3/28/2017

FRANC3D Training Workshop:

Part I
April - 2017

Drs. Bruce Carter, Paul Wash

Wawrzynek, Tony Ingraffea, and
Omar Ibrahim

Fracture Analysis
Consultants, Inc.

Objectives

General introduction to FRANC3D:

- capabilities and limitations
Present theories and approaches to computational
fracture mechanics built into software
Hands-on sessions give participants time to use
software
Opportunity for participants to ask questions

2
Part I

1
 3/28/2017

Workshop Agenda

Part I: Introduction to Fracture Mechanics Analysis

Part II: Introduction to FRANC3D
Part III: Finite Element (FE) Model Import
Part IV: Crack Insertion
Part V: Static Crack Analysis & SIF Computation
Part VI: Crack Growth
Part VII: Multiple/Variable DOF Approach to Fatigue Life
Part VIII: SIF History & Fatigue Life
Part IX: Session Log, Command Line and Python Interface
Part X: Miscellaneous

3
Part I

Fatigue and Damage Tolerance

Philosophies
Most important and
challenging task for the designers

2
 3/28/2017

Fatigue and Damage Tolerance

Philosophies

Safe Life Design

Fail Safe Design
Damage Tolerance
Future Trends in Fatigue Design

5
Part I

Safe Life Design Philosophy

Products are designed to survive a specific design life

Employed in critical systems which are either:
Very difficult to repair or
Cause severe damage to life and property if they fail
Systems are designed to work for years without
requirement of any repairs
Treats fatigue as a crack nucleation process
Does not explicitly consider the possibility for crack
growth
Up to 1956, safe-life design concept was used to certify
commercial aircraft designs
6
Part I

3
 3/28/2017

Safe Life Design Philosophy

Prevent structural damage from developing

Determine the life (based on testing and analysis)
when a structural component (or complete
structure) must be removed from service before
critical damage limits are reached.
Nearly always based on constant amplitude stress
or strain (S or e) versus number of cycles (N)
curves

7
Part I

Safe Life Design Philosophy

Advantages:
Does not (or should not) require in-service inspections

Disadvantages:
Even with built-in conservatism and large scatter factors, cracks
and failure do sometimes occur before the design safe-life is
reached.
Many (most) components are retired unnecessarily
If cracking is discovered in-service, safe-life provides no
information about the relative risk due to the damage.
Does not account for in-service loads that differ from those
considered during design.

8
Part I

4
 3/28/2017

Safe Life Design Philosophy

USAF Bad Experiences with Safe-Life

Early widespread cracking in C-5A lower wing structure
Crash of F-111 in Dec. 1969 after only 107 flights
The F-111 test program had demonstrated multiple lifetimes without
failure.
The lost F-111 contained a forging defect, which caused early cracking
in this aircraft.

C-5A F-111
9
Part I

Safe Life Design Philosophy

Comet 1 Aircraft
Was certified as safe-life for
16,000 flights and 10 years in
service
There were two crashes in 1954
due to operational pressurization
higher than that used in design at
that time (8.25 psi vs 5 psi)
Crashes of two Comet1 airplanes
in 1954 led to the adoption of
Fail-Safe design approach

10
Part I

5
 3/28/2017

Fail Safe Design Philosophy

Consists of primary structural element, and a redundant or

backup structural element
Fail-safe design is known as a redundant design or a multi-
load path design
Requires that if one element fails, the system does not fail
Requires development of an inspection program capable of
detecting fatigue cracks
Recognizes that fatigue cracks may occur and structures
are arranged so that cracks will not lead to failure of the
structure before the cracks are detected and repaired

11
Part I

Fail Safe Design Philosophy

Advantages:
Able to manage the unexpected and mitigating damage if element
failure occurs

Disadvantages:
Over-design will lead to overweight structure
Difficult to accurately predict the failure modes of the structure

12
Part I

6
 3/28/2017

Fail Safe Design Philosophy

Boeing 707-300 crashed in May 1977

The 707-300 airplane had been designed to a 'fail-safe' philosophy
Crash was due to the horizontal stabilizer rear spar fatigue failure
Inspections of the Boeing 707-300 fleet, made as a result of the
crash, found another 38 aircraft with similar cracks
This crash led to dropping fail-safe design and adopting damage
tolerance design

13
Part I

Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy

Linear elastic fracture mechanics approach

(LEFM) is used to predict crack stability
and crack growth
FRANC3D is used for this type of prediction
Requires inspections
Objective is to assess the effect of cracks in
the structure between two inspections

14
Part I

7
 3/28/2017

Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy

Permits a structure to retain its structural strength

for a period of use after it has sustained a given
level of fatigue or accidental damage
Knowledge of damage growth rates and residual
strength is used to set inspection intervals
Assumes that defects are already present at critical
locations in new structures

15
Part I

Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy

Components are qualified as:

Inspectable: Non-inspectable:
Fail-Safe - multiple Safe-Life - with an
load paths or crack initial in-service
arrest mechanisms inspection.
or or
Slow Crack Growth - Slow Crack Growth -
crack will not grow to a cracks will not grow to
critical size between a critical size over the
inspections service life
16
Part I

8
 3/28/2017

Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy

crack length at inspections

failure
crack size

worse case
crack scenario

time of operation
First inspection at 1/2 the
worst case fatigue life

17
Part I

Damage Tolerance Design Philosophy

Advantages:
Healthy structures can be used indefinitely.
Ease of model adaptation for new crack scenarios that
may evolve in-service.
Disadvantages:
Cost of periodic inspections.
Design approach has traditionally been deterministic
and the life prediction estimate is dominated by:
Choice of initial crack characteristics
Assumed load spectrum.
Multi-site and multi-element damage is not considered.
LEFM does not accurately model small cracks.
18
Part I

9
 3/28/2017

Future Trends in Fatigue Design

Probability-based analysis and assessment

On-board structural health monitoring
(sensors)
Prognosis systems
Digital twins

19
Part I

Introduction to Fracture
Mechanics Analysis

20
Part I

10
 3/28/2017

What is Fracture Mechanics?

The classical objective of fracture mechanics is the determination of

the rate of change of the shape of an existing crack. Will it propagate
under given loading and environmental conditions, and, if it does propagate,
at what rate, and into what configuration?

The corresponding analytical computational requirement has been to obtain

the fields displacement, strain, stress, and energy from which the driving
force for crack propagation might be extracted.

The corresponding experimental requirement has been to measure the

resisting force against crack propagation, and to observe and measure
configuration change and rate of growth.

21
Part I

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics

Review some basic elements of LEFM to prepare for

computational implementation:

Crack front stress and displacement fields

Stress Intensity Factor
T-stress
Energy Release Rate

22
Part I

11
 3/28/2017

Continuum Fracture Modes

y,v y,v y,v
x,u x,u
x,u

z,w z,w z,w

Mode I Mode II Mode III

Basic modes of crack loading. Positive sense shown for each:

Mode I = crack opening
Mode II = in-plane sliding
Mode III = anti-plane tearing 23
Part I

Crack Front Stress and Displacement Fields

y y
xy
r x
Williams (1957) expansion of crack tip

stress and displacement fields: x
Mode I
z 0


n
n n1 n n n
x r 2 anI 2 ( 1)n cos( 1) ( 1) cos( 3) plane stress
2
n 1
2 2 2 2

n n2 1 I n n n n n z v ( x y )
y r an 2 ( 1) cos( 1) ( 1) cos( 3)
n 1 2 2 2 2 2 plane strain

n n 1 n n n n
xy r 2 anI ( 1) sin( 3) ( 1)n sin( 1) xz yz 0
n 1 2 2 2 2 2
n

r2
n n n n
u anI ( 1)n cos cos( 2) and where = G
n 1 2 2 2 2 2
n and 34n, plane stress

r 2
n n n n
v anI ( 1)n sin sin( 2) (3n)/(1n), plane strain
n 1 2 2 2 2 2
24
Part I

12
 3/28/2017

Crack Front Stress and Displacement Fields

y xy
Williams expansion of crack tip r x
stress and displacement fields (1957):
x
Mode II


n
n 1 n n n n
x r a 2 ( 1)n sin( 1) ( 1) sin( 3)
2 II
n z 0
2
n 1 2 2 2 2
plane stress

n n 1
z v ( x y )
n n n n
y r 2 anII 2 ( 1)n sin( 1) ( 1) sin( 3)
n 1 2 2 2 2 2
plane strain

n n
n
n 1 n n
xy r 2 anII ( 1) cos( 3) ( 1)n cos( 1)
n 1 2 2 2 2 2 xz yz 0
n

u

r 2
n n n n
anII ( 1)n sin sin( 2) where = G
n 1 2 2 2 2 2 and 34n, plane stress
n
(3n)/(1n), plane strain

r 2 II n n n n
v an ( 1)n cos cos( 2)
n 1 2 2 2 2 2
25
Part I

Crack Front Stress and Displacement Fields

y
y
Example of Expansion
Along Crack Line, x = r, Mode I x

x (r)

a1
x 4a2 3a3 r 8a4 r 5a5r 3 2
r
a
y 1 3a3 r 5a5r 3 2
r
First (leading), or singular term, a1: contains the stress
intensity factor
Second term, a2: contains the T-stress
Third term, a3: the leading higher order term (note: non-
polynomial!) 26
Part I

13
 3/28/2017

Definition of Stress Intensity Factor

and T-stress from these Fields
Neglecting all but the first, singular term of this stress field results in the
formal definition of the stress intensity factor:

K I lim yy 2 r
r 0

K II lim xy 2 r
r 0

K III lim yz 2 r
r 0

The so-called T-stress is the constant stress acting parallel to the crack
direction.

27
Part I

In Cylindrical Coordinates, to 2nd Term

y

T-stress

3 T
cos K I cos 2 K II sin (1 cos 2 )
1

2r 2 2 2 2

3 T
cos K I 1 sin 2 K II sin 2 K II tan (1 cos 2 )
1
rr
2r 2 2 2 2 2

1 T
r cos KI sin KII (3cos 1) sin2
2 2r 2 2

28
Part I

14
 3/28/2017

Mode III Fields, Plane Strain

K III K III
xz sin (22) yz cos
( 2 r ) ( 2 r )
1 1
2
2 2
2

x y z xz 0

1
K III 2r 2
w sin
G 2
uv 0
n
for plane stress,let n
1 n

29
Part I

So Why is the Stress Intensity Factor

so Important?

Under conditions of small-scale yielding, all crack front

fields are dominated (controlled) by the stress intensity
factor.

Therefore, all crack behavior:

Stabilitywill the crack tip move?
Trajectory in what direction?
Rate how fast?
is controlled by the stress intensity factor and, maybe,
the T-stress.

30
Part I

15
 3/28/2017

Concept of K-Dominance:
When is LEFM Applicable?
y
K-Dominant KI
Region ys
yld
yield
2 x

y ys yns

x
rp
D
y ns 3a3 r 5a5 r 3 / 2 ...
Inelastic
Region,
Simplified
If rp << D, KI still controls fracture process.
31
Part I

Energy Release Rate

Recall that, in LEFM, energy release rate (crack driving force) is a

dual of stress intensity. For example, in Mode I:
K I2
GI '
E
where
E' E for plane stress
E
E' for plane strain
( 1 n 2 )
We will first concentrate on computing stress intensity factors,
then, later, energy release rates (and their derivatives!).

32
Part I

16
 3/28/2017

Linear Elastic Fracture

Mechanics Analysis
Using Finite Element Analysis

33
Part I

LEFM Using FEM

Finite element method is a natural tool for performing

LEFM problems
A number of researchers investigated special finite element
formulations that incorporate singular basis functions or
stress intensity factors as nodal variables
These special elements are not available in most
general-purpose finite element programs
Finite Element Method (FEM) needs to be manipulated to
handle the singular crack-tip stress and strain fields
predicted by the theory

34
Part I

17
 3/28/2017

LEFM Using FEM

A significant advancement in the use of the finite element method for LEFM
problems was the simultaneous, and independent, development of "quarter-
point Element" .

Henshell and Shaw, 1975

Barsoum, 1976

Quadrilateral (a) and collapsed quadrilateral (b) quarter-point elements

35
Part I

LEFM Using FEM

These researchers showed that the proper crack-tip

displacement, stress, and strain fields are modeled
by standard quadratic order isoparametric finite
elements if one simply moves the element's mid-
side node to the position one quarter of the way
from the crack tip to the far end of the element.
Introduces a singularity into the mapping between the
element's parametric coordinate space and Cartesian
space.

36
Part I

18
 3/28/2017

LEFM Using FEM

The discovery of quarter-point elements

was a significant milestone in the
development of finite element procedures
for LEFM
With these elements standard and widely
available, finite element programs can be
used to model crack tip fields accurately
with only minimal preprocessing required

37
Part I

1D -Point Singular Element

1 3

A quadratic element, (a) the parametric space of the element, (b) the Cartesian space of the
element. The crack tip is at r=0.

3
u N iui 12 ( 1)u1 (1 2 )u2 12 ( 1)u3
i 1

Its standard, polynomial displacement interpolation scheme, above, regrouped, below.

u u2 12 (u3 u1 ) ( 12 (u1 u3 ) u2 ) 2

38
Part I

19
 3/28/2017

1D -Point Singular Element

1 3

2
3
r N i ri l 12 l l ( 12 ) 2
i 1
Its standard, polynomial geometry interpolation scheme.
First, the usual case of mid-side geometry:
2r
1 1
2 l
Then we get the expected, polynomial interpolation:
2
u u1 ( 3u1 4u2 u3 ) r 2(u1 2u2 u3 ) r
l l2
39
Part I

1D -Point Singular Element

1 3

2
3
r N i ri l 12 l l ( 12 ) 2
i 1
Its standard, polynomial geometry interpolation scheme.

Next, the unusual case of -point geometry:

2 lr
14 1
l
Then we get the unexpected, non-polynomial interpolation !!!:

u u1 2(u1 2u2 u3 ) r ( 3u1 4u2 u3 ) lr

l l
40
Part I

20
 3/28/2017

1D -Point Singular Element

2
Normal displacement field: u u1 ( 3u1 4u2 u3 ) r 2(u1 2u2 u3 ) r
l l 2

-Point displacement field: u u1 2(u1 2u2 u3 ) r ( 3u1 4u2 u3 ) lr

l l
n
r 2

n n n n
Compare to theoretical field: u an1 ( 1)n cos cos( 2)
n 1 2 2 2 2 2

du
Normal strain field: e ( 3u1 4u2 u3 ) 1 4(u1 2u2 u3 ) r
dr l l2
du
-point strain field: e 2(u1 2u2 u3 ) 1 ( 23 u1 2u2 12 u3 ) 1
dr l lr


n
n 1 n n n n
Compare to theoretical field: x r 2 an1 2 ( 1)n cos( 1) ( 1) cos( 3)
2
n 1 2 2 2 2

41
Part I

1D -Point Singular Element

Displacement field:
Contains a constant value, a linear variation in r, and
the square root variation in r.
Corresponds to the leading terms in the LEFM
expressions for the near crack-tip displacement.
Strain field:
Contains a constant term and a singular term that varies
as r-1/2
Corresponds to the lead term in the LEFM stress and
strain expansions

42
Part I

21
 3/28/2017

3D -Point Singular Elements

(a) collapsed, 20-noded brick, quarter-point element

(b) natural 15-noded, wedge quarter-point element

43
Part I

Stress Intensity Factors

44
Part I

22
 3/28/2017

Stress Intensity Factors

SIF's are a measure of the intensity of the

stress concentration along a crack front
Range in the SIF due to cyclic loading can
be correlated with the crack growth rate
SIF's are functions of the crack size and
shape, local geometry of the component,
and local stresses in the crack region

45
Part I

Stress Intensity Factors

FRANC3D was developed primarily to calculate

highly accurate SIF's for arbitrarily shaped cracks in
arbitrarily shaped components subjected arbitrary
loading
FRANC3D handles real-world conditions such as
non-planar cracks, cracks with complex shapes,
complex component geometries, contact between
components, residual stresses, and local stress
concentrations

46
Part I

23
 3/28/2017

Stress Intensity Factors

FRANC3D computes stress intensity factors for all

three modes of fracture at FE mid-side nodes along
crack front
Under conditions of small-scale yielding, crack
behavior controlled by stress intensity factors:
Stability will the crack tip move?
Trajectory in what direction?
Rate how fast?

47
Part I

Computing Stress Intensity Factors

FRANC3D has two methods of computing stress
intensity factors (SIFs or Ks):
Displacement Correlation Method
Conservative Integral Method
J-Integral
M-Integral

48
Part I

24
 3/28/2017

Displacement Correlation Methods

Relatively simple to understand and

implement
Relatively poor accuracy (~5% error for a
reasonable mesh)
Good sanity check but not for production
work

49
Part I

Theoretical asymptotic displacement fields

1/ 2
,v KI r
u cos 1 2n sin 2
2 2 2

1/ 2
KI r
v sin 2 2n cos 2
2 2 2
,u
Note: for plane stress, let n = n/(1+ n)

1/ 2
K II r
u sin 2 2n cos 2
2 2 2

1/ 2
K II r
v cos 1 2n sin 2
Set r = ra-b, and = 180
2 2 2

K I ra b K II ra b
vb va (2 2n ) ub ua (2 2n )
2 2
50
Part I

25
 3/28/2017

Displacement Correlation (No Crack-Front

Template)
For plane strain case:

2 (v b v a )
KI
ra b (2 2n )
2 (ub ua )
ra-b K II
ra b (2 2n )
(w b w a )
K III
2ra b

is the shear modulus, n is Poisson's ratio, r is the distance from the crack tip to the
correlation point, and ui, vi, wi are the x, y, and z displacements at point i

Same expressions used for plane stress assumptions if n is replaced by n / (1+n)

51
Part I

Displacement Correlation Methods

SIF's computed by this approach can be improved

if quarter-point crack-tip elements are used
Displacement field:
vupper va (3va 4vb vc ) r (2va 4vb 2vc ) r
l l

vlower va (3va 4vd ve ) r (2va 4vd 2ve ) r

l l

The FEM crack opening displacement (COD) is

vupper vlower 4(vb vd ) v e vc r 4(vb vd ) 2(vc ve )r

l l

52
Part I

26
 3/28/2017

Displacement Correlation (With

Crack-Front Template)
The square root term of the FEM COD can then be
substituted into the analytical crack-tip
displacement field to yield
2
KI 4(vb vd ) ve vc
r (2 2n )

2
K II 4(ub ud ) ue uc
r (2 2n )

53
Part I

Conservative Integral Methods

M- & J-Integrals

54
Part I

27
 3/28/2017

J-Integral

In linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics, LEFM,

the J-integral is equivalent to the fracture
energy release rate, G.

55
Part I

Energy Release Rate, G

G can be computed either:
Using the stress intensity factors and material
properties and the theoretical expressions for
near crack-front displacements and stresses
OR
Using the near-crack-front stresses, strains and
displacement determined from a finite element
analysis (domain integration)

56
Part I

28
 3/28/2017

G Computation Using the Stress

Intensity Factors and Material
Properties

57
Part I

Energy Release Rate Expression Using SIFs &

Material Properties

Given the following crack-front coordinate systems (Rectangular and

Polar coordinate systems)

The crack-tip energy release rates can be determined from Irwins*

crack closure integral
1 D
D 0 yi
G = lim s (D - r,0)ui (r,p )dr , i = x, y,z (1)
D0

Where (r,) are the near crack-front stresses (in cylindrical coordinates),
and u(r,) are the near crack-front displacements
* Irwin, G.R. (1957) Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a plate, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 24,
58361-
364
Part I

29
 3/28/2017

Energy Release Rate Expression Using SIFs &

Material Properties
The first term first term of Williams* expansion for the stresses and
displacements near the crack tip is related to the stress intensity factors, and gives
the following expression for stress and displacement assuming plane strain
conditions.
cos q (1- sin q sin 3q ) sin q ( 2 + cos q cos 3q )
s xx
0

2 2 2 2 2 2

s yy cos q (1+ sin q sin 3q ) sin q

cos q
cos 3q
0 K
2 2 2 2 2 2
I (2)
s xy =
1 sin q2 cos q2 cos 32q cos q2 (1- sin q2 sin 32q ) 0 K II
2p r
s yz 0 0 - sin q2 K III

s zx 0 0 cos q2

u
x 2(1+ n ) r
2 (
cos q 1- 2n + sin 2 q
2 ) ( )
sin q2 2 - 2n + cos2 q2 0
KI
(3)
uy =
E 2p

(
sin q2 2 - 2n - cos2 q2 ) cos ( 2n -1+ sin )
q
2
2q
2
0
K II
K
uz 2sin q2
III
0 0

* Williams, M.L. (1957) On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 24, 109-114

59

Part I

Energy Release Rate Expression Using SIFs &

Material Properties

Substituting = 0 into equation 2, and = gives

s K u 2(1- n )K
yy x 2(1+ n ) r
1
I I

s xy = K
II and u
y = 2(1- n )K (4)
2p r E 2p II

s yz K III u
z K III

Substituting equations 4 into 1, and evaluating the integral gives the well
know result

1- n 2 2 1- n 2 2 1+ n 2 (5)
G= KI + K II + K III
E E E

The energy release rate in terms of stress intensity factors

and material properties
60
Part I

30
 3/28/2017

G Computation Using the near-

crack-front stresses, strains and
displacement (domain integration)

61
Part I

2D Crack-Tip Energy Balance (J-integral)

energy

a
contour

informally: 0 small
dEcontour dEelastic dE plastic dEnew surface dEheat dEsound dElight

da da da da da da da

dEnew surface dEelastic dEcontour

G J
da da da
62
Part I

31
 3/28/2017

Energy Release Rate Expressed Using Near-

Crack-front Stresses, Stains and Displacements
The J-Integral* measures energy flux into
the crack-tip region
u
J Wn x Ti i ds W 12 ije ij
x
Under conditions of small scale yielding, J-
Integral is equal to energy release rate, G
The contour J-Integral can be recast as an equivalent area (volume in 3D)
integral**, which is more accurate and stable in a finite element context
u q
J ij i W1 j dv (6)
V
x1 x j
q is a function that is one at the crack tip and zero on the boundary of the
integration domain. It can be interpreted as a virtual crack extension,
and is the Kronecker delta
* Rice, J.R. (1968) A path independent integral and approximate analysis of strain concentrations by notches and cracks, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, 35, 379-386
** Li, F.Z., Shih, C.F., and Needleman, A. (1985) A comparison of methods for calculating energy release rates, Engineering 63
Fracture Mechanics, 21, 405-421 Part I

Energy Release Rate Expressed Using Near-

Crack-front Stresses, Stains and Displacements
In 3D, the J-Integral is evaluated within a cylindrical domain
centered on a portion of the crack-front. q-function comparable to
a virtual crack extension

J is the energy release for the specified virtual crack extension q. This must
be normalized to get the energy released for a unit amount of new crack area

J J u q
G= = = s ij i -W d 1 j dV Aq (7)
q(s)ds Aq 1 x j
V x

This is an expression for the energy release rate in terms of stresses, strains,
and displacements 64
Part I

32
 3/28/2017

J-Integral
The problem with J is that it only gives one
number for the fracture energy release rate
Difficult to segregate the fracture energy release rate
among the three modes of fracture.

65
Part I

M-Integral

66
Part I

33
 3/28/2017

Computing Stress Intensity Factors

M-Integral (Interaction Integral):
Numerically M-Integral similar to J-Integral
M-Integral computes strain energy release energy rates (GI, GII, GIII) and stress
intensity factors (KI, KII, KIII) associated with three modes of fracture
Mode II (KII) needed to predict kink angle for crack growth direction

M-integral implementation in FRANC3D works for isotropic and anisotropic

materials
Relatively good accuracy (<1% error for a reasonable mesh)
Requires additional terms for crack face tractions, residual stresses, thermal
strains, etc.
1Wawrzynek, P.A., Carter, B., and Banks-Sills, L. The M-integral for computing stress intensity factors in generally
anisotropic materials, NASA/CR-2005-214006. July 2005
2 Banks-Sills, L., Wawrzynek, P.A., Carter, B., Ingraffea, T.R., and Hershkovitz, I., Methods for computing stress
intensity factors in anisotropic geometries: Part II arbitrary geometry, Engng. Fracture Mech, Vol 74, No 8, pp
1293-1307. July 2006
67
Part I

Steps for Formulating the M-Integral

Step(1): Invoke superposition to combine the

finite element solution with a know analytical
solution
Step(2): Substitute the superposition terms into
the energy release rate (G) equations (5) and (7)
from the previous slides
Step(3): Equate the two expressions for G and
substitute a simple analytical KI solution, and
solve for the finite element KI
Step (4): Repeat step (3) for KII and KIII

68
Part I

34
 3/28/2017

Principal of Superposition
The principal of superposition for elasticity says that if you have one solution
that satisfies the governing equations for elasticity, and you add it to a second
solution that satisfies the governing, the result will also satisfy the governing
equations

Therefore,
(8)
K I = K I(1) + K I(2) , K II = K II(1) + K II(2) , K III = K III(1) + K III(2)

s ij = s ij(1) + s ij(2) , e ij = e ij(1) + e ij(2) , ui = ui(1) +ui(2) (9)

where the (1) solution will be the finite element results, and the (2) will be
an analytical solution

69
Part I

Substitution in The Energy Release Rate

Equations
Substituting equation (8) into equation (5) (energy release rate in terms
of stress intensity factors and material properties), and collecting terms
gives

(10)
G = G(1) +G(2) + M (1,2)
where

1- n 2 (1) (2) 1- n 2 (1) (2) 1+ n (1) (2) (11)

M (1,2) = K K + K K + K K
E I I E II II E III III

70
Part I

35
 3/28/2017

Substitution in The Energy Release Rate

Equations
Substituting equation (9) into equation (7) (energy release rate in terms
of the near-crack-front stresses, strains and displacements), and
collecting terms gives

(12)
G = G(1) +G(2) + M (1,2)
Where in this case

u(2) u(1) q (13)

M (1,2) = s ij(1) i + s ij(2) i -W (1,2)d1 j dV Aq
V
x1 x1 x j

71
Part I

(1)
Solving for The Finite Element K I

For the (2) solution, we use the first term of the Williams expansion, (equations 2
and 3) after setting KI = 1 and KII = KIII = 0. Substituting this into equation 11 and
13, and setting the two expressions for M equal to each other, gives

1- n 2 (1) u(2) u(1) q

K I = s ij(1) i + s ij(2) i -W (1,2)d 1 j dV Aq (14)
E V
x1 x1 x j

Or, the finite element KI is

E (1) ui(2) (2) ui(1) (1,2) q (15)

1- n 2 V ij x1 ij x1
K I(1) = s +s -W d1 j dV Aq
x j

Where (1) and u(1) come from finite element results, and
(2) and u(2) are
72
Part I

36
 3/28/2017

Solving for The Finite Element K I(1)

q q 3q
cos 1- sin sin
s xx 2 2 2

s yy cos q 1+ sin q sin 3q

s zz
2 2 2
1
= n (s xx + s yy )
s xy 2p r
q q 3q
(16)
s yz
sin cos cos
2 2 2
s zx
0
0

and
q q
cos 1- 2n + sin 2
u 2 2
x 2(1+ n ) r q 2q


(17)
uy = sin 2 - 2n - cos
E 2p 2 2
uz 0

(these come from equations 2 and 3 with KI = 1 and KII = KIII = 0)

73
Part I

Solving for The Finite Element K II(1)

For the (2) solution, we use the first term of the Williams expansion, (equations 2
and 3) after setting KI = 0, KII = 1 and KIII = 0. Substituting this into equation 11
and 13, and setting the two expressions for M equal to each other, the finite element
KII is

E (1) ui(2) (2) ui(1) (1,2) q

1- n 2 V ij x1 ij x1
K II(1) = s +s -W d1 j dV Aq (18)
x j

Where (1) and u(1) come from finite element results, and
(2) and u(2) are

74
Part I

37
 3/28/2017

Solving for The Finite Element K II(1)

q q 3q
sin 2 + cos cos
s xx 2 2 2

s yy
q q 3q

sin cos cos
s zz 2 2 2
1
= n (s xx + s yy )
s xy 2p r (19)
s yz cos q 1- sin q sin 3q
2 2 2
s zx
0
0

and
q q
sin 2 - 2n + cos 2
u 2 2
x 2(1+ n ) r q

2q (20)
uy = cos -1+ 2n + sin
E 2p 2 2
uz 0

(these come from equations 2 and 3 with KI = 0, KII = 1 and KIII = 0)

75
Part I

Solving for The Finite Element K III(1)

For the (2) solution, we use the first term of the Williams expansion, (equations 2
and 3) after setting KI = KII = 0 and KIII = 1. Substituting this into equation 11 and
13, and setting the two expressions for M equal to each other, the finite element KIII
is

E (1) ui(2) (2) ui(1) q

K III(1) =
1+ n
V s ij
x1
+ s ij
x1
-W (1,2)d1 j
x j
dV Aq (21)

Where (1) and u(1) come from finite element results, and
(2) and u(2) are

76
Part I

38
 3/28/2017

Solving for The Finite Element K III(1)

0
s xx

s yy 0
0 u
s zz 1 0 x 2(1+ n ) r 0
= and u y = 0
s xy 2p r q
sin E 2p
q
(22)
s yz 2 uz sin
2
q
s zx cos
2

(these come from equations 2 and 3 with KI = 0, KII = 0 and KIII = 1)

77
Part I

FRANC3D Uses M-integral

78
Part I

39
 3/28/2017

Stress Intensity Factor Computations

FRANC3D displays stress intensity factors along normalized
(from 0 to 1) crack front length, starting at A and ending at B
Note: T-Stress tab is not displayed if SIFs computed by displacement correlation.

T-Stress

79
Part I

M-Integral SIFs: Embedded Penny Crack

Template Cross-Section

< 0.2% error

80
Part I

40
 3/28/2017

M-Integral SIFs: Penny Surface Crack

FRANC3D

2H
2c ~2% difference max

2W T

Raju-Newman*
* note, the Raju-Newman solution is known to be
slightly inaccurate near the free surface.
81
Part I

Independent Mode I SIF Verification

S S

Analyses performed by
CCT SEN
2 2
Dawn Phillips NASA
2h
3
1
2h
3
1 Langley Research Center
2a a

2w w

t t

S S

82
Part I

41