Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Lecture 1
L1.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Fracture Mechanisms
• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics
• Small Scale Yielding
• Energy Considerations
• The J-integral
• Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics
• Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Interfacial Fracture
• Creep Fracture
• Fatigue
Overview
Introduction
• Fracture mechanics is the field of solid mechanics that deals with the
behavior of cracked bodies subjected to stresses and strains.
• These can arise from primary applied loads or secondary self-
equilibrating stress fields (e.g., residual stresses).
Introduction
Fracture Mechanisms
Fracture Mechanisms
Cleavage fracture
Fracture Mechanisms
Fracture Mechanisms
• Fracture modes
• Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
considers three distinct fracture modes: Modes
I, II, and III
• These encompass all possible ways a crack
tip can deform.
• Mode I:
• The forces are perpendicular to the crack,
pulling the crack open.
• This is referred to as the opening mode.
• Mode II:
• The forces are parallel to the crack.
• One force pushes the top half of the
crack back and the other pulls the
bottom half of the crack forward, both
along the same line.
• This creates a shear crack: the
crack slides along itself.
• This is referred to as the in-plane shear
mode.
• The forces do not cause out-of-
plane deformation.
• Mode III:
• The forces are transverse to the crack.
• This causes the material to separate
and slide along itself, moving out of
its original plane
• This is referred to as the out-of-plane
shear mode.
KI K K
ij (r , ) fijI ( ) II fijII ( ) III fijIII ( ), x2 r
2 r 2 r 2 r
where x1
• Crack-tip singularity
• The predicted stress state at the crack tip in a linear elastic (brittle)
material possesses a square-root singularity:
1
.
r
Fracture toughness
Temperature
• The brittle-ductile transition temperature range depends on the material.
• For many common metals it may lie within the reasonable operating
temperature range for the design, so the temperature dependence
of the fracture toughness must be considered.
KC
Thickness →
ductile
Kapplied K R (Da).
K applied dK R
.
a load
d Da
Small-Scale Yielding
Plastic zone
K-dominated zone
Transition zone
Small-Scale Yielding
• The size of the process zone and the plastic region must be
sufficiently small so that this is true. Typical shapes of plastic zones
follow:
Small-Scale Yielding
• We can estimate the plastic zone size, rp, by setting 22 = 0 in the LEFM
asymptotic solution, where 0 is the yield stress. This gives (for Mode I)
2 2
1 KI 1 KI
rp .
2 0 6 0
• Since the tractions across the boundary of the plastic zone have no net
force or moments (St. Venant’s principle), the effect on the elastic field
surrounding the plastic zone decays rapidly with distance from the
boundary, becoming negligible at ~3rp.
• LEFM predicts infinite stress at the crack tip—obviously this is unrealistic.
• But we can use LEFM results if the region of inelastic deformation near
the crack tip is small enough that there is a finite zone outside this
region where the LEFM asymptotic solution is accurate.
Small-Scale Yielding
or 2
K IC ASTM Standard for
a 2.5 . validity of LEFM
0
• This is the limit on specimen size in ASTM Standard E-399 for a valid
KIC test.
• KIC is KC (the fracture toughness) in Mode I.
• The fracture toughness represents the critical value of K required
to initiate crack growth.
Small-Scale Yielding
Characteristic
Material
T 0 KIC rp dimension
(ºC) (MPa) (MN/m3/2) (mm)
(mm)
Energy Considerations
Energy Considerations
Energy Considerations
1 - v2 2
G K for plane strain
E
and
K2
G for plane stress.
E
• In a three-dimensional body under general loading that contains a crack
with a smoothly changing crack-tip line, the energy release rate
(assuming linear elasticity) per unit crack front length is
1 - v2 2 1 2
G ( K I K II2 ) K III .
E 2G
• Thus, we see the stress intensity factors are directly related to the
energy release rate associated with infinitesimal crack growth in an
isotropic linear elastic material.
Energy Considerations
The J-integral
The J-integral
• J is defined as follows:
x2
u
J Wn1 - i ij n j ds
x1
x1
• It is path independent when contours are taken around a crack tip.
• The definition of J assumes:
• The material is homogeneous in the crack direction.
• The material is elastic.
• For linear elastic materials, the value of J is equal to the energy
release rate associated with crack advance:
J G
The J-integral
• J in small-scale yielding
• Choose , the contour for J, to fall entirely within the annular region in
which the K fields dominate.
3rp
n
e
a ,
e0 0
where 0 is the effective yield stress, e0 = 0 / E is the associated yield
strain, E is Young's modulus, and a and n are chosen to fit the stress-
strain data for the material.
Loading parameter is J 1
J n1
ij 0 ij ( ),
a e
0 0 n
I r
n
J n1
e ij e 0 eij ( ),
a e
0 0 n
I r
n
J n1
ui - uˆi ae 0 r ui ( ).
a e
0 0 n
I r
• In unloading situations, the HRR fields do not describe the state around
the crack tip, and hence J does not characterize the strength of the
stress state ahead of a crack tip for plastic materials. Use caution when:
• The loading is not monotonic and an incremental plasticity material
is used
• Crack growth occurs under monotonic loading (individual material
particles may unload even when the overall structure is being
loaded).
• The HRR solution:
• Gives the leading term in an asymptotic expansion of the
deformation around the crack tip for a power law material; and
• Does not take into account finite-strain effects.
• J-dominance
• J-dominance refers to situations when J can be used as a method of
predicting fracture.
• In general, J is an adequate characterization when there exists a state of
high triaxial tension (high triaxiality) ahead of the crack tip.
• High triaxiality ahead of the crack tip leads to low fracture
toughness.
• Examples: states of small-scale and well-contained yielding (where
the plastic zone is surrounded by an elastic zone):
• Deeply notched bend specimen
d
c «d
c
• In some situations the crack-tip stress field does not exhibit high triaxiality.
• Example: large-scale yielding (the plastic zone extends to the free
boundaries of the body):
• Fully plastic flow of single-edge cracked specimens under tension
loading
• Shallow cracks under bending
• Center-cracked panel
KI
ij (r , ) fij ( ) T 1i1 j O(r1/2 ).
2 r
• The T-stress thus represents a stress parallel to the crack faces.
• The magnitude of the T-stress affects the size and shape of the
plastic zone and the region of tensile triaxiality ahead of the crack
tip.
• For positive T-stress, J-dominance exists and a single parameter J
can be used for a fracture criterion.
• For negative T-stress, a two-parameter approach (J, T) is required
to characterize the stress fields.
Mixed-Mode Fracture
• Under general loading almost all theories for the direction of crack growth
assume or predict that the continued crack growth will be with KII = 0.
• Can assume that macroscopic cracks growing with continuously
turning tangents will advance straight ahead, presumably under Mode
I conditions.
• The crack curvature will evolve in such a way as to maintain this in
response to the loading.
• If the loading changes such that the local crack-tip stress field
experiences a large change in local stress intensities, mixed-mode
fracture will occur.
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Interfacial Fracture
Interfacial Fracture
Interfacial Fracture
• If the crack kinks off the interface, the fact that there is an interface is
important only in how it influences the stress and strain fields.
• If the crack grows along the interface, it grows under mixed mode
conditions due to material asymmetry and possibly (though not
necessarily) under mixed remote loading conditions.
• In such situations the conditions for crack growth depend on the
interface properties. It is not sufficient to define crack initiation and
growth criterion based on the conventional fracture toughness, KC.
• Specifically KC = KC ().
• Toughness depends strongly on the mode mixity .
Interfacial Fracture
• Asymptotic fields
• The asymptotic stress field for an interfacial crack between linear elastic
materials is given by
K * ie
ij Re r ij ( , e )
2 r
where K* = K1 iK2 is the complex stress intensity factor (i.e., it has real
and imaginary parts) and ij , e is a complex function of the angle
and material mismatch parameter e :
1 1- ( - 1) - 2 (1 - 1)
e log , where 1 2 , and
2 1 1 ( 2 1) 2 (1 1)
3 -
for plane stress
1
3 - 4 for plane strain, axi, 3D
Interfacial Fracture
• The complex exponent rie indicates that the stresses will oscillate near
the crack tip:
• Both the stresses and crack opening displacements will oscillate wildly
as the crack tip is approached.
• At some distance ahead of the crack tip, the fields settle down.
• The fracture criterion should be measured at this point. Provided the
location of this point is the same in different specimens, a fracture
criterion is valid.
Creep Fracture
• High-temperature fracture
• For temperatures above 0.3M (where M is the melting temperature on
an absolute scale), metals will typically creep.
• In plastics creep can occur even at room temperature.
• There are typically two mechanisms that are active in creep fracture:
• Blunting of the crack tip due to a relaxing stress field.
• This tends to retard crack growth.
• Accumulation of creep damage (microcracks, void growth, and
coalescence).
• This enhances crack growth.
• Steady-state creep crack growth occurs when the two effects balance
one another.
Creep Fracture
• The stress state around a crack tip in a material that can creep is more
complicated than for the corresponding plasticity problem.
• Because of the time-dependent effects there is no one parameter that
can characterize the stress state around the crack tip for all
possibilities.
• This makes measuring the relevant parameters more difficult.
• Hence, creep fracture is not as well established as elastic-plastic
fracture.
(K field).
Growing crack: region develops where O(e ) O(e )
el cr
Creep Fracture
• Contour integrals
• The contour integral for creep fracture is called the C(t)-integral.
• It plays an analogous role to the J-integral in the context of time-
dependent creep fracture.
• Its development assumes a power law creep material:
n
e e el e cr e0
E 0
• The C(t)-integral is proportional to the rate of growth of the crack-tip
creep zone for a stationary crack under small-scale creep conditions:
n u j
C (t )
r 0 n 1
ijeij n1 - ni ij
x1
ds.
Creep Fracture
Creep Fracture
Fatigue
da
C (DK ) n , where
dN
DK K max - K min
Fatigue
Overview
• Mesh refinement
• Crack tips cause stress concentrations.
• Stress and strain gradients are large as a crack tip is approached.
• The finite element mesh must be refined in the vicinity of the crack
tip to get accurate stresses and strains.
• The J-integral is an energy measure; for LEFM, accurate J values can
generally be obtained with surprisingly coarse meshes, even though the
local stress and strain fields are not very accurate.
• For plasticity or rubber elasticity, the crack-tip region has to be
modeled carefully to give accurate results.
• In two dimensions…
• The crack is modeled as an internal edge
partition embedded (partially or wholly) inside
a face.
• This is called a seam crack
• The edge along the seam will have
duplicate nodes such that the elements
on the opposite sides of the edge will not
share nodes.
• Typically, the entire 2D part is filled with a
quad or quad-dominated mesh.
• At the crack tip, a ring of triangles are
inserted along with concentric layers of
structured quads.
• All triangles in the contour domains must
be represented as degenerated quads.
Seam
Crack tip
same as The crack extension direction (q vector)
crack defines the direction in which the crack
Select the vertex at either front in would extend if it were growing.
end as the crack front. this case
(Repeat for the other end.) It is used for contour integral
calculations.
• Other options for defining the crack front and crack tip
Faces/Elements Vertex/Node
Crack normal
Crack tip
• Usage:
Quarter-point midside
The crack tip nodes are nodes on the sides
independent: r -1 singularity connected to the crack tip
3 The crack tip nodes are
constrained: r -½ singularity
4 2
1, 2
1,2,3,4
3 1
1,1,2,3
• If the side of the element is not collapsed but the midside nodes on the
sides of the element connected to the crack tip are moved to the ¼
point:
• The strain is square root singular along the element edges but not in
the interior of the element.
• This is better than no singularity but not as good as the collapsed
element.
• Angular resolution
• We need enough elements to resolve the angular dependence of the
strain field around the crack tip.
• Reasonable results are obtained for LEFM if typical elements
around the crack tip subtend angles in the range of 10 (accurate) to
22.5 (moderately accurate).
A
as r 0.
r
Quarter-
point
nodes
• Example (cont’d):
Alternate meshes
• No degeneracy:
Coincident nodes
located at crack tip
Arbitrary mesh;
Focused mesh; deformation
deformation scale
scale factor = 100
factor = 100
• In three dimensions…
• The seam crack is modeled as a
face partition that is either partially
or totally embedded into a solid
body.
• This can be done by
partitioning or using a cut
(Boolean) operation. Penny-shaped seam
Quarter model
crack: Full model
• The face along the seam will have
duplicate nodes such that the
elements on the opposite sides of
the face will not share nodes.
• Wedge elements must be created
along the crack front.
• Generally, this will require
partitioning. Wedge elements Meshed model
Geometric Orphan
Geometric Orphan Instances Mesh
Instances Mesh
C3D20(RH) midplane
edge plane
2 nodes collapsed to
the same location
crack line
midside nodes
moved to ¼ points
3 nodes collapsed to
the same location
A
as r 0 A B
r as r 0 B
r r as r 0
r
Crack line
• If on each plane there is only one node along the crack line, no
singularity is represented within the element.
• In either case the interpolation is not the same on the midplane as
on an edge plane.
• This generally causes local oscillations in the J-integral values
along the crack line.
• On a midplane for 27-node bricks with all the extra nodes on the
element faces:
midplane
C3D27(RH)
edge plane
3 nodes collapsed to
same location
centroid
crack line
• If all midface nodes and the centroid node are included and moved with
the midside nodes to the ¼ points, the singularity can be made the same
on the edge planes and midplane.
• Abaqus does not allow the centroid node to be moved from the
geometric centroid of the element.
• Therefore, the behavior at the midplane will never be the same as at
the edge planes.
• This usually causes some small oscillation of the crack fields along
the crack line.
• The midface node marked “A” is frequently omitted.
• This creates differences in interpolation between the midplane and
the edge planes and, hence, causes further oscillation in the crack-
tip fields.
• These oscillations are minor in most cases.
a = 15
r = 10
q = 45º
Mesh seam
To redefine
this particular
vector, select
these nodes
as the start
and end points
of the vector.
• For all elements, the singularities are modeled best if the element edges
are straight.
• In three dimensions the planes of the element perpendicular to the crack
line should be flat.
• If they are not, when the midside nodes are moved to the ¼ points,
the Jacobian of the element at some integration points may be
negative.
• One way to correct this is to move the midside nodes slightly away
from the ¼ points toward the midpoint.
• Finite-strain analyses:
• Singular elements should not be used (normally).
• The mesh must be sufficiently refined to model the very high strain
gradients around the crack tip if details in this region are required.
• Even if only the J-integral is required, the deformation around the
crack tip may dominate the solution and the crack-tip region will
have to be modeled with sufficient detail to avoid numerical
problems.
• Physically, the crack tip is not perfectly sharp, and such modeling makes it
difficult to obtain results.
• Instead, we model the tip as a blunted notch, with a suggested radius
10-3rp.
• Here, rp is the size of the plastic zone (discussed in Lecture 1).
• The notch must be small enough that under the applied loads, the
deformed shape of the notch no longer depends on the original
geometry.
• Typically, the notch must blunt out to more than four times its
original radius for this to be true.
• The size of the elements around the notch must be about 1/10 th the
notch-tip radius. Biased edge seeds can
reduce the size of the mesh
by focusing small elements
towards the crack tip.
SEN specimen
crack-tip mesh
rnotch
10% of rnotch
• For J-integral evaluation, the region on the surface of the blunted notch
should be used to define the crack front.
Crack tip
region
q vector
Crack surface
The blunted notch
is detected
surface is the crack
automatically Symmetry plane
front region
• For the J- and Ct-integrals to be path independent, the crack surfaces
must be parallel to one another (or parallel to the symmetry plane).
• If this is not the case, Abaqus automatically generates normals on
the crack surface.
• If the notch radius shrinks to zero, all nodes that would be at the crack
tip should be included in the crack-tip node set.
• If the mesh is so coarse that the integration points nearest the crack tip
are far from the tip, most of the details (accurate stresses and strains) of
the finite-strain region around the crack tip will be lost.
• However, accurate J values may still be obtained if cracks are
modeled as sharp.
Deformed shape
Moderate blunting
Undeformed
shape
Severe blunting
crack-front
region
• The region defining the crack front for the contour integral consists
of the region on the keyhole.
• The elements should not be singular.
• For curved regions cannot generate wedges at the center using a hex-
dominated approach and then sweep along the length of the region.
• This was discussed earlier in the context of the conical crack problem.
• To create a focused mesh in this case, embed a small tube within a
larger concentric tube. Mesh the smaller tube with a single layer of
wedge elements; the surrounding regions are meshed with hex
elements.
Sweep direction
Cross-sectional
view of block
Partition by sweeping
circular edge along arc
• The workaround is to partition the face with circular arcs, and then
partition the cell using the n-sided patch technique.
• Crack symmetry
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, SYMM
• The crack lies on a plane of
symmetry and only half the
structure is being modeled
• This feature should only be
used for Mode I problems.
• Crack extension
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, NORMAL
• The NORMAL parameter is used to
define the normal to the crack plane
when the crack is planar.
• Usage:
*contour integral, normal
nx, ny, nz
nodeSet1, nodeSet2, ...
These sets define the crack front;
• In this case, give a list of the node the first node in each set defines
set names defining the crack front the crack tip node for that set.
from one end to the other end, in (An optional CRACK TIP NODES
sequential order, without missing parameter is available to specify
any points on the crack line. the crack tip nodes directly).
• In two-dimensional cases,
only one node set is needed.
Crack-Front-1
Crack-Front-1
• Node definitions
*node 12101 8101 4101
1, 0.0125, 0.0000
16001, 0.0125, 0.0000
101, 0.0250, 0.0000
4101, 0.0250, 0.0125
14101 2101
12101, 0.0000, 0.0125
16101, 0.0000, 0.0000
*ngen, nset=tip
1, 16001, 1000
*ngen, nset=outer 16101 101
101, 4101, 1000 tip
4101, 12101, 1000
12101, 16101, 1000 *NGEN generates nodes
incrementally between any two
previously defined nodes.
Start Increment in In this example, 17 crack-tip nodes
End node
node node number are created (contained in the set tip);
the 17 nodes on the outer boundary
are contained in set outer.
11 21 31
*NFILL generate nodes for a region of a
mesh by filling in nodes between two
bounds.
In this example, 10 rows of nodes are
generated between each tip node and its
corresponding outer node.
• Element definitions
*element, type=cps8r
1, 1, 21, 2021, 2001, 11, 1021, 2011, 1001
*elgen, elset=plate
1, 5, 20, 10, 8, 2000, 1000
First row of Nodes 1, 1001,
Total number of and 2001 are
elements rows coincident
1
2021
1021
*ELGEN generates elements
incrementally.
In this example, 5 elements form the
21 first row (extending radially outward
11 from the tip); a total of 8 rows of
elements (based on the first row) are
created around the crack tip.
1
• Crack-tip nodes
• If the crack-tip nodes are permitted to behave independently, the
strength of the strain-field singularity is r -1.
• The crack-tip nodes can be constrained using equations, multi-point
constraints, using repeated nodes in the element definition, etc. For
example, to constrain the crack-tip nodes with a multi-point
constraint:
*nset, nset=constrain, generate
1, 15001, 1000
*mpc
tie, constrain, 16001
• Only node 16001 is independent in this case.
• The strain-field singularity is r -½.
Overview
• 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.
• Usage:
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.
• Usage (cont’d):
• Usage (cont’d):
• Output files
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, OUTPUT
• 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.
Examples
Examples
20
• Different mesh characteristics:
• Axisymmetric or three-dimensional
• Fine or coarse focused meshes
• With or without ¼ point elements
• Various element types used: 20
Axisymmetric model
Crack tip
Examples
0.08
0.0004
~0.08
Examples
Symmetry planes
Model geometry
Examples
Examples
Additional partition
required for swept
mesh
Examples
Irregular elements
required here
because revolving
about a point
A 7-node element
is an example of an
irregular element.
Examples
Examples
Separate output
requests are required
for J, K-factors, and the
T-stress.
Examples
Examples
• Results
• MISES stress shown below for
the axisymmetric fine mesh.
J analytical J numerical
100%
J analytical
Deformation scale
factor = 250
Examples
• Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
Examples
• Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
Examples
• Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
Examples
• Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
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.
Examples
Examples
• Three-dimensional model
• Displaced shape and Mises stress distribution of full three-
dimensional model.
Examples
1.338E-07
1.336E-07 3D contour 5
J-integral
1.334E-07 3D contour 4
1.332E-07 3D contour 3
1.330E-07 3D contour 2
1.328E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
Examples
Examples
1.380E-07 1.334E-07
J-integral
1.333E-07
J -integral
1.360E-07
3D 1.332E-07 3D
1.340E-07
AXI 1.331E-07 AXI
1.320E-07 1.330E-07
1.300E-07 1.329E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
1.336E-07 1.338E-07
1.336E-07
J-integral
J -integral
1.334E-07
3D 1.334E-07 3D
1.332E-07
AXI 1.332E-07 AXI
1.330E-07 1.330E-07
1.328E-07 1.328E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
Examples
3.5
3.0 Contour 1
% difference
2.5 Contour 2
2.0
Contour 3
1.5
1.0 Contour 4
0.5 Contour 5
0.0
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
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.
Examples
% difference
3.5
3.0 Contour 2
by the coarser mesh used in 2.5
Contour 3
2.0
the global model. 1.5
1.0
Contour 4
0.5 Contour 5
• Errors in J are less than 1%. 0.0
0 45 90
factor of 3.
Variation of J with angular position Variation of J with angular position
Contour 5
1.326E-07
J-integral
3D contour 4 1.330E-07
1.322E-07 3D
3D contour 3 1.325E-07
1.320E-07 AXI
3D contour 2 1.320E-07
1.318E-07 1.315E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
Angle (degrees) Angle (degrees)
Examples
Examples
• Results
Examples
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
q q
All nodes on blunted surface in
Single node in crack-tip node set; crack-tip node set; q parallel to
normals calculated on nodes of crack surface.
blunted surface; q not parallel to
crack surface.
• Model details
• Axial load is applied using
a shell edge load
• Symmetry used to reduce
mode size
Edge loads
symmetry
Crack front
q vector
Crack tip
• Results
J values—axial loading
• 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)
Potential energy:
( PE )
J = PE = ALLSE ALLWK
a Constant Load
PE a Da PE a
= .
Da
Constant Load
J A 4J B JC
J shell
= . A
6 B
C
J values 100 A
CONTOUR B
1 2 3 4 5 C
At Node A 2.0965 2.1317 2.1505 2.1557 2.1697
At Node B 3.7396 3.6992 3.7004 3.6968 3.6904
At Node C 5.0226 5.0501 5.0813 5.1471 5.2373
Averaged 3.6796 3.6631 3.6722 3.6817 3.6948
J values 100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Element
type
22.5º CPE8 0.185 (2.9%)* 0.403 (0.2%)
22.5º CPE8R 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
67.5º CPE8 1.052 (3.6%) 0.373 (1.0%)
67.5º CPE8R 1.053 (3.8%) 0.374 (1.3%)
K0 = p a
= 22.5 = 67.5
Material Discontinuities
Material Discontinuities
Material Discontinuities
Material Discontinuities
J (N/mm)
Contour
Without normals With normals
1 55681 55681
2 57085 57085
3 57052 57052
4 57058 57058
5 35188 57116
6 31380 57114
7 27536 57114
8 23512 57113
9 19172 57116
10 14181 57094
• The need for the normals on the interface (contours 5–10) is clear.
Workshop 1
Workshop 2
Overview
Keywords
*MATERIAL
B
*ELASTIC
Multiple damage definitions are allowed
*PLASTIC Typical material response showing
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=criterion progressive damage
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION=YES
• Ductile criterion:
• Appropriate for triggering damage
due to nucleation, growth, and
coalescence of voids
• The model assumes that the
equivalent plastic strain at the onset
of damage is a function of stress
triaxiality and strain rate.
Pressure stress
• Stress triaxiality h = - p / q
Mises stress
• The ductile criterion can be used with
the Mises, Johnson-Cook, Hill, and
Drucker-Prager plasticity models,
Ductile criterion for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6
including equation of state. (Courtesy of BMW)
• Usage:
• Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a
tabular function of
• Stress triaxiality
• Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=DUCTILE
pl , h , pl , T , fi
Equivalent fracture strain Temperature and field
at damage initiation variable dependence
optional
• Output:
DUCTCRT (wD) The criterion for damage initiation is met when wD = 1.
• Shear criterion:
• Appropriate for triggering damage
due to shear band localization
• The model assumes that the
equivalent plastic strain at the onset
of damage is a function of the shear
stress ratio and strain rate.
• Shear stress ratio defined as:
qs = (q + ks p) /tmax
• Usage:
• Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a
tabular function of
• Shear stress ratio
• Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=ks
pl , q s , pl , T , fi ks is a material parameter
Cross
section
• Model details
• Steel base:
Rigid plate
• C3D8R elements with initial
• Enhanced hourglass control downward
velocity
• Elastic-plastic material
Aluminum
• Aluminum chamber: chamber
• S4R elements
• Stiffness hourglass control
• Rate-dependent plasticity
• Damage initiation
• General contact
• Variable mass scaling Steel base: bottom
is encastred.
:
Strain rate, pl
4.4098, 0.000, 250
2.5717, 0.067, 250 Stress triaxiality, h
1.5018, 0.133, 250
: Equivalent fracture strain at
damage initiation, pl
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L4.16
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250 Strain rate, pl
0.3025, 1.463, 250
0.3323, 1.501, 250
Shear stress ratio, qs
: Equivalent fracture strain at
damage initiation, pl
• Material definition :
Abaqus/CAE interface
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001
2.8377, 0.133, 0.001
:
4.4098, 0.000, 250
2.5717, 0.067, 250
1.5018, 0.133, 250
:
• Material definition :
Abaqus/CAE interface (cont'd)
:
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001
0.2530, 1.501, 0.001
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250
0.3025, 1.463, 250
0.3323, 1.501, 250
:
Ductile Shear
Quasi-static response
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
0 0 pl
0
u pl
u f u pl
u fpl u pl
(a) Tabular (b) Linear (c) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=DISPLACEMENT,
SOFTENING={TABULAR,LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
Damage Evolution
Undamaged
• Procedure for generating d vs u pl
response
table from tensile test data
d = 0; u = 0
Plot true stress, vs. total
pl
1.
displacement u measured over y0 u
pl
f
Damage Evolution
y y
2G f
y0 u fpl = y0 NOTE: The response is linear or
y0 exponential only if the undamaged
Gf Gf response is perfectly plastic
u fpl u pl u pl
(a) Linear (b) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING={LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
Damage Evolution
*Material, name=Aluminum
:
*Damage initiation, criterion=Ductile
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,
*Damage initiation, criterion=Shear, ks=0.3
:
*Damage evolution, type=displacement
0.1,
Damage Evolution
Element Removal
Element Removal
Element Removal
• Usage:
*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME=Ec-1, ELEMENT DELETION=YES, MAX DEGRADATION=0.9
:
** Refer to the section controls by name on the element section definition.
*SOLID SECTION, ELSET=Elset_1, CONTROLS=Ec-1, MATERIAL=Material_1
:
Element Removal
Element Removal
• Output
• The output variable SDEG Failed elements removed
by default when STAUS
contains the value of D. output is available
• The output variable STATUS
indicates whether or not an
element has failed.
• STATUS = 0 for failed
elements
• STATUS = 1 for active
elements
• Abaqus/Viewer will
automatically remove failed
elements when the output
database (.odb) file includes failed
STATUS. elements
• User interface
• Damage Initiation
• Damage Evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,
TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING=LINEAR
Gft,Gfc ,Gmt,Gmc
• Viscous Regularization
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
ηft, ηfc, ηmt, ηmc
• Output
• Initiation Criteria Variables
• HSNFTCRT – tensile fiber Hashin’s criterion
• HSNFCCRT – compressive fiber Hashin’s criterion
• HSNMTCRT – tensile matrix Hashin’s criterion
• HSNMCCRT – compressive matrix Hashin’s criterion
• Damage Variables
• DAMAGEFT – tensile fiber damage
• DAMAGEFC – compressive fiber damage
• DAMAGEMT – tensile matrix damage
• DAMAGEMC – compressive matrix damage
• Output (cont'd)
• Status
• STATUS – element status (1 – present, 0 – removed)
• Energies
• Damage energy (ALLDMD,DMENER,ELDMD,EDMDDEN)
• Viscous regularization (ALLCD, CENER, ELCD, ECDDEN)
• Results
Damage in Fasteners
multiple layers
attachment
points
radius of influence
Damage in Fasteners
• Fastener failure
• Model combines plasticity and progressive damage S 0
u pl
Schematic representation of the
predicted numerical response
Damage in Fasteners
• Example
• Spot-welded hat section of three layers of sheet metals subjected to
severe compressive loading
Deformable fastener
still holding
Failed fasteners
• Applications
• Geotechnical
• Well bore sand production
• Plastic strain, fluid velocity
• Aerospace
• Rocket motor ablation
• Pyrolysis, char formation
• Solid propellants
• Automotive
• Tire wear
• Disk brake wear
Fluid velocity dependent
• Manufacturing wear of a well bore
• Machining
• User interface
*Adaptive mesh, elset=...
*Adaptive mesh constraint, type=[velocity|displacement],
User
*Adaptive mesh controls
• Adaptive mesh constraints define mesh motion (wear extent or velocity)
• Wear criterion
• General descriptions possible through user subroutine UMESHMOTION
• User access to solution variables
• Nodal
• Material
• Contact
• A local surface coordinate system is provided
h = E
Rate of recession Rate of frictional
of tread energy dissipation
Proportionality
constant
• Analysis steps
• Geostatic
• Model change removal of well bore and casing (drilling operation)
• Apply pore pressure; establish steady state conditions
• Transient soils consolidation (during which the erosion occurs)
• Ablation relation:
V = 10 × (PEEQ - 0.028)
Erosion
velocity
Adaptive-Zone Rock-Perf
locnum = 0
jtyp = 1
peeq = zero
nelems = nelemmax
call getNodeToElemConn(node,nelems,jelemlist,
$ jelemtype,jrcd,jgvblock)
call getVrmAvgAtNode(node, jtyp, 'PE', array, jrcd,
$ jelemlist, nelems, jmatyp, jgvblock)
peeq = array(7)
• Results
Material wear at bore hole/perforation junction Total volume lost due to erosion is available
with history output variable VOLC
• Mesh smoothing
• Two options
• Original configuration projection
method
• Smoothing performed according
to the original configuration Original-configuration
smoothing
• Volume-based smoothing
• Either method can include a
geometric-based enhancement
Volumetric
smoothing
• Limitations
• Available for a subset of continuum elements
• Available only for following procedures using geometric nonlinearity
• Static
• Soils
• Coupled Temperature-Displacement
• Tracer particles not supported
Overview
• Introduction
• Element Technology
• Constitutive Response
• Viscous Regularization
• Modeling Techniques
• Examples
• Workshop 3 (Part 1)
• Workshop 4
Overview
• Historical perspective
• The concept of a cohesive zone has been around for some time:
• Dugdale (1960) and Barenblatt (1962) were the first to apply the
concept of a cohesive stress zone to fracture modeling.
• Many extensions since then.
• For example, Needleman (1987) recognized that cohesive
elements are particularly attractive when interface strengths are
relatively weak compared to the adjoining materials.
• Examples: composite laminates and parts bonded with adhesives
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Element Technology
Top face
• Element types*
• 3D elements
• COH3D8
• COH3D6 Bottom face
• 2D element
• COH2D4
• Axisymmetric element
• COHAX4
• These elements can be embedded
in a model via
• shared nodes or
• tie constraints.
Element Technology
Element Technology
Element Technology
• Output variables
• Scalar damage (i.e., degradation) variable
• SDEG
• Variables indicating whether damage initiation criteria met or exceeded
• Discussed shortly
• Element status flag
• STATUS
Element Technology
Constitutive Response
• Delamination applications T
N
• Traction separation law
• Typically characterized by peak
strength (N) and fracture energy (GTC)
• Mode dependent
GT C
• Linear elasticity with damage
• Available in both Abaqus/Standard
and Abaqus/Explicit
Typical traction-separation response
• Modeling of damage under the general 7
framework introduced earlier 6
Shear mode
• Damage initiation 5
GTC
• Traction or separation-based 3
Normal mode
criterion 2
• Damage evolution
1
• Removal of elements
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mode Mix
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
En=Knheff
Nmax = En = 6.9e9 Kn = 6.9e12
For model B: specify unit thickness
heff = 1 n = n / heff =1e-3;
init init
B
Geometric thickness (based
on nodal coordinates) of the
adhesive hgeom = 1e-3
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L5.22
Constitutive Response
• Damage initiation
• Mixed mode conditions
• Maximum stress
(or strain) criterion:
n t s
MAX , , =1
N max Tmax Smax
n for n 0
n =
0 for n 0
• Output:
• MAXSCRT
• MAXECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { MAXS, MAXE }
Constitutive Response
• For example, for Mode I (opening mode) the MAXS condition implies
damage initiates when n = Nmax.
N Damage initiation point
N max
*Damage initiation,criterion=MAXS
290.0E6, 200.0E6, 200.0E6
n
Nmax Tmax Smax
Constitutive Response
2 2 2
n t s
=1
N max Tmax Smax
• No damage initiation under
pure compression
• Output:
• QUADSCRT
• QUADECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION = { QUADS, QUADE }
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
• Damage evolution
• Post damage-initiation response
defined by:
-d
= 1 - d
(1 - d )
Constitutive Response
N
• Damage evolution is based on
energy or displacement N max
• Specify either the total Area under the curve
is the fracture energy
fracture energy or the post
damage-initiation effective
displacement at failure
GT C
• May depend on mode mix
• Mode mix may be defined in
terms of energy or traction
n
Displacement at failure n
fail
in normal (opening) mode
Constitutive Response
Traction
• Displacement-based damage evolution
Linear post-
• Damage is a function of an effective
initiation response
displacement:
= n s2 t2
2
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
Constitutive Response
(nominal stress)
En
Kn =
constitutive response of cohesive
Traction
heff
Kn GIC
elements was presented.
1 (area under
*Elastic, type=traction
What do you do when you only
En, Et, Es
have 1 property and the adhesive
*Damage initiation, criterion = thickness is essentially zero?
maxs
Nmax, Tmax, Smax
Diehl, T., "Modeling Surface-Bonded Structures with
*Damage evolution, type=energy, ABAQUS Cohesive Elements: Beam-Type Solutions,"
mixed mode behavior=bk, power= ABAQUS Users' Conference, Stockholm, 2005.
GIC, GIIC , GIIIC
Constitutive Response
• Example (cont’d)
• Common case: you know GTC for the surface bond.
• Assume isotropic behavior
GIC = GIIC = GIIIC = GTC
• For MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = BK, this makes the response
independent of term, so set = any valid input value (e.g.,
1.0)
• Bond thickness is essentially zero
• Specify the cohesive section property thickness heff = 1.0
Nominal strains = separation; elastic moduli = stiffness
• Isotropy also implies the following:
En = Et = Es = Eeff (=Keff since we chose heff = 1.0)
Nmax = Tmax = Smax = Tult
Constitutive Response
• Example (cont’d)
• Introduce concept of damage initiation ratio:
ratio= init /fail, where 0 ratio 1.
• Use GC and equation of a triangle to relate back to Keff and Tult :
2 GTC 2 GTC
Keff = Tult =
ratio 2fail fail
• The problem now reduces to two penalty terms: fail and ratio.
• Assume ratio = ½.
• Choose fail as a fraction of the typical cohesive element mesh size.
• For example, use fail = 0.050 typical cohesive element size
as a starting point.
Constitutive Response
• Example (cont’d)
• Thus, after choosing the two penalty terms, a single (effective)
traction-separation law applies to all modes (normal + shear):
Effective properties:
Cohesive material law: *Cohesive section, thickness=SPECIFIED, ...
Tult Traction, Damage Evolution
1.0,
:
Eeff :
(nominal stress)
Constitutive Response
• Example (cont’d)
• What if the response is dynamic? What about the density?
• The density of the cohesive layer should also be considered a
penalty quantity.
• For Abaqus/Explicit, the effective density should not adversely affect
the stable time increment. Diehl suggests the following rule:
Viscous Regularization
Viscous Regularization
• Viscous regularization
• Material models with damage often lead to severe convergence
difficulties in Abaqus/Standard
• Viscous regularization helps in such cases
• Helps make the consistent tangent stiffness of softening material
positive for sufficiently small time increments
• Similar approach used in the concrete damaged plasticity model in
Abaqus/Standard
= 1 - dv
1
dv = d - dv
Viscous Regularization
d
D = 1 - d K 0 - f
Dt
• Viscous regularization ensures that when 0 , D = (1 - d ) K 0
• “Offending” second term is eliminated when the analysis cuts back
drastically
Viscous Regularization
• Output
• Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD
Viscous Regularization
Viscous Regularization
= 5.e - 4
= 1.e - 3
=0
= 1.e - 4 = 2.5e - 4
Viscous Regularization
Modeling Techniques
• 3D (C3D8I) elements
• Delamination assumed to occur along a straight line
• Beams: Orthotropic material
• Cohesive layer: Traction-separation with damage
Modeling Techniques
• One-dimensional model
• Use tie constraints between the cohesive layer and the beams
• Require distinct parts for the beam and cohesive zone geometry
• Geometry
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
beam-top
beam-bot
coh-bot
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Final mesh
Modeling Techniques
• Two-dimensional model
• All geometry is 2D and planar
• Properties, attributes, etc. treated in a
similar manner to the 1D case presented
earlier
• Modeling options include:
• Shared nodes
• Tie constraints
• Similar to the 1D model
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
• Three-dimensional model
• All geometry is 3D
• Solid geometry for beams
• Solid or shell geometry for cohesive layer
• Modeling options include
• Shared nodes
• Tie constraints
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Surface top-coh
Surface top-beam
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
2 1
201 202 201 202
1 2
Thickness
101 102 direction 101 102
Element connectivity: 101, 102, 202, 201 Element connectivity: 102, 202, 201, 101
Modeling Techniques
Setting adjust=yes will force Abaqus to The position tolerance should be large
move the slave (cohesive element) nodes enough to contain the slave nodes when
onto the master surface. By adjusting both measured from the master surface. In this
the top and bottom cohesive surfaces in this case the overclosure is equal to 0.001 on
way, a zero-thickness cohesive layer is either side of the interface so a position
produced. tolerance of 0.002 is sufficient to capture all
slave nodes.
0.001
Modeling Techniques
• Results
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
• Non-planar geometry
• The technique for embedding a layer of solid elements into an orphan
mesh is not restricted to planar geometry.
• As an example, consider the following fiber-matrix pullout model
matrix
Orphan mesh
fiber
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Modeling Techniques
Symmetric model (top)
• Symmetry example overlaid on full model
Constraint on lateral
displacements
Symmetric model
Full model
Constitutive thickness is
same as for the full model so
double the elastic modulus to
double the cohesive stiffness
Examples
• Composite components in
aerospace structures
(Courtesy: NASA)
• Stress concentrations
around stiffener
terminations and flanges
• Residual thermal strains at
the interface at room
temperature
• Analysis of the effects of
residual strains on Beginning of separation After separation
skin/stiffener debonding
• Delamination initiation and Abaqus/Standard simulation of skin/stiffener debonding
propagation
Example Problem 1.4.5
Examples
Abaqus/Standard simulation of
skin/stiffener debonding
Examples
• Electronic packaging
(Courtesy: INTEL)
Examples
Debonded solder balls
Examples
• Delamination of a composite
• This model is a representative of composite
delamination.
• It comprises 3 layers of composite with
adhesive layers applied between
composite layers.
• The composite delaminates under the
impact of a heavy mass displayed in
light greenish shade in the animation.
Cohesive layers
Examples
• Oil Drilling
• Excavation
• Effect of explosion on a building.
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L5.85
Examples
• Deformation sequence
Workshop 3 (Part 1)
Layer of
cohesive
elements
Workshop 4 (Optional)
Cohesive element
thickness shrunk to zero
Overview
• User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive
• The formulae and laws that govern surface-based cohesive behavior are
very similar to those used for cohesive elements with traction-separation
behavior: traction
• linear elastic traction-separation,
• damage initiation criteria, and GC
• damage evolution laws. separation
• However, it is important to recognize that damage in surface-based
cohesive behavior is an interaction property, not a material property.
• Traction and separation are interpreted differently for cohesive elements
and cohesive surfaces:
Cohesive elements Cohesive surfaces
Relative displacement ()
between the top and bottom
of the cohesive layer
separation Nominal strain () = Contact separation ()
Initial thickness (To)
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = ORIGINAL CONTACTS
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = SPECIFIED CONTACTS
1
• Define contact pairs and initially bonded crack surfaces
• The initially bonded portion of the slave surface (i.e., node set bond)
is identified with the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
option.
Note: Frictionless contact is assumed. slave surface master surface a list of slave nodes
that are initially bonded
...
bond
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf
BotSurf TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 Optional
Kn Ks Kt
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L6.14
• User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
TopSurf
BotSurf *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
• Damage evolution
• For surface-based cohesive behavior, damage evolution describes the
degradation of the cohesive stiffness.
• In contrast, for cohesive elements damage evolution describes the
degradation of the material stiffness.
• Damage evolution can be based on energy or separation (same as for
cohesive elements).
• Specify either the total fracture energy (a property of the cohesive
interaction) or the post damage-initiation effective separation at
failure. t
nmax smax , tmax
nf sf , t f
• Viscous regularization
• Can be specified to facilitate solution convergence in Abaqus/Standard
for surface-based cohesive behavior when stiffness degradation occurs.
• Output:
• Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
viscosity coefficient,
• Results
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive elements
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive surfaces
u2
Preprocessing
• Cohesive elements
• Gives you direct control over the cohesive element mesh density
and stiffness properties.
• Constraints are enforced at the element integration
points.
• Refining the cohesive elements relative to the
connected structures will likely lead to improved
constraint satisfaction and more accurate results.
Integration points on an
• Cohesive surfaces 8-node cohesive element
Initial configuration:
• Cohesive elements
• Must be bonded at the start of the analysis.
• Once the interface has failed, the surfaces do not re-bond.
• Cohesive surfaces
• Can bond anytime contact is established
(i.e., “sticky” contact behavior).
• Cohesive interface need not be bonded at the start of the
analysis.
• You can control whether debonded surfaces will stick or not stick if
contact occurs again.
• By default, they do not stick.
Constitutive behavior:
• Cohesive elements
• Allow for several constitutive behavior types:
• Traction-separation constitutive model
• Including multiple failure mechanisms
• Continuum-based constitutive model
• For adhesive layers with finite thickness
• Uses conventional material models
• Uniaxial stress-based constitutive model
• Useful in modeling gaskets and/or single adhesive patches
• Cohesive surfaces
• Must use the traction-separation interface behavior.
• Intended for bonded interfaces where the interface thickness is
negligibly small.
• Only one failure mechanism is allowed.
Mass:
• Cohesive elements
• The element material definitions include mass.
• Cohesive surfaces
• Do not add mass to the model.
• Indented for thin adhesive interfaces; thus, neglecting adhesive
mass is appropriate for most applications.
• However, nonstructural mass can be added to the contacting
elements if necessary.
Summary:
• Cohesive elements
• Are recommended for more detailed adhesive connection modeling.
• Additional preprocessing effort (and often increased computational
cost) is compensated for by gaining:
• Direct control over the connection mesh
• Additional constitutive response options
• E.g., model adhesives of finite thickness
• Cohesive surfaces
• Provides a quick and easy way to model adhesive connections.
• Negligible interface thicknesses only
• Surfaces can bond anytime contact is established
(“sticky” contact)
• Model contact adhesives, Velcro, tape, and other bonding agents
that can stick after separation.
Workshop 3 (Part 2)
Overview
• Introduction
• VCCT Criterion
• Output
• VCCT Plug-in
• Comparison with Cohesive Behavior
• Examples
• Workshop 5
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
1 f 1 ftol .
where
Gequiv is the equivalent strain energy release rate, and
GequivC is the critical equivalent strain energy release rate calculated
based on the user-specified mode-mix criterion and the bond
strength of the interface.
• For the VCCT criterion, the default value of ftol is 0.2.
• Use following option to control ftol:
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
• Reeder law
• Applies only to three-dimensional problems
GIII GII GIII
GequivC GIC GIIC GIC GIIIC GIIC
GII GIII Gi
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=REEDER
GIC, GIIC, GIIIC,
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
VCCT Criterion
Output
Output
Output
• Example: DCB
• Request surface output: bond
...
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond TopSurf
BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280, 280, 280, 2.284
...
*OUTPUT, FIELD, VAR=PRESELECT
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf field output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT
*OUTPUT, HISTORY
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, NSET=bond history output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT
*NODE OUTPUT, NSET=tip
U2, RF2
*END STEP
Output
• Results
VCCT
VCCT Plug-in
• VCCT plug-in
• provides an interactive interface to define the debond interface(s).
• supports the following keyword options required for VCCT analysis:
• For details please refer to “VCCT plug-in utility,” SIMULIA Answer 3235.
VCCT Plug-in
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf initially bonded region
master surface
slave surface
VCCT Plug-in
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
VCCT Plug-in
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
VCCT Plug-in
2b
• Specify critical strain energy release rates
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
MIXED MODE BEHAVOIR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
VCCT Plug-in
• The VCCT plug-in also supports defining spatially varying critical energy
release rates.
• Click mouse button 3 to manage the table.
VCCT Plug-in
VCCT Plug-in
input file.
debond
fracture criterion
field output
history output
• VCCT and cohesive behavior are very similar in their application and
formulation.
• Both theories
• are used to model interfacial shearing and delamination crack
propagation and failure,
• use an elastic damage constitutive theory to model the
material's response once damage has initiated, and
• dissipate the same amount of fracture energy between damage
initiation and complete failure.
Examples
• Verification problems
• DCB
• SLB
• ENF
• Alfano-Crisfield
• Alfano, G., and M. A. Crisfield, “Finite Element Interface Models for
the Delamination Analysis of Laminated Composites: Mechanical
and Computational Issues,” International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, vol. 50, pp. 1701–1736, 2001.
• Also available as Abaqus Benchmark Problem 2.7.1 with cohesive
elements
• NASA Panel
• Reeder, J.R., Song, K., Chunchu, P.B., and Ambur, D.R.,
“Postbuckling and Growth of Delaminations in Composite Plates
Subjected to Axial Compression,” AIAA 2002-1746.
Examples
30000
Euler buckling
25000
20000
Load (lb)
FEA
15000
closed form
10000
5000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Displacement (in)
Examples
Examples
Examples
Examples
Examples
Examples
Displacement
imposed at corner nodes
Contact surfaces defined
for region of fracture
Examples
Crack tip
Examples
Examples
Workshop 5
Overview
• Introduction
• Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials
• Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
N0 c1wc2
where c1 and c2 are material constants.
• Note: c1 depends on the system of units in which you are working;
care is required to modify c1 when converting to a different system
units.
• The initiation criterion can be used in conjunction with any ductile
material.
• Damage initiation criterion output:
CYCLEINI Number of cycles to initialized the damage
*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
*ELASTIC
31976, 0.4, 273
20976, 0.4, 398 N0 c1wc2 Quarter-symmetry model
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c1 33.3, -1.52 c2
...
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100 solder joint
50, 100, 801, 1.1
bond pad
underneath
solder joint
dD c3wc4
dN L
where c3 and c4 are material constants, L is the characteristic length
associated with the material point, and D is the scalar damage variable.
• The details of choosing characteristic length will be discussed later.
• Note: c3 depends on the system of units in which you are working;
care is required to modify c3 when converting to a different system
units.
*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
*ELASTIC
31976, 0.4, 273 dD c3wc4
20976, 0.4, 398 Quarter-symmetry model
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273 dN L
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
33.3, -1.52
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c3 9.88E-4, 0.98 c4
...
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
• Results
second-order element half of the typical length of a line across the element
aN N aN Nc3G c 4
If N + N > No
N + N
3
Release the most Damage extrapolation: Calculate
critical element the incremental number of cycles,
N, for each crack tip and find
minimum cycles to fail, Nmin
• The syntax used to define the low-cycle fatigue criterion and the
corresponding output requests is similar to those used for the VCCT
criterion except the following:
• For the low-cycle fatigue criterion, set TYPE=FATIGUE on the
*FRACTURE CRITERION option:
TopSurf
BotSurf
0 t
0 0.5 1
displacement loading in one cycle u2
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L8.27
• Partial input:
... *STEP, INC=5000
*CONTACT PAIR, SMALL SLIDING *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
Model TopSurf, BotSurf 0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
data *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT ,,1000
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
*STEP, NLGEOM MASTER=BotSurf
*STATIC *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,
... Step 2:
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, Fatigue
analysis 0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
MASTER=BotSurf 280,2.284
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, *OUTPUT, FIELD
Step 1: MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
VCCT *CONTACT OUTPUT
280, 280, 280, 2.284 BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
analysis
*OUTPUT, FIELD ENRRT
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, ...
MASTER=BotSurf *END STEP bond
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
ENRRT
*END STEP
TopSurf BotSurf
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
TopSurf BotSurf
TopSurf BotSurf
• Results
N=1 N=11
N=21 N=51
N is the number of cycles
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
L8.34
• More results
Lecture 9
L9.2
Overview
• Introduction
• Damage Modeling
• Modeling Tips
• Current Limitations
• Workshop 6
• References
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
4
u (x) N I (x) u I H (x )a I Fa (x)b I
h a
a 1
I N I N G
I N
uI Nodal DOF for conventional shape functions NI Crack tip enrichment term
Fa(x) Crack tip asymptotic functions
• The crack tip and Heaviside enrichment functions are multiplied by the
conventional shape functions
• Hence enrichment is local around the crack
• Sparsity of the resulting matrix equations is preserved
• The crack is located using the level set method (discussed shortly)
• Heaviside function
• Accounts for displacement jump across crack
H(x) = 1 above crack
n
s
1 if (x x* ) n 0
H ( x) x*
1 otherwise x
H(x) = 1 below crack
Here x is an integration point, x* is the closest point to x on the crack face and n is the unit normal at x*
• Calculating F and Y
• The nodal value of the function F is the signed distance of the node from
the crack face
• Positive value on one side of the crack face, negative on the other
• The nodal value of the function Y is the signed distance of the node from
an almost-orthogonal surface passing through the crack front
• The function Y has zero value on this surface and is negative on the
side towards the crack
F=0 Y=0
Node F Y
1 0.25 1.5 1 2
2 0.25 1.0 0.5
3 4
3 0.25 1.5
4 0.25 1.0
1.5
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
Damage Modeling
L9.17
Damage Modeling
Damage initiation
Failure
Damage Modeling
• Damage Initiation
• Two criteria available at present max
• Maximum principal stress criterion (MAXPS) f 0
max
• Initiation occurs when the maximum principal stress reaches
critical value
max
• Maximum principal strain criterion (MAXPE) f
max
0
Damage Modeling
• Damage Evolution
• Any of the damage evolution models for traction-separation laws
discussed in the earlier lectures can be used
• However, it is not necessary to specify the undamaged traction-
separation response
Damage Modeling
• Damage Stabilization
• Fracture makes the structural response nonlinear and non-smooth
• Numerical methods have difficulty converging to a solution
• As discussed in the earlier lectures, using viscous regularization helps
with the convergence of the Newton method
• The stabilization value must be chosen so that the problem definition
does not change
• A small value regularizes the analysis, helping with convergence
while having a minimal effect on the response
• Perform a parametric study to choose appropriate value for a class
of problems
Damage Modeling
• Steps
1. Define damage criteria in the material model
2. Define an enrichment region (the associated material model should
include damage)
• Crack type – stationary or propagation
3. Define an initial crack, if present
4. If needed, set analysis controls to aid convergence
• Steps will be illustrated later through examples
• Crack initiation and propagation in a plate with a hole
• Propagation of an existing crack
• Delamination and through-thickness crack propagation in a double
cantilever beam
• The next few slides describe step-dependent enrichment activation
and postprocessing
• Output Quantities
• Two output variables are especially useful
• PHILSM
• The signed distance function F used to represent the crack
surface
• Needed for visualizing the crack
• STATUSXFEM
• Indicates the status of the element with a value between 0.0
and 1.0
• A value of 1.0 indicates that the element is completely cracked,
with no traction across the crack faces
• Any other output variable available in the static stress analysis
procedure
• Postprocessing
• The crack location is specified by the zero-valued level set of the signed
distance function F
• Abaqus/CAE automatically creates an isosurface view cut named
Crack_PHILSM if an enrichment is used in the analysis
• The crack isosurface is displayed by default
• Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack isosurface
displayed
• Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the
overlaid elements according to the phantom nodes approach
• If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower”
element are plotted (corresponding to negative values of F)
• Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only from
the “lower” element (on the side with negative values of F)
• Damage evolution
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, TOL=0.05
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER LAW, POWER=1.0
2870.0, 2870.0, 2870.0
• Damage stabilization
Keyword interface
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
1.e-5
Coefficient of viscosity m
Keyword interface
*ENRICHMENT, TYPE=PROPAGATION CRACK, NAME=CRACK-1,
ELSET=SELECTED_ELEMENTS, INTERACTION=CONTACT-1
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
*STEP
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
*CONTROLS, PARAMETER=TIME INCREMENTATION
, , , , , , , 20
8th field
• Output Requests
• Request PHILSM and STATUSXFEM in addition to the usual output for
static analysis
• Postprocessing
• Crack isosurface (Crack_PHILSM) created and displayed automatically
• Field and history quantities of interest can be plotted and animated as
usual
** Model data
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=ENRICHMENT
901, 1, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.5
901, 2, Crack-1, -1.0, -1.4
901, 3, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.4
901, 4, Crack-1, 1.0, -1.5
Element Number
Enrichment Name
• The other steps are as described in Example 1 and are in line with
those necessary for the usual static analysis procedure
• This model is the same as the double cantilever beam model presented
in the surface-based cohesive behavior lecture except:
• Enrichment has been added to the top and bottom beams to allow
XFEM crack initiation and propagation
Modeling Tips
• General Information
• Averaged quantities are used in an element for determining crack
initiation and the propagation direction
• The integration point principal stress or strain values are averaged
• A new crack always initiates at the center of the element
• Within an enrichment region, a new crack initiation check is performed
only after all existing cracks have completely separated
• This may result in the abrupt appearance of multiple cracks
• Complete separation is indicated by STATUSXFEM=1
• Cracks cannot initiate in neighboring elements
• Crack propagates completely through an element in one increment
• Only the initial crack tip can lie within an element
Modeling Tips
Modeling Tips
• Limit maximum increment size and start with a good guess for initial
increment size
• In general, this is a good approach for any non-smooth nonlinearity
• Analysis controls
• Can help obtain a converged solution and speed up convergence
• Contour plots of field quantities should be done with the crack
isosurface displayed
• Ensures that the solution is plotted from the active parts of the overlaid
elements according to the phantom nodes approach
• If the crack isosurface is turned off, only values from the “lower” element
are plotted (on the side with negative values of F)
Modeling Tips
• When defining the crack using Abaqus/CAE, extend the external crack
edges beyond base geometry
• This helps avoid incorrect identification of external edges as internal due
to geometric tolerance issues
Top View
Current Limitations
Current Limitations
Workshop 6
References