Sie sind auf Seite 1von 79

Fracture Analysis

Lecture 3

Overview

L3.2

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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

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 K I , K II , and K III 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 C t -integral, which is used with time-dependent creep behavior.

Output can be written to the output database (.odb), data (.dat), and results (.fil) files.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

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

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

elements in contact with the

previous contour.

Contour 1

Contour 3

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Contour 2

Contour 4

Calculation of Contour Integrals

L3.7

The J -integral and the C t -integral at steady-state creep should be path (domain) independent.

The value for the first contour is generally ignored.

Examples of contour domains:

1st

2nd

contour

Crack-tip node

contour

2 nd contour
1 st contour
crack-front nodes

Crack-tip node

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

L3.8

• Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n,
TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS},
DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}

Specifies the number of contours (domains)

on which the contour integral will be

calculated

This is the output frequency in

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

L3.9

Usage (cont’d):

*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n, TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS}, DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}

J for J -integral output,

C for C t -integral output.

T STRESS to output T-stress calculations

K FACTORS for stress intensity factor output

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.10

Calculation of Contour Integrals

Usage (cont’d):

*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n, TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS}, DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}

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)

K II = 0 criterion (KII0)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.11

Calculation of Contour Integrals

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

L3.12

Loads included in contour integral calculations:

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Calculation of Contour Integrals

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

Examples

L3.15

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.

considered:

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.16

Different mesh characteristics:

20

20

Axisymmetric model

Axisymmetric or three-dimensional

Fine or coarse focused meshes

With or without ¼ point elements

Various element types used:

First- and second-order

With and without reduced integration

Crack tip

Focused mesh around crack tip

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.17

Fine mesh vs. coarse mesh (axisymmetric and 3D models)

0.0004

~0.08

0.08

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.18

Axisymmetric model: geometry

Symmetry planes

Model geometry

Close up of crack tip region for coarse mesh model (identical for

fine mesh modelonly the inner

semicircular region is smaller)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.19

Axisymmetric model: crack definition
Crack tip with extension direction
Set to 0.5 to use mid-
point rather than ¼ point
elements

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.20

3D model: geometry and mesh

A 90sector is modeled because

of symmetry.

required for swept
mesh

Partitions used for coarse mesh model (identical for fine mesh modelonly

the inner semicircular region is smaller)

Fine 3D mesh

Symmetry planes

On planes perpendicular to the crack front, the mesh is very similar to the

axisymmetric mesh

In the circumferential direction around the crack line, 12 elements are used.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.21

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
A
is
7-node element
an example of an
irregular element.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.22

Examples

3D model: crack definition

Orphan mesh created to edit q vectors.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.23

Contour integral output requests (axisymmetric and 3D)

Separate output requests are required for J , K-factors, and the T-stress.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.24

Examples

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.25

Results

MISES stress shown below for

the axisymmetric fine mesh.

J
 J
analytical 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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.26

J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (reduced integration)

 3-D Axisymmetric Loading Analytical C3D20R CAX8R result Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Uniform far field .0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581 Uniform crack face .0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581 Nonuniform crack face ( n = 1) .0358 .0356 .0357 .0356 .0358 Nonuniform crack face ( n = 2) .0258 .0256 .0260 .0256 .0258 Nonuniform crack face ( n = 3) .0201 .0199 .0206 .0200 .0202

Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 35 in each mesh.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.27

J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (full integration)

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

Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 35 in each mesh.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.28

J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (reduced integration)

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

Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 35 in each mesh.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.29

J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (full integration)

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

Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 35 in each mesh.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.30

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.31

Conical crack in a half-space

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

different.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.32

Three-dimensional model

Displaced shape and Mises stress distribution of full three-

dimensional model.

Deformation scale factor = 1.e6

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.33

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
1.334E-07
1.332E-07
1.330E-07
1.328E-07
0
45
90
J-integral

Angle (degrees)

 3D contour 5 3D contour 4 3D contour 3 3D contour 2

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.34

Axisymmetric model and results

Contours 3-5 have
converged
Axisymmetric results are
used as reference results.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.35

Comparison of axisymmetric and 3D results

Variation of J with angular position Contour 1

1.380E-07
1.360E-07
1.340E-07
1.320E-07
1.300E-07
0
45
90
J
-integral

Angle (degrees)

3D

AXI

 Variation of J with angular position Contour 3 1.336E-07 -integral 1.334E-07 1.332E-07 3D 1.330E-07 AXI J 1.328E-07 0 45 90 Angle (degrees)
 Variation of J with angular position Contour 2 1.334E-07 -integral J 1.333E-07 1.332E-07 3D AXI 1.331E-07 1.330E-07 1.329E-07 0 45 90 Angle (degrees) Variation of J with angular position Contour 5 1.338E-07 -integral J 1.336E-07 1.334E-07 3D AXI 1.332E-07 1.330E-07 1.328E-07 0 45 90 Angle (degrees)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.36

Since the three-dimensional mesh is quite coarse around the axis of

symmetry, these results are considered to be goodthe error is less

than 0.5% for all but the first contour.

% difference in J between AXI and 3D results

3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
45
90
% difference

Angle (degrees)

 Contour 1 Contour 2 Contour 3 Contour 4 Contour 5

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.37

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.38

J values of submodel:

Inaccuracies are introduced by the coarser mesh used in the global model.

Errors in J are less than 1%.

CPU time was reduced by a factor of 3.

Variation of J with angular position

1.326E-07
1.324E-07
1.322E-07
1.320E-07
1.318E-07
0
45
90
J -integral

Angle (degrees)

3D contour 5

3D contour 4

3D contour 3

3D contour 2

% difference in J between AXI and 3D results

4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
45
90
% difference

Angle (degrees)

Contour 1
Contour 2
Contour 3
Contour 4
Contour 5

Variation of J with angular position

Contour 5

1.335E-07
1.330E-07
3D
1.325E-07
AXI
1.320E-07
1.315E-07
0
45
90
J -integral

Angle (degrees)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.39

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.40

Examples

Crack seam
q-vector

Model details

Plane strain conditions assumed.

The initial crack length is 5 mm.

Elastic-plastic material

Low alloy ferritic steel

1/r singularity modeled in the crack-tip elements

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.41

Results

Small strain analysis

Finite strain analysis

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Examples

L3.42

At small to moderate strain levels,

the small and finite strain models

yield similar results.

Finite strain effects must be considered to represent this level of

deformation and strain accurately.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

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

the nodes on the portions of the crack faces that lie within the contour

integral domains.

This improves the accuracy of the

contour integral estimation.

The normal is not used at the

crack-tip node, however.

surface nodes
q
Normals to bottom
crack surface nodes

Normals to top crack

n (normal to crack plane)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.45

Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations

Example: sharp curved crack

Contour #

1

2

3

4

5

 J without normals 3.363 2.98 2.475 1.888 1.283 J with normals 3.6 3.602 3.605 3.605 3.605

L3.46

Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations

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.

Crack surface

n
q

Single node in crack-tip node set;

normals calculated on nodes of

blunted surface; q not parallel to crack surface.

Paths for contour
integrals
Crack surface
q

All nodes on blunted surface in

crack-tip node set; q parallel to crack surface.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

J -Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips

L3.48

J -Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips

Abaqus can calculate J (or C t ) 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).

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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.

Crack-tip mesh for S8R elements
Shell mesh

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

L3.53

• Model details
• Axial load is applied using
• Symmetry used to reduce
mode size
symmetry

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells
• Modeling a crack with a keyhole
Crack front
Crack tip

q vector

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.54

Through Cracks in Shells

L3.55

Results

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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)

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

L3.57

Using numerical differentiation to obtain J :

J = 

= 

 (
PE
)
a

Potential energy:

PE = ALLSE ALLWK

 PE a D a  PE a D a

.

The PE values should be obtained from two separate analyses, with crack lengths differing by D a .

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 C t at long times.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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:

J

The average is calculated as if the J values were equivalent nodal forces:

=

 J A  4 J B  J C 6

.

A
B
C

shell

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

L3.61

A
B
C

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 :

 CONTOUR J values  100 1 2 3 4 5 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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

L3.62

Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load revisited

Now we revisit the problem in which the pipe is subjected to an axial

Comparison of J values using one layer of C3D20R elements through the thickness:

 CONTOUR J values  100 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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Through Cracks in Shells

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Mixed-Mode Fracture

Mixed-Mode Fracture

L3.65

Abaqus uses interaction integrals to compute the stress intensity factors.

 • This approach accounts for mixed-mode loading effects. • Note that the J - or C t -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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Mixed-Mode Fracture

L3.66

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%)
K
=
p a
0
*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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Material Discontinuities

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.

n

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.69

Material Discontinuities

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 10 5 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.

The uncracked material (right) has Young’s modulus of 2 10 4 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio

of 0.1.

The specimen is stretched by uniform displacement at its ends.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.70

Material Discontinuities

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

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Material Discontinuities

L3.71

The calculated J -integral values for 10 contours are as follows:

 Contour J (N/mm) 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 510) is clear.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.74

Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials

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 elementsthe 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).

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

L3.75

Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials

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.

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Workshop 1

Workshop 1

L3.77

Crack in a three-point bend specimen

Two-dimensional geometry

Mesh sensitivity study

Focus vs. unfocused mesh
Quarter-point vs. mid-side nodes

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus

Workshop 2

Workshop 2

L3.79

Crack in a helicopter airframe component

Three-dimensional geometry

Create mesh and evaluate response for cracks at different locations

Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus