International Journal of Fracture 45: 81-102, 1990. 1990 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

81

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

M.H. E L - H A D D A D , 1 0 . M . R A M A D A N and A.R. BAZARAA
Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt; ~and University of Qatar, Qatar

Received 20 June 1988; accepted in revised form 3 April 1989

Abstract. A fracture mechanics model has been implemented in the stiffness matrix method to analyze skeletal structures resting on elastic foundations and containing cracks at superstructure and substructure elements. Stiffness matrices for cracked superstructure and substructure elements have been developed based on fracture mechanics techniques and the stiffness matrix method. The present model has been applied to investigate effects of crack size and location, type of loading, soil subgrade modulus, foundation rigidity, and geometry of the structure on the behaviour of cracked structures taking into consideration the soil-structure interaction effect.

1. Introduction
In recent years considerable efforts have been made to study the behaviour o f structures containing cracks. Based on fracture mechanics techniques and stiffness matrix m e t h o d the redistribution in internal forces due to crack presence in statistically indeterminate beams and frames has been obtained [1-4]. These investigations concentrated on the analysis o f superstructures containing cracked members assuming the structures to meet the foundations or other supporting elements at ideal supports as total fixations and pure hinges. N o n e o f these investigations has considered the soil-structure interaction effect on the structural behaviour of cracked structures. In m a n y structures, cracks or flaws m a y initiate and propagate at substructure and superstructure elements due to severe loadings, construction errors or environmental attacks. Therefore, a complete analysis of both superstructure and substructure is certainly needed when evaluating the safety o f structures containing cracks at superstructure elements or at f o u n d a t i o n elements. In fact, structural damage interaction m a y occur due to cracking at b o t h types o f elements. In the present paper, a fracture mechanics model has been developed to analyze skeletal structures resting on elastic foundations and containing cracks at various locations taking into consideration the soil structure interaction effect.

2. Method of analysis
2.1. Stiffness matrices f o r uncracked elements

The stiffness matrix o f an uncracked plane frame element (superstructure element) o f length L, cross section area A, m o m e n t o f inertia I and material modulus o f elasticity E is given by

82

M.H. EI-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

(1) as follows [5]:

EA L 0 0 0 12EI L3 6EI L2 0
12EI -

0 6EI L2 4EI L 0
6EI

EA

L
-

0 0 EA L 0 0

12EI L3 -6EI L2 0
12EI -

6EI L2 2EI L

[K]
-EA L 0 0 6EI L2 4EI L

(1)

L3 6EI L2

L2 2EI L

L3 -6EI L2

whereas the stiffness matrix for uncracked foundation elements (substructure elements) is the one derived from the exact solution of the differential equation of the elastic line of a beam resting on infinite number of vertical springs [4] and [6] and is given by (2) as follows:
EA L 0 -EA L 0 0 EA L 0 0

0 SQ1 SQ2 0 804 SQ5

0 SQ2 SQ3 0 -- SQ5 SQ6

0 SQ4 - SQ5 0 sO1 -SQ2

0 SQ5 so 6 0 - SQ2 SQ 3

[K]
-

0 EA L 0 0

(2)

where various elements in the above matrix are defined in Appendix I.

2.2. Stiffness matrices for cracked elements

Consider the cracked superstructure and cracked substructure elements shown in Figs. 1-a and 1-c respectively. Both elements are divided into three segments as shown in Figs. 1-b and 1-d. The first and the third segments given in both cases are the common uncracked elements with lengths, uL and (1 - u)L respectively. The stiffness matrices corresponding to the first and the third segments for the superstructure element can be obtained by replacing the length L in (1) by uL and (1 - u)L respectively. Whereas those corresponding to the first and the third segments in the substructure element can be obtained from (2) by replacing the length L by uL and (1 - u)L respectively. The middle segment of both superstructure and substructure

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

(~4~, gl ) _(I,4 Z . 0 l l

83

,.~

~,!.l,,~

uc,.~

( ""'~

i ~'~ " ~ )

(a) The forces and displacements at the ends of the cracked frame element.

(i)

~t

t .....
"1 "

[,

c, - jJI L

i
"|

(b) Three elements represent the cracked element

,(
N~e X

k I

a~L

(I'~18L

(c) Basic degrees of freedom for a cracked beam on elastic foundation.

~2 Se~ent, Ill ~lSefment (2l~Sell~ont 131~5

Hodo
I USL ! zmra ,
| l-u | "L

(d) Basic segments of a cracked beam on elastic foundation.

Fig. 1. Representation of cracked superstructure and substructure elements.

elements simulates the cracked section which connects the left and the right segments and its stiffness matrix has been developed based on fracture mechanics techniques [2]. The cracked section is simulated by an imaginary combined spring with spring constants simulating the deformations at this section. The stiffness matrix for this spring can be obtained using (3) as follows:

Spp 0
{Kc] =

0 0 0
0 0

0
(3)

Smp
-S~,~ - S,~,

s~,,, -s~m

-s~m -sm,~ s,, s~o

The various elements of the above matrix are defined in Appendix II. It should be noticed that the elements lying on the second row and second column are taken as zero since the

84

M.H. EI-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

effect of crack on shear deformation is neglected. The stiffness matrix given by (3) is valid for both superstructure and substructure elements shown in Fig. 1. The stiffness matrix of each of the cracked elements shown in Fig. 1 can now be assembled as an overall stiffness matrix for its three segments and has the dimension of eleven by eleven. The system of numbering of the degrees of freedom at the four nodes of the elements shown in Fig. 1 is taken such that the degrees of freedom at the two intermediate nodes have the last numbering. This is useful when condensing three nodes to obtain a matrix of size six by six. The three matrices corresponding to the three segments of each of the cracked elements shown in Fig. 1 are all located in the overall stiffness matrix in the corresponding positions referred to the chosen system of numbering for the degrees of freedom. Thus, the final form of the superstructure and substructure cracked elements matrix [S]c is given by the following form

[Sc] =

[A
Br

(4)

where, the submatrices [A], [B], and [C] are given in Appendix II for both cases of superstructure and substructure elements. It should be noted that the two intermediate nodes of the cracked elements shown in Fig. 1 are fictitious because they are externally unloaded. Therefore, the stiffness matrix, [S]s relating the end forces and end displacements at the exterior nodes of these elements can be obtained by the condensation of the two intermediate nodes in the following form [S]s06 = [AI - [B] [C1-1 [B] r (5)

The stiffness matrix given by (5) is similar in dimensions to the stiffness matrix of the common uncracked elements given by (1)-(2). So, this matrix can be directly employed in the stiffness method of analysis.

3. Examples and discussions

A computer program has been developed to analyze skeletal frames resting on elastic foundations and subjected to various types of loading acting at the frame nodes. However in cases of applied distributed loads or concentrated loads not applied at nodes, the load vector is the resulting reactive forces at the end joints of elements after introducing fixations at these joints. For common uncracked superstructure and substructure elements, this vector is known [5, 7]. On the other hand, a computer subroutine has been developed to calculate these forces for cracked members using the eleven degrees-of-freedom model shown in Fig. 1. It should be emphasized that the present model is valid for any number of cracked sections at superstructure or at substructure elements provided that cracks are assumed at the tension side of the element cross section. Cracks are assumed through thickness for all examples considered. The described method of analysis was used to study three types of frames subjected to different loadings and cracked at various locations as shown in Fig. 2. The material Young's modulus, E, is assumed to be 200 t cm -z unless otherwise indicated. The redistribution of internal forces and soil pressure are obtained due to crack depth ratios equal to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

31/m,

85

I -I

"

( 301120)cm 4. O0)cm

(lO0.50)m

'~'~l~

51060

13.60 m

5=060

FRAktEFI

, KO : 1.5 k g / c m 3

6t/~
I0!
1 i ! i / 1

6t

|Or

15!

15f

lOt

6f 0.51
3.0

(30 RQO) / /

I
~0

0.6
30 Oil

i-

Ls_O:_So) _ _
I i l O ,,40) eM (riO=SO) |

L,,

h "2
30 3.0 0.~

.,o

IrnAhll[ ~ I[ = 2 S O

' ~ = 3 . 6 ~ / m 3, t/m I

3.0
LSO

=._So_~+__3:oo _.+
4.0 4.0

~_~o

~
,

4 .0

LI)O

Fig. 2. Problems analysed.

0.4 and 0.60. Comparisons between the original bending moments and soil pressures for the uncracked frames given as solid lines and those given by dotted lines corresponding to cracked frames due to crack depth ratio equal to 0.60, are given in Figs. 3-12 where values corresponding to the cracked cases are written between brackets. Figure 3 illustrates the redistribution of bending moment and soil pressure due to two symmetric through cracks located at the bottom fibres of footings at the outside sections adjacent to the right and left columns of frame F t . The crack causes discontinuity in the footing elastic line, excessive deformations, and rotations around the cracked location. As a result soil pressure increased at crack location and while bending moment decreased at cracked sections it increased at uncracked footing sections. It is interesting to notice that the redistribution of bending moment is negligible due to the fact that the uncracked frame behaves like a two-hinged frame because the subgrade relative stiffness is low. Therefore, loss

86

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

45.84 ~ (45.71) / ~ 45.84 (45.71)

4~.84

45,84

:
~;~'
0.797
(0,9161 (~916 }

?~:., .~..
,,,.,,,

0 . 8/6 x , , ~ ~ 0.609~ Q797

Fig. 3. Effect of cracks on bending moment (re.t) and soil pressure (kgcm-~), Frame F~.
43194 152".53) 45.84 (52,551 / / // ///~ 45.84 (5~86|

///

45. 94 139,88)

;
~

~ ,.,, ~ : "
~ 5.20 1~77 (4.~01
~.9s) o,ese

,,,, ~ / , , . ~
// / ~ /~/
/~

// 0.~
(o.~s~
Uncrocked

0.68~ / (0,965) I" ~ . / /

.......

5~0 ~ (6.961 13.77

(~o,ze~ o.8~

"~" = o~o

~.~ 0.797
(0,956)

10,465)

(0.997)

Fig. 4. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m,t) and soil pressure (kgcm-~), Frame

F=.

in footing stiffness due to crack presence does not much affect relative foundation subgrade stiffness. This frame is also analyzed assuming two cracks as shown in Fig. 4. The first is assumed at the bottom fibres of the right footing just to the right of the column while the second is assumed at the top fibres of the horizontal girder at its connection with the left column. A redistribution in soil pressure and bending moment occurs due to crack presence leading to a reduction in bending moment values at cracked sections. A reduction in bending moment value at the uncracked right corner occurs due to crack presence at the right footing. Also, notice the increased values of bending moment at the uncracked sections of the footings.

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

~ 31.57 , (52.01)

87

(15.67)

[4.t6

~//

51.57 (52.0N

14.16

(15.671

MOMENT

,/__UNCRACKED

16.47 ( i3.01 )

22.59 (25.61)

~/2~/

21.68 (18.701

r5.21 (5.69)

22.59 (23.61)

0.15

"~',

(o.o5)

SOIL P R E S S U R E

2.70 (5.021

Fig. 5. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m.t) and soil pressure (kgcm 2), Frame F 2.

Figures 5, 6 show the redistribution of both bending moment and soil pressure in frame F 2 due to a top crack at the right footing and a bottom crack at the left footing respectively. The frame was analyzed by Ting et al. [6] assuming no cracks and their results are in complete agreement with the results of the present model. It should be mentioned that initial analysis of this frame yields some tension on the subgrade. Therefore, trial and error procedure is used to obtain the no tension solution by using superstructure element stiffness matrix for elements in the tension zone. Due to crack presence, excessive displacements take place at the crack locations. Hence, bending moment decreases at the crack location due to loss in stiffness and it increases at other locations. The above results show that the effect of crack is more pronounced in the second case given in Fig. 6. This may be due to the fact that original, uncracked, bending stress at the second crack location is higher in this case compared with the first case given in Fig. 5. Redistribution of bending moment and soil pressure due to a crack located at the upper left corner of the above frame is given in Fig. 7. It should be noticed that redistribution of bending moment occurred simultaneously in both substructure and superstructure elements due to cracking of either of these elements, as shown in Figs. 5-7.

88

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

31.57 / (34-01) //1 ~4-16 (14.81) 31.57 (34.01)

14. 16
(14.81)

f /

/I

BENDING

MOMENT

Untracked

- - _1, r~, : o. 6 0

/
2259 (17,391
/ "

// // ,/
Z1.68

16.47 118.29}

/,2,
(5.50)

////~

( 23.791

22.59 ( I 7.391

0.15 (0.211

\",X

SOIL PRESSURE

2.70
(2.86)

Fig. 6. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m.t) and soil pressure (kgcm 2), Frame F2. Figure 8 shows the combined effect due to cracking of superstructure and substructure elements simultaneously. As expected the effect of cracks on the redistribution of internal forces and soil pressure is more pronounced in this case compared with other cases given in Figs. 5-7. Figures 9-12 show the variation of bending moment and soil pressure in a multistory frame F3 due to crack presence at the bottom fibres of the two right footings. It is noticed that the soil pressure is changed under the cracked footing leading to an increase in the soil pressure under the uncracked footings. Also, while the bending moment is decreased in the cracked footing it is increased in the uncracked footings. Examining the above results shows that foundation cracks can greatly affect the redistribution of bending moment in the superstructure elements. This redistribution is not local but it extends along most of the frame strories. The redistribution in internal forces and soil pressure due to crack presence should not always be considered beneficial since the strength of the cracked section has been vastly reduced and may not even be able to sustain the reduced bending moment. Also, higher

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

14.16 (IO.26) / /j/

./
///

89

/'

3 J 157

(32.77)

31.57 (52.77) 7 '/

,:2: -> .....

/

"

l/

/
i//

BENDING MOMENT - Unoroked

= rf' = o . 6

/fl Lzt z
16,47
(I 8.43)

22.59 123.201

//

(23.771

5.531

22,59 (25.20)

0.15 (0.19)

SOIL

PREgSU~IE

2.70 ('2.77)

Fig. 7. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m.t) and soil pressure (kgcm-2), Frame F 2.

stresses are induced at uncracked sections due to the redistribution of bending moments. In addition to these two reasons failure may occur in soil at locations where soil pressure is increased due to cracking. Therefore, proper repair of cracked structures should involve a simultaneous check of stresses and soil pressures at various locations.

4. Conclusions Based on the stiffness matrix method and fracture mechanics techniques, a mathematical model has been developed to analyze plane frames resting on elastic foundations and containing cracks at superstructure and/or substructure elements. This model simulates the crack size and location, type of loadings, soil structure interaction effect and relative structure subgrade stiffness. Based on the results of analysis of three frames cracked at various locations, several conclusions of importance to the practical designers and researchers can be drawn as follows:

90

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

A
3~.57 (23.561

14.16 (18.79)

31.57 (23.56)

;'-7
14.16 (16.79) i / ///

//

BENDING MOMENT

_ _ UNCRCKED - - - , ' n ".f = 0 . 6 0

/ 16.47 //
,281

22.59 (27.67)

21.68 (19.98)

~ 5.21 (5.70)

/ / 2 2 59 (27.671

( 0.0:9 )

xx,x

SOIL P R E B S U R E

2.70 (3.03)

Fig. 8. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m.t) and soil pressure (kgcm 2), Frame F 2.

(1) A distribution of bending moments occurs in frame members due to crack presence leading to a decrease in bending moment at cracked sections and an increase in bending moment at uncracked sections. (2) Redistribution of soil pressure occurs under frame foundations due to crack presence at various locations. (3) Foundation cracks can greatly affect the redistribution of internal forces along most of the structure members whereas superstructure cracks have only local effect on members close to the cracked section. (4) The effect of cracking on the variation of internal forces and soil pressure is more pronounced as the crack depth ratio is increased and as the rigidity of the foundation is increased. (5) Proper repair of cracked structures should involve a simultaneous check of stresses at various sections and soil pressures under various foundation elements.

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

522 (5,261 3,02 (3.03) 5.85 16.51t 0,89 (0,22) 238 [t,541

91

\
x

~'~,
~5,39

,~.~

~.oo
.
_

~~~
V"
t xx'

~o._~.~o.~,

"" ~ '.~

~"%7 ,Z/

:/
~

~g/

(3.7~

I ~4 ' ~ ' 8]

'" (1.~)

~8
ON9

,,.~ ,~
l

~4.S2
~(4~9)

~ "x./ ~
~,~
"

~.,

~4.7~

/ ---"n ".o.~o

/ ~ ~C~D

'~

5.00 I

g.~

.~

~/,,,/
-

<2 <

.~

~#4

~,~-

L~ jhe~)

_~.~ ,,,.,), ~ "

/~

@~.~o) , - ~
P 5.54 {~531

"

Fig. 9. Effect of cracks on bending moment (m.t), Frame F 3. Values written for horizontal members.

~
20.35

[
,,,,

"~ "~

77~/'/

\\

z/~
(2~901 ~ {26,73)

Z2,14

~/
,~;~,~,1';:~
39,41 4 2 . 4 0 ( 3 3~61 (3-q.311
.....

Uncracked
v~l~= 0,60

I
0.87 (11 891

I
I 0,99 ~ (0.98)
1,19 (I,241 ~___~ 1.33 I ,35 (t 3 6 t 1,23 {0,871 \~,

I
"- .... 1.37 ~ 1,39 11.101
11.131

!
1.05 ~ - -

I
-- -1.14 il.19J

-~~~- ~ ' ~ .... 0.96 ~0~97)

I, 16
{I.191

( 1.371

( 1.53~

Fig. 10. Effect of cracks on soil pressure (kgcm -2) and bending moment (re.t), Frame F~.

92

M,H. EI-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

5.22 , = , ,~~ 5.0;~ 5.85 ( 5.701

5.54 15.55)

-----~"~"=0.6

U P~c~'~cked

Fig. 1I. Effect of cracks on bending moment. (m.t), Frame F~. Values written for horizontal members.

I
( 22.05}

-;._/i. ...
,~,.~4~' ,~,~,,,
(42.T~1 ..... Uncr~c~ed "q~'= 0,60

,l~gJ ~,.5
(41.46)

I
"

I
1.~ (I,0~9~
t.t~51 lh~O0~ { LO~4I

0.87J ~- ~-10.995 L~*~'

t0.864 0.959 {'0.9521 (0.9~1)

{ 1,184}

,.,~~~!,.~
( I, 3~,~|

( 1,3~6}

( I,~4t )

>2
h~T~ ~1.3~3)

i h3~)

Fig. 12. Effect of cracks on bending moment (re.t) and soil pressure (kgcm-2), Frame t b.

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

93

Appendix I
Uncracked substructure element matrix
Elements of matrix [K] given by (2)
SQI = E[ fl3(Z t Z 2 +

4 . Z 3 24)/(Z3 " Z 3 -- Z2 24) Z2" Z4)

SQ2 SQ3 SQ4 SQ5 SQ6

= = = = =

E l fl2(Z, . Z 3 + 4 " Z4" Z4)/(Z3" Z3 -

E1 f l ( Z 2 Z 3 - - Z l Z 4 ) / ( Z 3 Z 3 - - Z 2 Z 4 ) 4 E I f13. Z2 _ 4 f t . Z4" SQ2 -4E1132.Z 3 -4EI13" Z4 z I SQ~

Z 1 . S Q 2 + Z2" SQI/13 Z, . SQ3 + Z 2.SQ2/13

13
And,
Z 1 =

COS (ilL)

cosh (ilL)

Z 2 = 0.5 [sin (ilL) cosh (ilL) + cos (ilL) sinh (ilL)] Z 3 = 0.5 [sin (13L) sinh (13L)] Z4 = 0.25 [sin (13L) cosh (ilL) - cos (13L) sinh (ilL)]

B = width of the section. k0 = Soil modulus of subgrade reaction.

Appendix II
Cracked section matrix
The compliance concept can be employed to obtain the relation between forces and displacements for cracked members in the form: G = (1E
v2).K~.g~j = P~'Pj 020

OA

(n-l)

Where 2~j is the displacement in direction of the ith degree of freedom due to unit force applied in direction of the j t h degree of freedom, Pi, ~ are the loads applied in direction of the ith degree and j t h degrees of freedom respectively, K~i and K~j are the stress intensity factors for mode I "opening mode" corresponding to loads applied in direction of the ith, j t h degrees of freedom, respectively. A is the area of cracked surface and G is the energy release rate.

94

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

The compliance of an uncracked element, 2o is constant in the elastic stage whereas that of a cracked member is variable and increases as the crack size increases. The compliance of a cracked member is expressed as the sum of the uncracked member compliance, 2o and the increase in compliance, A2, due to crack presence. The increase in compliance in direction of the ith degreee of freedoms due to unit applied load in direction of the j t h degree of freedom is obtained by integrating (lI-1) as follows: A2u2( 1 - v 2 ) (KIj~(KIs']

"ff

fA\pij\pjj

dA

(II-2)

Through crack compliance relations

Solutions for the stress intensity factors for the rectangular section subjected to axial tension and bending moment and containing through cracks, shown in Fig. 1-a are given below [2].

Kip = (P ~-~/Bd)(1.99 - 0.417 + 18.7072 - 38.4873 + 53.8474) KIM = (6M xf~/Bd 2) (1.99 -- 2.477 + 12.9772 - 23.1773 + 24.8074)

(II-3) (I1-4)

where B and d are the width and depth of the member cross section respectively, P and M are applied axial tension or bending moment respectively, a is the crack size and 7 is the crack depth ratio. 7 = (a/d). Substituting for K~e and Kilt given above into (II-2), the increases in compliance due to axial tension and bending moment are obtained in the form:

A2pp = ~

(1.9801q 2 -- 0.543973 + 18.648574 -- 33.696975 + 99.2611q 6 -- 211.90177 + 436.837678

- 460.47779 + 289.98237 l) 72

(II-5)

A2,,m

EBd 2 (1"980172 - 3.276973 + 14.430474 - 31.257775 + 63.564176 - 103.363177 + 147.5201r/8

- 127.692479 + 61.5047 I) (II-6)

A/~pm

A.~mp

; 2 d (1.9801q 2 -- 1.9173 + 16.00974 -- 34.83875 + 83.93376 -- 153.649077 + 256.722078

-- 244.668q 9 + 133.5487 ~)

(II-7)

Part through cracks compliance relations

The assumption that cracks initiate and propagate with full member width is convenient in relatively deep members where depth is much larger than width but considering foundation elements with depth smaller than width, the part-through cracks are considered. Most practical cracks take the shape of an ellipse or semi-ellipse. In this investigation, semi-elliptical cracks are considered assuming the cracks initiate and propagate keeping the same semi-axes ratio. The stress intensity factor of a semi-elliptical crack, shown in Fig. II-a and Fig. II-b varies along its circumference according to

KO = [sin 2 0 + (ale) 2" cos 2 0] 1/4 gma x

(11-8)

where KO is the stress intensity factor at a location making an angle, 0, with the major axis as shown in Fig. II-a, Km,x is the maximum value of the stress intensity factor that occurs at 0 = ~/2, a and c are the minor and major

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic Jbundations ~ 8 . . . . . . . . . . . ~

95

k,,//////////./ ,.
ic
~

,, ,:/..:.;

..,/,/,,///.2,1

]"

~&c H-~. Part through ~emi-elliptical crack,

~:,~* d! '.I I

,,8

,,,

, ,,

~- .

IIIl'~J~'~ IIII I

....~

Fig. II-b. Element of area, dA.

semi-axes of the crack. Rice and Levy [8] have related this maximum factor, K~,~, to the stress intensity factor for through cracks using suitable multipliers that depend on the ratios (a/d) and (2c/d) given below:

K~e

= e~Kp,

K~

= e~tKM

(II-9)

where K,..~, K~..~ are the maximum stress intensity factors for a semi-elliptical crack at a certain crack size in axial tension and bending moment respectively, Kp and KM are the stress intensity factors for a through crack at the same crack size in axial tension and bending moment respectively and c~pand ~,. are multipliers given by Rice. Several values for the semi-axes ratio, a = c/a were assumed and both multipliers ap and a~ were obtained at some values for the crack depth ratio. To obtain a continuous function for K ~ , values of~p and a., were plotted against q and least square lines were obtained. These lines ~vere constructed at different values of(c/a). Based on these lines, the following solutions are attained

[41: Km~'p
= (A1 + Blrl)(P~'~/Bd)(1.99 -- 0.41t/ + 18.70t/2 -- 38.48~/~ + 53.84~74)

0~4o)
(~-11)

Km~ - _~1 = (A2 + B2tl)(6Mx/~/Ba2)(1.99 - 2.47~/ + 12.97,12 - 23.17tl 3 + 24.80t/~) ~

Where A 1, B1, A2 and B2 are non-dimensional constants given in Table II-1. Substituting into (II-8), using the solution for the stress intensity factors given by (II-10) and (II-11 ), increases in compliance can be obtained via (II-2) as follows: A2~ -- E~2d f" (sinz 0 + ~ cos z O)~/2 (A, + Bltl)2rlY~~ dA
~0 2 A

(II-12)

96

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

Table II-1. Constants A 1, B1, A2 and B2 Constant c/a

1 1 -- 1.3 1 -- 1.43 A 1

B1

A2

B2

2 3 4 5 6

1 1 1 1 1

- 1.3 - 1.25 -- 1.10 --0.98 0.0

1 1 1 1 1

---

1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 0.00

A ~rnm

72 f A (sin 2 0 + ~2 cos 2 0)112 (A 2 ~_ Bzr/)2r/Ym2 dA EBZd 3 do

(11-13)

A2pm =

A2mp -

12 2 EB2d 3 f ] (sin 2 0 + c~ cos 2 O)I/2 (A 1 + Blr/) (A 2 + B2r/)r/YpYm dA. (I1-14)

where 1.99 0.411/ + 18.70r/2 38.48r/3 +

53.85/'/4

(II-15) (II-16)

Ym= 1.99 - 2.47r/ + 12.97r/2 - 23.17r/3 + 24.80q 4

dA = r dr dO

a n d r, q~ are the polar coordinate system. Since the semi-axes ratio is assumed constant during the crack propagation, the above integrations reduce to: A2pp 2Fd

EB 2 f2 r/Z(A t + Biq)2Yp2" dr/

(II-17)

A~mm

72F

EB2d Jo r/2(A2 + B2r/)2 Ymz"dr/

(I1-18)

A~Lpm = A/~mp

12Ff

EB2Jo r/2(Al + BIr/)(A2 + B2r/) YpY,,, dr/

(II-19)

where the modification factor F depends only on the semi-axes ratio, e. Substituting for Yp and Y,~ from (II-15), (II-16) into (II-17), (II-18) a n d (II-19) the above integrals can be carried out a n d hence the increase in b o t h direct and indirect compliances for semi-elliptical cracks can be obtained. Values for the modification factor F are given in Table II-2 at various e/a values. Flexibility matrix f o r the cracked member Based on fracture mechanics technique, the cracked segment is replaced by an imaginary spring [2] with spring constants simulating the cracked segment. Two degrees of freedom corresponding to axial force a n d bending Table 11-2. Modification factor F c/a F 1 3.14159 2 4.31303 3 5.05725 4 5.60241 5 6.03222 6 6.38679

A n a l y s i s o f f r a m e s c o n t a i n i n g c r a c k s a n d resting on elastic f o u n d a t i o n s

97

moment are assumed at both ends of the combined spring as shown in Fig. II-c. If the forces corresponding to the degrees of freedom at end I are taken as the redundant forces as shown in Fig. II-d, the assembled flexibility matrix will be in the form:

gxx =

r 1[
fn
f~2

A2.,,, A2,,,,,

L S~, s~2

Axo. A.~o.

(II-20)

The termf~l is by definition the increase in axial deformation at end I due to a unit axial force at the same end, i.e., fH = A2pp. Similarly, other terms are obtained as given in (II-20).

Stiffness matrix for the cracked section

By definition the stiffness is the inverse of the flexibility. Therefore, the inverse of the above flexibility matrix will yield the stiffness matrix corresponding to end I in the form:

S.
where,

S,.p S,..,

gem

-A2.,.ID
- A.~.., / D

&,,

D = A2pp'A2,, m -- A.~.pm"A}.mp

@
Fig. II-c. Degrees of freedom at the combined spring ends.

@
,4( "
Fig. II-d. The redundant forces for the spring. Fig. H. Representation of cracked section.

98

M . H . E l - H a d d a d , O . M . Ramadan and A . R . Bazaraa

Using equilibrium and symmetry conditions o f the cracked segment the final stiffness matrix for the cracked segment is given by:

s~m

-s.

-S.,~

[/~]

Sin. Smm -S~ --Smm -s~ --S~m S.~ S~m -s~

--Smo Sm~ Smm

C r a c k e d e l e m e n t stiffness m a t r i c e s

a) S u b s t r u c t u r e e l e m e n t
M a t r i x [A]

[A] = I =

A(I, J)

1,6&J

1,6, w =

1-

All elements in matrix [A] are equal to zero except the following:

A(1, 1) = EA/UL A(2, 2) = (SQO ~ A(2, 3) = (SQ~) l A(3, 2) A(3, 3) A(4, 4) A(5, 5)
= =
=

A(2, 3) (SQ3) 1
EA/wL

(SQ1) r

A(5, 6) = A(6, 5) = A(6, 6) =

-(SQ2) r -(SQ~) r
(SQ3) r

M a t r i x [B]

[B]

B(I, J )

I=1,6

&

1,5

Analysis of frames containing cracks and resting on elastic foundations

All e l e m e n t s in m a t r i x [B] are e q u a l to zero e x c e p t the following: B(1, 1) =
B(2, 2)
=

99

-EA/UL
(SQ4)'

B(2, 3) B(3, 2) B(3, 3) B(4, 4)

= = = =

(SQ5f
-(SQs) z (SQ6) ~

-EA/wL

B(5, 2) = (SQ4) ~ B(5, 5) = - ( s o s ) ~

B(6, 2) B(6, 5) = =

(SQs)r
(SQ6) r

Matrix [C]
[c]
I =

c(L J)
1,5 & J =

1,5

6 ( 1 , 1) = C(1,3) C(1,4) C(1,5) C(2,2) C(2,3) C(2,5) = = = = = =

EA/uL + Spp
C(3, 1) = C(4, 1) = C(5, 1) =

Sp.. -S:; -Sp~

so~ + SQ~
C(3,2) =

-SQ~ SQ~

C(5,2) =

6(3, 3) =
C(3,4) =

SQ~ + &~
C(4, 3) = -Se~

6(3, 5) =
C(4, 4) =

6(5, 3)

--atom

EA/wL + Spp

100 c ( 4 , 5)

M . H . EI-Haddad, O . M . Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

= = c(5,4) = s~

c(5,5)

so~3 + S~m

where SQI , SQ~, . . . SQ~ are calculated by substituting UL instead o f L in SQ~, SQ2 , . . . SQ6 respectively in (2), and SQ~, SQ~, . . . SQ~6 are also calculated by substituting w L instead o f L in SQ~, SQ2 . . . . SQ6 respectively in (2). (b) Superstructure element
Matrix [A]

[A] = I =

A(L J)

1,6

&

1,6,

w =

1-u

All elements in matrix [A] are equal to zero except the following: A(1, 1) = A(2, 2) = A(3, 3) = A(4, 4) =
EA/uL lZEI/(uL) 3 4EI/(uL) EA/wL

A(5,

5)

12E*/(wL)3
4EI/wL

A(6, 6) = A(2, 3) = A(5, 6) =

Matrix [B]
[8] =

A(3, 2) = A(6, 5) =

6EI/(uL) 2 -6EI/(wL) 2

8(1, J)
1,6 & J = 1,5

I =

All elements in matrix [B] are equal to zero except the following: B(1, 1) =
8 ( 2 , 2) = --EA/uL

12EI/(uL) 3
2EI/uL --EA/wL

B(3, 3) = B(4, 4) = B(5, 5) =

-- 6EI/(wL) 2

Analysis of frames containing crack,; and resting on elastic foundations

B(2, 3) = B(3, 2) = B(5, 2) = B(6, 2) = B(6, 5) =

101

6EI/(uL) 2
- 6EI/(uL) 2 -- 12EI/(wL) ~

6EI/(wL) ~ 2EI/wL

Matrix [C]

[c] = c(~, J)
I = 1,5 & J = 1,5

All elements in matrix [C] are equal to zero except the following: C(1, 1) = C(2, 2) =

EA/uL + Spp 12EI/(uL) ~ + 12EI/(wL) 3

C(3, 3) = 4EI/uL + S,,,, C(4, 4) = C(5, 5) = C(1,3) C(1,4) = =

4EA/wL + Spp 4EI/wL + Smm

C(3,1) = Sp,,

C(4, 1) =

-Sp,
-s~
-6EI/(uL) z

c(1, s) =
C(2, 3) = C(2, 5) = C(3, 4) =

c(5, 1) =
C(3, 2) =

C(5, 2) =
C(4, 3) =

6EI/(wL) ~
-Sp,~

c(3, 5) =
C(4,5) =

c(5, 3) =

-&.,
Se,~

C(5,4)

References
1. W. Attia, " T h r e e Dimensional Analysis for Cracked Structures", M.Sc. thesis, Cairo University (1986). 2. M.H. E1 H a d d a d , M.M. E1 Bahey a n d S. Saman, Res Meehanica 25 (1988) 371-386. 3. S.A. Hosni, M . H . E1 H a d d a d a n d A.R. Bazaraa, Scientific Engineering Bulletin, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University 4 (1988) 143-162.

102

M.H. El-Haddad, O.M. Ramadan and A.R. Bazaraa

4. O.M. Ramadan, "Analysis of Cracked Structures Resting on Elastic Foundation", M.Sc. thesis, Cairo University (1987). 5. C.K. Wang, Intermediate Structural Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1983). 6. B.Y. Ting and E.F. Mockry, Journal of Structural Division, ASCE 110 (1984) 2324-2339, Paper 19229. 7. R.J. Roark and W.C. Young, Formulas for Stress and Strain, McGraw-Hill International Book Company, London (1975). 8. J.R. Rice and N. Levy, Journal of Applied Mechanics 39 (1972) 185-194.

R6sum6. On a introduit dans la m6thode des matrices de rigidit6 un mod61e de m6canique de rupture en vue d'analyser des charpentes reposant sur des fondations 61astiques et comportant des fissures dans les 61~ments de superstructure et de substructure. Des matrices de rigidit6 relatives ~i des 616ments de substructure et de superstructure fissur6s ont 6t6 d6velopp6es en se basant sur les techniques de la m6canique de la rupture et sur la m6thodologie de la matrice de rigidit& Le mod6le actuel a 6t6 appliqu6 fi l'6tude des effets, sur le comportement de charpentes fissur~es, de la taille et de la position d'une fissure, du type de sollicitation, du module caract6ristique du sol, de la rigidit6 de la fondation et de la g~ombtrie des charpentes, et c e e n tenant compte de l'interaction entre le sol et la charpente.