is always to under-
stand the behavior of the system under considera-
tion. If the behavior of a system is understood an
engineer can concentrate on important aspects of
the system while ignoring aspects which have little
effect.
The third type of postprocessing is the actual
extraction of quantitative information. While this
may be the ultimate goal of most finite element
analyses this type of postprocessing should only
be considered after the analyst is satisfied with the
first two steps of postprocessing. The question,
" h o w good is the analysis?" should be answered
before the question, "what are the numbers?" A
program should then allow the analyst to extract
specific response quantities from specific locations
in the model without being overwhelmed with the
large volume of information that a finite element
analysis is capable of producing.
The FRANC program has a number of different
postprocessing tools designed to help the analyst
perform the three types of postprocessing men-
tioned above. These tools fall into three cate-
gories. There are tools which give information at a
point, along a line, or show full field behavior.
Extraction of the displacement of any node in
the mesh is an example of a point-oriented func-
tion. If the node happens to be a crack tip node,
the analyst can have the program calculate the
stress intensity factors at the crack tip and the
predicted direction of crack propagation.
Line-oriented functions plot stresses or dis-
placements along a line specified by the analyst.
The line can be defined by two arbitrary points or
by a node point and an arbitrary point. The
analyst can also plot response along a circle
centered at a node with a given radius. Displace-
ments along a line are computed by dividing the
line into a number of points. For each point on
the line the program identifies the element con-
taining it and interpolates the displacement at the
point by using the element shape functions.
Stresses are computed in a similar manner. After
the program identifies the element containing a
point the natural coordinates of the point in the
element are computed. The shape function deriva-
142 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.K lngraffea / Interactive finite element analysis

tive matrix is then computed for this point and the

stress is computed by multiplying this with the
constitutive matrix and the displacement vector.
Because the stresses are computed in this point-
wise manner and not by interpolating smoothed
stress values the stress plot along a line need not
be continuous as the line crosses element
boundaries. Indeed the extent to which the stress
values and their derivatives are continuous is an
indication of the quality of the mesh [13]. Figure 4
shows the horizontal stress plotted along the verti-
cal line indicated on the mesh. The stress rise due
to the crack tip is readily apparent.
Full field indicators show the response of the
full mesh. FgAr~C has a number of full field indi-
cators because it is clear that no one method is
appropriate for all postprocessing tasks. The sim- t

plest yet probably the most important indicator is

displaying the deformed mesh. This is important
because it is here where the analyst's intuition can Fig. 5. Tension stress bars around a hole in a large plate loaded
best be used. Because this visualization is intuitive with uniform horizontal tension. The plate has orthotroplc
material properties with material axis at an angle of 45 o to the
it is a good first check to see if the proper system horizontal.
was modeled. A more sophisticated full field tech-
nique is to display principal stress vectors at the
element Gauss points. This type of plot is particu- material axis at a 45 o angle to the horizontal. The
larly important in a fracture analysis program program also contains the three-dimensional ana-
because in general a crack in an isotropic material log of the line plot. In the three-dimensional case
is going to tend to propagate perpendicular to the response is sampled over a rectangular grid rather
maximum principal tensile stress. Figure 5 shows
the tensile stress bars around a hole in a large
plate loaded in uniform horizontal tension. The
plate has orthotropic material properties with a

J 0

--~ .... I,...I .... I .... I,,. i I I I I

-2 2 6 I0 14 18
Position on Line Fig. 6. Surface plot of the principal tensile stress near a fillet.
Fig. 4, Horizontal stress plotted along the line indicated on the The altitude of a grid point r ~ e n t s the m a ~ t u d e of the
mesh. The stress rise due to the crack tip is readily apparent. stress at the pomt.
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis
than along a fine. The results are displayed as a
three-dimensional surface with hidden lines re-
moved for clarity. The stresses in a grid plot are
computed in the same manner as for a line plot so
a grid plot can be used as an indication of the
quality of a mesh. Figure 6 shows an example of a
grid plot which shows the principal stress around
a fillet. The final type of full field indicator is a
color contour plot. For this type of plot stress
values are computed at the Gauss-points. The
stress values are then smoothed to the nodal points
where the stress contributions due to all adjacent
nodes are averaged. The average nodal stress val-
ues are then used to interpolate color stress con-
tours.
6. Interactive computer graphics
The value of the use of computer graphics in
finite element analysis is obvious. The ability to
see a picture of the model being analyzed and a
graphical display of the results is invaluable. The
FRANC program tries to maximize the graphical
interaction between the analyst and the model
even to the point of making the graphical interac-
tion an integral part of some of the algorithms
embedded in the program. This graphical interac-
tion helps to create a natural dialogue between the
analyst and the program.
The analyst interacts with the program through
the shell or the user interface. This is a collection
of routines which create and drive menus and
dispatch the appropriate action routines after an
analyst chooses a menu option. The menu interac-
tion paradigm is used because for most people it is
easier to recognize a program function than it is
for them to recall its name [14]. The analyst is
merely required to point to a menu box on the
screen to invoke a program function.
The low level graphics routines in the program
have been encapsulated in one package with 23
entry points. This is the only part of the program
which is graphics device dependent. These 23 en-
try points define a graphical functionality which
can be easily implemented in most available or
proposed graphics packages (e.g. GKS or PHIGS).
The decision was made to define a private
graphics package description rather than using a
standard such as GKS because this method allows
the program to take advantage of device specific
143
features and also allows the program to run on
devices for which there is no readily available
GKS driver. If the FRANC graphics routines were
implemented with GKS there would be close to a
one-to-one mapping between routines.
The graphics routine encapsulation has aided
greatly in porting the program from one graphics
device to another. The program was originally
developed to run using an Evans and Sutherland
picture system 200 (PS 200). The graphical func-
tionality was implemented using an in-house
graphics package. The PS 200 is a very high per-
formance vector refresh device. The program has
subsequently been ported to the Digital Equipment
Corporation's Vaxstation II and Vaxstation
I I / G P X . These are both MicroVAX II based de-
vices. They both have raster display devices with
1024 × 864 pixel resolution. The Vaxstation II is a
monochrome device while the GPX has a color
lookup table and eight planes of color intensity
memory. The graphics functionality is imple-
mented using DEC's proprietary workstation
graphics package.
7. Data base design
The program data base is the kernel which ties
the rest of the program together. While the data
base design is being discussed last it should not be
construed that this is the least important aspect of
the program. The data base system was actually
the first part of the program designed and imple-
mented. The data base design has a profound
impact on the design of the rest of the program.
The data base used in FRANC is designed around
a winged edge data structure ([15-17]). This data
structure was originally developed and is primarily
used for boundary representation solid modeling,
but the data structure serves very well for the
representation of two-dimensional finite element
meshes. The data structure contains three topo-
logical entities: vertices, edges, and faces. Vertices
correspond to finite element nodes, and faces can
represent finite elements. The main feature of the
data structure is that each topological element
contains adjacency information. That is, each
entity points to at least one topologically adjacent
entity. The data structure is designed so that most
adjacency queries are edge-based. This is because
we know a priori the multiplicity of an edge's
144 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. lngraffea / lnteractive finite element analysis

Left CCW Wing Right CW Wing

ex

Left Foce I Right Foce

/
.0. Toil Vertex

...cw ccw w.0

\ .......~nolyst s ~ j /

Fig. 7. Local topology of an edge in the winged edge data base.

Each edge is adjacent to two vertices, two faces, and four other
edges. Fig. 8. Layered software structure used in F ~ C . All data
access is tb.rough standard modify and query routines. All
computational routines are dispatched by a user interface.

adjacent elements. An edge has two adjacent

vertices, two adjacent faces, and four adjacent
edges (Figure 7). It would be more difficult to
design a data structure which had vertex or face
based queries because one cannot know a priori
the multiplicity of the adjacent topologic elements
for a face or a vertex.
The data base is accessed for modification or
for queries. All topological modifications to the
data base are performed by means of Euler op-
erators [18]. Performing modifications with these
operators guarantees that the topology repre-
sented by the data base satisfies Euler's equation:
v-e+f=2,
which relates the number of faces ( f ) , edges (e),
and vertices (v). For the purposes of representing
a finite element mesh the Euler operators have
been further abstracted to create operators such
as: add 8-noded element, add 6-noded dement,
and delete element.
One of the primary advantages of using a data
structure such as the winged edge is :the speed with
which it is possible to perform adjacency queries.
With three topological elements there are nine
possible adjacency queries such as: given a face
find all adjacent vertices; or, given a vertex find
all adjacent faces. All nine queries can be per-
formed in linear or constant time. At worst the
program, s response time only deteriorates linearly
as the problem size grows.
The local adjacency information embedded in
the winged edge data structure can be very useful
in performing tasks associated ~ t h finite element
analysis. For example, it is a simple matter to
identify the edges on the boundary of a structure
being analyzed. This allows one to delete elements
for crack propagation without deleting the edges
which define the structural boundary, The adjac-
ent information also allows one to identify all the
elements adjacent to a node so if the node is
dragged to a different location element stiffness
matrices can be recomputed.
8. P r o g r a m m ~ a ~ n
The key aspect of FRANC is the integration of
all the above mentioned topics into one coherent
program which is f l ~ b l e and simple to use. In-
tegrati~ is achieved by layering the various parts
of the p r o ~ a m . This layering insulates the high
level functional routines from the low level details
of data storage and m ~ p d a t i o n , This layered
approach also promotes p r o g r m modularity.
Figure 8 is a diagram of how the software
components are layered in FRANC.The core of the
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis 145

program is the data base. This is the repository of
all information used by the various parts of the
program. The data base is only accessible through
the data base access routines. All higher level
routines are required to use the two types of
access routines (modify routines and query
routines) to store and retrieve information from
the data base. This data access technique is called
data hiding. Data hiding separates the actual data
storage details from the abstract view of the data
which the higher level routines use. In this way the
actual data storage mechanism could be changed
without affecting any high level routines in the
program (for example, the data storage could be
changed from a virtual memory resident data base
to a file resident data base for a non-virtual mem-
ory machine).
The layer above the data base routines is the
collection of routines which implement the com-
putational functionality of the program. These are
loosely grouped into six categories. Preprocessing
routines perform modifications to the model de-
scription and boundary conditions. Remesh
routines modify the element mesh for crack prop-
agation. Fracture mechanics routines implement
the various fracture propagation theories and au-
tomatic load factor modification. Postprocessing
routines display stress and displacement informa-
tion. Finite element routines formulate element
stiffness matrices, assemble global stiffness
matrices, minimize problem bandwidths, solve for
displacements, and recover element stresses. The
numerical analysis routines perform functions
necessary for the solution of systems of non-linear
equations.
Encircling the functional routines is the user
interface. This is the collection of menu drivers
and display routines which allow the analyst to
interact with the program. An important aspect of
this portion of the program is that the analyst
forming graphical input and output, and perfor-
ming file input and output.
9. Example problems
Two example problems are presented to il-
lustrate the use and effectiveness of the program.
The first example is a fitting from an aircraft
structure. This is an actual component which has
been seen to experience fatigue crack initiation
and propagation. The second problem is an actual
concrete arch dam which was observed to crack
when the reservoir was filled.
Aircraft Fitting. Figure 9 shows the geometry and
assumed boundary conditions for an aircraft fit-
ting for which fatigue has been observed. The load
is assumed to cycle between zero and the maxi-
mum value with constant amplitude. The purposes
of the analysis are to:
a) Identify the likely point of fatigue crack
initiation.
b) Create a crack length versus stress intensity
factor history.
c) Predict expected fatigue life for a given
material using the Paris model for fatigue
crack growth rate.
Figure 10 shows the deformed finite element
mesh of the structure. The principal stress bar plot
1.3
?,
[--" ~ - 3 . 2 R 3.2R
11.4
15.9 ~I
-I
127R

need only deal with one interface. There is a 17.0

continuity of display and type of interaction as

the analyst moves from one part of the program to
another. 11.4 -I
The layered software design in FRANC makes it
a test bed for computational fracture mechanics
research. A researcher need only concentrate on k
,-

54.6
implementing routines which perform the task
currently under investigation. Pre-existing stan- Note'. All dimensions in rr~
dard routines can be used to perform tasks such as Fig. 9. Geometry and boundary conditions of the aircraft
managing data, creating and driving menus, per- fitting.
146 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.K lngraffea / Interactivefinite element analysis
Fig. 10. Deformed original mesh of the aircraft fitting.
(Fig. 11) shows that the maximum principal tensile
stresses are found along the fillet near the area of
load application. Figure 1 2 shows a plot of the
hoop stress along this surface, The plot was created
using the FRANC circle stress plot function. The
circle is concentric with the fillet and has a radius
slightly larger than the radius of the fillet. It can
be seen from Fig. 12 that the maximum tensile
~i / / / /
/
/ ~"
/ 1
R+
Xx .v x ..-,-
Fig. 11. Principal tensile stress bars showing the m a x i m u m
tensile stresses are in the fillet to the right of the load.
(rOe vs Angle
12
-4
- 8 ,. I i . . . . . . . . . . . .
-:>00 -I00 0 I00 200
Angle
Fig. 12. Plot of the circumferential stress around a circle
concentric with the fillet. The m a x i m u m stress is at about a
39 o angle to the horizontal.
hoop stress is found at an angle of about 39 °
from the horizontal. It is postulated that a fatigue
crack will initiate at this point, normal to the free
surface.
Using the remesh capabilities of FgANC an ini-
tial crack is introduced into the structure. An
analysis is performed to compute the stress inten-
sity factors at the crack tip. Using the computed
stress intensity factors, the direction of crack
propagation can be computed. The crack is incre-
mented and the process is repeated. Figure 13
shows a number of the intermediate meshes which
show the direction of crack propagation through
the structure. Figure 14 is the Mode I stress inten-
sity history as a function of the crack length.
The final task is to predict the fatigue life of
/ / this structure. The fitting is fabricated from D6-ac
/ / which is a high yield stress steel with relatively low
.*/ /
t o u g h n e s s (ay s = 1300 M P a , Ktc = 7 7 - 9 2
MPa~/-m). With R approximately zero, parameters
for the Paris model are C = 1.3 • 10 -9 and n = 3.6
[19]. An estimate of the transition stress intensity
factor is
g t = 0.0064~ = 107 MPal/m.
x
\ \
Since this is greater than the critical toughness for
the material it is assumed that transition from
subcritical to critical crack growth takes place at a
stress intensity value equal to the critical stress
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactioe finite element analysis 147

Fatigue Life vs Flaw Size

I0 7 . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . :
All load values are
kN per unit thickness
106

~ PO5

L_~ P=22 kN
104

LL P:45 kN
i0 3
P=67 kN

P=89kN
102 i i i i i i i i i I I i L i L I

0.01 0.1
Initial Flaw Size (mm)
Fig. 13. Four representative meshes showing the crack path.
These meshes show crack lengths of 0.76, 4.06, 8.89, and 15.24 Fig. 15. Plot of the fatigue life of the component as a function
ram. of the load level and the initial flaw size. This plot assumes
D6-ac steel and an R value of 0.
~ b

intensity value (i.e., 77 MPaVm) [20].

The terms in the Paris model can be rearranged
Figure 15 shows a plot of predicted Crack life
to give an integral equation for number of cycles
versus initial flaw size for a number of different
as a function of the change in crack length:
load levels.
a. da The work presented for this example represents
N = f ath
CAK" " approximately two man-days of work. That was
the time required from the point where the origi-
Stress Intensity vs Crack Length
20 1 ' 11 . . . . ~ . . . . I . . . . I . . . . ] . . . . ~ . . . . I . . . .

18 P=I.O kN per unit thickness

13_
16
o

:~ 14
v

"~ 12
g
wnsre0m
~ 8
~ 6 Vertical ~ \+~./-- ; £__
dom-rock ~ \~ I
-o 4
0

2
/ !" i ':" i~ Dam foundotion
0 , , , I , , , , I , , , , I , , ,11 . . . . I , , i i I i i i I i i i Drainage ---..~/ / (i /! ~: interface
0 2 4 6 8 Io 12 14 16
Crock L e n g t h ( r a m ) // i ~Gr°ut curtain

Fig. 14. Plot of the Mode I stress intensity factor history as a

function of the crack length. Fig. 16. Schematic of the base region of the K/51nbrein dam.
148 P.A. Wawrzynek, A:R. lngraffea / Interactive finite element analysis

~ 2.11MNIm
~ 0.593 MN

1.39 MN/m
0.361 MN/m
I. 7 7 MN/m 1"~ i

/ ~ ~ ; ' DQ~C°ln're:ei
llllllllBBJ J~i i~ i~i~tttlililllllilll
I ! i IIIIllli / i t i tl tt~li!illllill ! I I
I • l l l l l l l l l l I I UilIIWill illll I1
Illflllll#1lll i I III liII11%11lllillll
llllllllllllllilllllllilmllll
UlIIlIIIIIII I I I I lllll i%1111
Fig. 17. Initial element mesh and boundary conditions for the Rock/F/'oundation
" ; "~ll'lllllTIIlllll/~'/llllli~lllll/i~lllllil~llllll
~ ~ l 1
K61nbreindam analysis.

nat mesh was created to the point where all the (b)
data for Fig. 15 were generated.

Arch dam. The K~lnbrein dam is a doubly curved

DamConcrete
arch dam in Carintia, Austria [21]. The dam is
L ,toJ
200 m high and has an active storage capacity of
200.106 m 3. The dam was first filled to near
'b'l'~q'b ,'(°i, ModeI Stressintensity
capacity in 1978. The dam behaved as expected 1 ~ Nif) t~O (MPo'~)
until the water height reached 189 m. At this point
there was a marked increase in drainage flow,
Crock bpening x-- X~b,b -~
Displacement ~,'~ ,~'by~ ,.,
l ~\4~
t Scale5.0rn
:
RockFoundation
Fig. 19. Final crack configuration: (a) final finite element
mesh, (b) final crack outline, COD distribution, and KI his-
tory.

measured uplift, and joint water pressures in the

Fig. 18. Initial crack increment at the heel of the dam.
dam. An exploratory shaft and exploratory drill-
ings on the upstream side disclosed the formation
of cracks spanning from the heel of the dam to the
dam base (Fig. 16).
The purposes of this analysis are to:
a) Model the formation of the 1978 crack to
show that the crack starts from the heel of the
dam and grows to the dam base.
 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. Ingraffea / Interactive finite element analysis
b) Show that LEFM concepts can be used to
predict the trajectory of this crack in a concrete
structure of this scale.
It can be seen by Fig. 16 that K~51nbrein is
different than most arch dams at the heel in that
the upstream valley floor intersects the dam face
as much as 14 m above the base of the dam. This
means that the crack formed because of the stress
riser at the heel and propagates into the the dam
rather than into the rock foundation. Figure 17
shows the mesh and boundary conditions used to
analyze the base portion of the dam. The loads
indicated on the top of the base portion come
from a trial load analysis of the dam which takes
into account the three-dimensional arching effects
in the dam [22].
Figure 18 shows a detail of the heel of the dam
with a crack introduced at the reentrant corner.
The crack is loaded with water pressure. The
direction of initial crack propagation was predic-
ted to be perpendicular to maximum tensile stress
at some radius from the reentrant corner. Subse-
quent crack propagation directions were predicted
by means of the minimum strain energy density
criterion [10]. The crack was propagated until it
reached the vicinity of the dam base. No attempt
was made to model the complicated interaction of
the crack and the bi-material interface at the dam
base. Figure 19(a) shows the final finite element
mesh and Figure 19(b) shows the crack trajectory,
crack opening displacements, and the stress inten-
sity factor history. It can be seen that the crack
trajectory predicted by crack initiation at the heel
correlates with the observed crack trajectory. Ad-
ditional details of a fracture mechanics analysis of
this dam can be found in [22] and [23].
10. Conclusions:
FRANC is a program for modeling mixed-mode
fracture propagation. It has been shown that by
integrating aspects of finite element analysis, frac-
ture mechanics, mesh generation, postprocessing,
computer graphics, and data base design, it is
possible to create a powerful investigatory tool.
The fracture propagation problem is one for which
the geometry and topology of the model change
with each solution step. The details of model
modification can tend to obscure an analyst's un-
derstanding of the behavior of the model. By
149
packaging routines for model modification, analy-
sis, and display of results with an interactive
graphics interface and powerful data management
facilities much of the inherent complexity of the
problem can be hidden from the analyst.
As the numerical aspects of fracture mechanics
mature it becomes increasingly important to have
a flexible computational environment in which to
try new techniques and algorithms. With a pro-
gram like FRANC it is possible to prototype a new
computational technique with a comparatively
small amount of effort on the part of the investi-
gator. This is so because of two important aspects
of FRANC. Firstly, the structure and the facilities
exist to perform tasks necessary for computational
fracture mechanics but not necessarily of interest
to the investigator. Menu drivers, data manage-
ment routines, and postprocessing tools are all
important aspects of a fracture program but these
types of things should be available to an investiga-
tor; they should not be redeveloped. Secondly, the
interactive nature of FgANC itself can aid in the
technique development cycle. Because the pro-
gram can at any time display graphical!y its cur-
rent state and prompt the analyst for input or
direction, algorithms need not initially be de-
veloped in a complete form. Decisions and oper-
ations which will ultimately be performed under
algorithmic control can be performed or guided by
the analyst manually. This ability not only speeds
the development cycle, it also often adds insight
into how the control algorithms should be con-
structed. In this way a new technique can be
implemented and accepted or rejected without a
large investment in development time.
In conclusion it is becoming apparent that as
computational fracture mechanics becomes more
complicated and more sophisticated, integrated
programming solutions become less of a luxury
and more of a necessity. Comprehensive programs
will be required for education, engineering prac-
tice, and research. FRANC is one the first steps
toward a powerful, extensible, interactive environ-
ment in which one can research and perform
computational fracture mechanics.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially funded by the National
Science Foundation, grant number PYI 8351914.
150 P.A. Wawrzynek, A.R. lngraffea / Interactive finite element analysis
The authors would ~ e to t h ~ the Program of
Computer Graphics at Cornell University, where
this work was performed, for continued access and
support. The authors would also like to thank
Tom Boone and Luiz Martha for their contribu-
tions and comments.
References
[1] T.J. Boone, P.A. Wawrzynek and A.R. Ingraffea, "Analy-
sis of fracture propagation in orthotropic materials",
Engrg. Fracture Mech. 26, 185-201 (1987).
[2] R.D. Henshell and K.G. Shaw, "Crack tip finite elements
are unnecessary", Internat. J. Nunt Meth. Engrg. 9,
495-507 (1975).
[3] R.S. Barsoum, " O n the use of isoparametric elements in
linear fracture mechanics", Internal J. Num. Meth. Engrg.
t0, 25-37 (1976).
[4] S.K. Chan, I,S. Tuba and W.K. Wilson, " O n the finite
element method in linear fracture mechanics", Engrg.
Fracture Mech. 2, 1-17 (1970).
[5] C.F. Shih, H.G. Delorenzi and M.D. German, "Crack
extension modeling with singular quadratic isoparametric
elements", lnternat. J. Fracture 12 647-651 (1976).
[6] T.J. Boone, P.A. Wawrzynek and A.R. Ingraffea, "Simu-
lation of the fracture process in rock with application to
hydrofracturing", lnternat. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. &
Geomech. 23 (3), 255-265 (1986).
[7] V.E. Saouma, M.L. Ayari and D.A. LeaveU, "Mixed mode
crack propagation in homogeneous anisotropic solids",
Engrg. Fracture Mech. (1986) to appear.
[8] F. Erdogan and G.C. Sih, " O n the crack extension in
plates under plane loading and transverse shear", A.S.M.E.
J. Basic Engrg. 85, 519-527 (1963).
[9] M.A. Hussain, S.L. Pu and J.H. Underwood, "Strain
energy release rate for a crack under combined Mode I
and Mode II", Fracture Analysis, A S T P STP 560, 2-28
(1974).
[10] G.C. Sih, "Strain-energy-density factor applied to mixed-
mode crack problems," Internat. J. Fracture Mech. 10,
305-321 (1974).
[11] P.A. Wawrzynek and A.R. Ingraffea. "Local mmeshing
around a propagating crack tip using interactive computer
graphics", in: Finite Element Methad, Modeling, and New
Applications. ed. by E.M. Patten et al.. ASME CED Vol.
1, PVP Vol. 101, 33-38 (1986).
[12] R.D. Shaw and R.G. Pitchen, "Modifications to the
Suhara-Fukuda method of network generation". Internat.
Z Num. Meth. Engrg. 12. 93-99 (1978).
[13] J.F. Abel, M.J. Panthaki and P.A. Wawrzynek, "Interac-
tive graphics and analysis accuracy", in: K.J. Bathe and
D.R.J. Owen, eds., Reliability of Methods for Engineering
Analysis. Proc. Internat. Conf. Swansea, 305-304 (1986).
[14] M.C. Maguire, " A review of human factors guidelines and
techniques for the design of graphical human-computer
interfaces". Comput. and Graphics 9, 221-235 (1985).
[15] B.G. Baumgart, "A polyhedron representation for com-
puter vision". A F I P S Proc. 44 589-596 (1975).
[16] K. Weiler, "Edge-based data structures for solid modeling
in curved-surface environments". IEEE Comp. Graph. and
Appl. 5 (1), 21-40 (1985).
[17] T.C Woo. "A combinatorial analysis of boundary data
structure schemata". IEEE Comp. Graph. and Appl. 5 (3),
19-27 (1985).
[18] M. Mantyla and R. Sulouen, "GWB: a solid modeler with
Euler operators". IEEE Comp. Graph. and Appl. 2 (9),
17-31 (1982).
[19] D. Taylor, A Compendium of Fatigue Thresholds and
Growth Rates, Engineering Materials Advisory Services,
West Midlands. UK, p. 122.
[20] S.T. Rotfe and J.M. Barsom, Fracture and Fatigue Control
in Structures. Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs, 259, (1977).
[21] K. Baustadter and R. Widmarm. "The behaviour of the
K~inbrein arch dam", Quinzi~me Congr~s des Grands
Barrages, Q. 57, R. 37, Lausanne, (1985).
[22] H.N. Linsbauer. A.R. Ingraffea and H.P. Rossmanith,
""Computer simulation of cracking in a large arch dams.
part one - downstream side cracking", J. Structural Divi-
sion ASCE, to be submitted.
[23] H.N. Linsbauer. A.R. Ingraffea and H.P. Rossmanith,
"Computer simulation of cracking in a large arch dams.
part two - upstream side cracking mechanisms". J.
Structural Dioision ASCE. to be submitted.