FRAC L03 Contour

Fracture Analysis
Lecture 3
L3.2
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
Overview
Calculation of Contour Integrals
Examples
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations
J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
Through Cracks in Shells
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Material Discontinuities
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
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.
L3.5
Domain representation of J
For reasons of accuracy, J is evaluated
using a domain integral.
The domain integral is evaluated over
an area/volume contained within a
contour surrounding the crack tip/line.
In two dimensions, Abaqus defines the
domain in terms of rings of elements
surrounding the crack tip.
In three dimensions, Abaqus defines a
tubular surface around the crack line.
L3.6
Different contours (domains) are
created automatically by Abaqus.
The first contour consists of the
crack front and one layer of
elements surrounding it.
Ring of elements from one
crack surface to the other (or
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 2
Contour 3 Contour 4
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:
2nd
contour
1st
contour
Crack-tip node
crack-front nodes
1
st
contour
2
nd
contour
Crack-tip node
L3.8
Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n,
TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS},
DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}
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.
Specifies the number of contours (domains)
on which the contour integral will be
calculated
This is the output
frequency in
increments
L3.9
Usage (contd):
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
L3.10
Usage (contd):
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)
Three criteria to calculate the crack
propagation direction at initiation
L3.11
Output files
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, OUTPUT
Set OUTPUT=FILE to store the
contour integral values in the results
(.fil) file.
Set OUTPUT=BOTH to print
the values in the data and
results files.
If the parameter is omitted, the
contour integral values will be
printed in the data (.dat) file
but not stored in the results
(.fil) file.
L3.12
Loads
Loads included in contour integral calculations:
Thermal loads.
Crack-face pressure and traction loads on continuum elements as
well as those applied using user subroutines DLOAD and UTRACLOAD.
Surface traction and crack-face edge loads on shell elements as
well as those applied using user subroutine UTRACLOAD.
Uniform and nonuniform body forces.
Centrifugal loads on continuum and shell elements.
Not all types of distributed loads (e.g., hydrostatic pressure and gravity
loads) are included in the contour integral calculations.
The presence of these loads will result in a warning message.
L3.13
Other loads not included in contour integral calculations:
Contributions due to concentrated loads are not included.
If needed, modify the mesh to include a small element and
apply a distributed load to the element.
Contributions due to contact forces are not included.
Initial stresses are not considered in the definition of contour
integrals.
Examples
L3.15
Examples
Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space
Model characteristics
The mesh is extended far enough
from the crack tip so that the finite
boundaries will not influence the
crack-tip solution.
The radius of the penny-shaped
crack is 1.
Two types of loading are
considered:
Uniform far-field loading
Nonuniformloading on the
crack face: p = Ar
n
.
L3.16
Examples
Different mesh characteristics:
Axisymmetric or three-dimensional
Fine or coarse focused meshes
With or without point elements
Various element types used:
First- and second-order
With and without reduced integration
Axisymmetric model
20
20
Focused mesh around
crack tip
Crack tip
L3.17
Examples
Fine mesh vs. coarse mesh (axisymmetric and 3D models)
~0.08
0.08
0.0004
The fine mesh is shown to the left;
the coarse mesh above. The length
perpendicular to crack line of the
crack-tip elements are indicated.
L3.18
Examples
Axisymmetric model: geometry
Model geometry
Close up of crack tip region for
coarse mesh model (identical for
fine mesh modelonly the inner
semicircular region is smaller)
Symmetry planes
L3.19
Examples
Axisymmetric model: crack definition
Crack tip with extension direction
Set to 0.5 to use mid-
point rather than point
elements
L3.20
Examples
3D model: geometry and mesh
A 90 sector is modeled because
of symmetry.
Additional partition
required for swept
mesh
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.
Partitions used for coarse mesh model
(identical for fine mesh modelonly
the inner semicircular region is smaller)
Fine 3D mesh
Symmetry planes
L3.21
Examples
Why is the additional partition required?
Without the additional partition, the region shown below would require
irregular elements at the vertex located on the axis of symmetry.
This is not supported by Abaqus.
A 7-node element
is an example of an
irregular element.
Irregular elements
required here
because revolving
about a point
L3.22
Examples
3D model: crack definition
Orphan mesh created to edit q
vectors.
L3.23
Examples
Contour integral output requests (axisymmetric and 3D)
Separate output
requests are required
for J, K-factors, and the
T-stress.
L3.24
Examples
Loads (axisymmetric and 3D)
The far-field load is suppressed.
L3.25
Examples
Results
MISES stress shown below for
the axisymmetric fine mesh.
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
Deformation scale
factor = 250
100%
analytical numerical
analytical
J J
J
L3.26
Examples
J values from meshes with point elements (reduced integration)
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 35 in each mesh.
Loading
Analytical
result
3-D Axisymmetric
C3D20R CAX8R
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
L3.27
Examples
J values from meshes with point elements (full integration)
Loading
Analytical
result
3-D Axisymmetric
C3D20 CAX8
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
L3.28
Examples
J values from meshes without point elements (reduced integration)
Loading
Analytical
result
3-D Axisymmetric
C3D20R C3D8R CAX8R CAX4R
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
L3.29
Examples
J values from meshes without point elements (full integration)
Loading
Analytical
result
3-D Axisymmetric
C3D20 C3D8 CAX8 CAX4
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
L3.30
Examples
Conclusions
3D fine meshes with second-order elements are more sensitive to the
choice of integration rule when determining J.
The results are still very accurate (within 2% of analytical value).
The inclusion of the singularity helps most in the coarser meshes.
For mesh convergence in small strain, the singularity must be
included.
L3.31
Examples
Conical crack in a half-space
At each node set along the crack front, the crack propagation direction is
different.
L3.32
Examples
Three-dimensional model
Displaced shape and Mises stress distribution of full three-
dimensional model.
Deformation scale factor = 1.e6
L3.33
Examples
J values of three-dimensional mesh
There is some oscillation between J values evaluated at corner
nodes compared to J values evaluated at midside nodes.
Variation of J with angular position
1.328E-07
1.330E-07
1.332E-07
1.334E-07
1.336E-07
1.338E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D contour 5
3D contour 4
3D contour 3
3D contour 2
L3.34
Contours 3-5 have
converged
Examples
Axisymmetric model and results
Axisymmetric results are
used as reference results.
L3.35
Examples
Comparison of axisymmetric and 3D results
Contour 1
1.300E-07
1.320E-07
1.340E-07
1.360E-07
1.380E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D
AXI
Contour 2
1.329E-07
1.330E-07
1.331E-07
1.332E-07
1.333E-07
1.334E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D
AXI
Contour 3
1.328E-07
1.330E-07
1.332E-07
1.334E-07
1.336E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D
AXI
Contour 5
1.328E-07
1.330E-07
1.332E-07
1.334E-07
1.336E-07
1.338E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D
AXI
L3.36
Examples
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
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
%

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Contour 1
Contour 2
Contour 3
Contour 4
Contour 5
L3.37
Examples
Submodeling
We can use submodeling to create
two meshes that are significantly
smaller than the full three-
dimensional model.
The top-right figure is the
coarse mesh global model in
the vicinity of the crack.
The bottom-right figure shows
the refined submodel mesh
overlaid on the global model
mesh.
L3.38
Examples
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.
1.318E-07
1.320E-07
1.322E-07
1.324E-07
1.326E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l 3D contour 5
3D contour 4
3D contour 3
3D contour 2
Contour 5
1.315E-07
1.320E-07
1.325E-07
1.330E-07
1.335E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
J
-
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
l
3D
AXI
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
%

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
Contour 1
Contour 2
Contour 3
Contour 4
Contour 5
L3.39
Examples
Compact Tension Specimen
This is one of five standardized specimens defined by the ASTM for the
characterization of fracture initiation and crack growth.
The ASTM standardized testing apparatus uses a clevis and a pin to
hold the specimen and apply a controlled displacement.
L3.40
Examples
Model details
Plane strain conditions assumed.
The initial crack length is 5 mm.
Elastic-plastic material
Low alloy ferritic steel
Crack seam
q-vector
1/r singularity modeled in
the crack-tip elements
Prescribed load line displacement
L3.41
Examples
Results
Small strain analysis Finite strain analysis
L3.42
Examples
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.
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral
Calculations
L3.44
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.
Normals to top crack
surface nodes
n (normal to
crack plane)
Normals to bottom
crack surface nodes
q
L3.45
Example: sharp curved crack
Contour # 1 2 3 4 5
J without normals 3.363 2.980 2.475 1.888 1.283
J with normals 3.600 3.602 3.605 3.605 3.605
L3.46
Blunt cracks and notches
All nodes on the notch should be included in the crack-tip node set.
The J-integral results are more accurate since the q vector is
parallel to the crack surface in this case, as illustrated below.
Crack surface
Crack surface
Single node in crack-tip node set;
normals calculated on nodes of
blunted surface; q not parallel to
crack surface.
All nodes on blunted surface in
crack-tip node set; q parallel to
crack surface.
Paths for contour
integrals
n
q
q
L3.48
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).
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
L3.51
S8R5 elements can be collapsed and midside nodes moved to the
1/4 points.
The q vector must lie in the shell surface.
It should be tangent to the surface.
Crack-tip mesh for S8R5 elements
Shell mesh
L3.52
Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load
Mean radius R = 10.5 in
Wall thickness t = 0.525 in
Crack half-angle u = t / 4
Longitudinal membrane stress = 100 psi
L3.53
Model details
Axial load is applied using
a shell edge load
Symmetry used to reduce
mode size
Edge loads
symmetry
L3.54
Modeling a crack with a keyhole
Crack tip
Crack front
q vector
L3.55
Results
Deformed shapeaxial loading
J valuesaxial loading
L3.56
In shell element meshes, mechanical loads which act normal to the shell
surface and are applied within the contour integral domain are not taken
into account in the calculation of the contour integral.
For example, pressure loads are not considered because they act
normal to the shell surface
Conversely, axial edge loads are considered because they act in
the shell surface.
Two workarounds exist:
Run successive shell models with differing crack lengths and
numerically differentiate the potential energy
Use solid elements (if the response is membrane dominated)
L3.57
Using numerical differentiation to obtain J:
The PE values should be obtained from two separate analyses, with
crack lengths differing by Aa.
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.
Constant Load
Constant Load
( )
a a a
PE
J
a
PE PE
a
+A
c
=
c
=
A
.
Potential energy:
PE = ALLSE ALLWK
L3.58
Using solid elements:
If membrane deformation is dominant, the shell can be modeled
with a single layer of 20-node bricks since these solid elements
include loading contributions to contour integrals.
L3.59
To obtain accurate values of J through the shell thickness with solid
elements, more than one element should be used in the thickness
direction.
J values will show significant path dependence unless
averaged.
If only one element is used through the thickness, the values can be
averaged by thinking of J as a force per unit length:
The average is calculated as if the J values were equivalent
nodal forces:
4
6
A B C
shell
J J J
J
+ +
= .
C
B
A
L3.60
Aside: Generating a solid element mesh from a shell mesh.
A shell mesh can easily be converted to a solid one using the Offset
Mesh tool.
Creates solid layers from a shell mesh.
L3.61
Example: Circumferential through crack in
an internally pressurized, closed-end pipe
The same pipe discussed earlier, now
subjected to 10 psi internal pressure +
axial load (which simulates the closed
end).
Comparison of J values using one layer
of C3D20R elements through the
thickness :
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
C
B
A
L3.62
Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load revisited
Now we revisit the problem in which the pipe is subjected to an axial
load.
Comparison of J values using one layer of C3D20R elements through
the thickness:
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
L3.63
Comparing these results with the
shell element results presented
earlier:
Errors with respect to the
analytical solution for the 3D
model are less than 1%.
Much closer agreement because
transverse shear effects are
considered in the 3D model.
Only in-plane stress and strain
terms are included in the Abaqus
J calculations for shells.
Transverse shear terms are
neglected.
Mixed-Mode Fracture
L3.65
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Abaqus uses interaction integrals to
compute the stress intensity factors.
This approach accounts for
mixed-mode loading effects.
Note that the J- or 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.
L3.66
Mixed-Mode Fracture
0
K a o t =
Element
type
22.5 CPE8 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
22.5 CPE8R 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
67.5 CPE8 1.052 (+3.6%) 0.373 (+1.0%)
67.5 CPE8R 1.053 (+3.8%) 0.374 (+1.3%)
22.5 | =
67.5 | =
Example: Center slant cracked plate under tension
*Values enclosed in parentheses are
percentage differences with respect to
the reference solution. See Abaqus
Benchmark Problem 4.7.4 for more
information.
|
I
K
K
0
II
K
K
0
*
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
L3.69
Example: J-integral analysis of a two material
plate
As an example, the figure shows a single-edge
notch specimen made from two materials in
which the material interface runs at an angle to
the sides of the specimen.
The material containing the crack (left) has a
Youngs modulus of 2 10
5
MPa and a
Poissons ratio of 0.3.
The uncracked material (right) has Youngs
modulus of 2 10
4
MPa and a Poissons ratio
of 0.1.
The specimen is stretched by uniform
displacement at its ends.
L3.70
J-integral analysis of a two material plate (contd)
Along the material discontinuity, the normal to
the discontinuity is given using the -NORMAL
option.
The normal needs to be defined on both
sides of the discontinuity.
*NORMAL
LEFT, NORM, 1.0, 0.125, 0.0
RIGHT, NORM, -1.0, -0.125, 0.0
L3.71
The calculated J-integral values for 10 contours are as follows:
The need for the normals on the interface (contours 510) is clear.
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
Numerical Calculations with
Elastic-Plastic Materials
L3.73
For Mises plasticity the plastic deformation is incompressible.
The rate of total deformation becomes incompressible (constant
volume) as the plastic deformation starts to dominate the response.
All Abaqus quadrilateral and brick elements suitable for use in J-integral
calculations can handle this rate incompressibility condition except for
the fully integrated quadrilaterals and brick elements without the
hybrid formulation.
Do not use CPE8, CAX8, C3D20 elements with these materials.
They will lock (become overconstrained) as the material becomes
more incompressible.
L3.74
Second-order elements with reduced integration (CPE8R,
C3D20R, etc.) work best for stress concentration problems in
general and for crack tips in particular.
If the displaced shape plot shows a regular pattern of deformation,
this state is an indication of mesh locking.
Locking can be seen in quilt contour plots of hydrostatic
pressure for first-order 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 v = 0.5).
L3.75
Results with elastic-plastic materials (and nonlinear materials in general)
are more sensitive to meshing than for small-strain linear elasticity.
Meshes adequate for linear elasticity may have to be refined.
The more complex the solution, the more J values tend to be path
dependent.
A lack of path dependence can be an indication of a lack of mesh
convergence; however, path independence of J does not prove
mesh convergence.
Workshop 1
L3.77
Workshop 1
Crack in a three-point bend specimen
Two-dimensional geometry
Mesh sensitivity study
Focus vs. unfocused mesh
Quarter-point vs. mid-side nodes
Workshop 2
L3.79
Workshop 2
Crack in a helicopter airframe component
Three-dimensional geometry
Create mesh and evaluate response for cracks at different locations

FRAC L03 Contour

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FRAC L03 Contour

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fracture Analysis

Anda mungkin juga menyukai