Dassault Systemes Inc. Modeling Fracture and Failure With Abaqus

Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.
n
For personal use by Scion Research. For personal use by Scion Research. For perso
Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
R 6.12
About this Course
Course objectives
Upon completion of this course you will be able to:
Use proper modeling techniques for capturing crack-tip singularities in fracture mechanics problems
Use Abaqus/CAE to create meshes appropriate for fracture studies
Calculate stress intensity factors and contour integrals around a crack tip
Simulate material damage and failure
Simulate crack growth using cohesive behavior, VCCT, and XFEM
Simulate low-cycle fatigue crack growth
Targeted audience
Simulation Analysts
Prerequisites
This course is recommended for engineers with experience using Abaqus
3 days
1
Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.n
Day 1
Lecture 1 Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Lecture 2 Modeling Cracks
Lecture 3 Fracture Analysis
Workshop 1 Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen

Workshop 2 Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
Day 2
Lecture 4 Material Failure and Wear
Lecture 5 Element-based Cohesive Behavior
Workshop 3 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 1)
Workshop 4 Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements

Lecture 6 Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Workshop 3 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 2)
2
Day 3
Lecture 7 Virtual Crack Closure Technology (VCCT)
Workshop 5 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT
Lecture 8 Low-cycle Fatigue
Lecture 9 Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)

Workshop 6 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM
Workshop 7 Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
Legal Notices
The Abaqus Software described in this documentation is available only under license from Dassault
Systèmes and its subsidiary and may be used or reproduced only in accordance with the terms of such
license.
This documentation and the software described in this documentation are subject to change without
prior notice.
Dassault Systèmes and its subsidiaries shall not be responsible for the consequences of any errors or
omissions that may appear in this documentation.
No part of this documentation may be reproduced or distributed in any form without prior written
permission of Dassault Systèmes or its subsidiary.

© Dassault Systèmes, 2012.
Printed in the United States of America
Abaqus, the 3DS logo, SIMULIA and CATIA are trademarks or registered trademarks of Dassault
Systèmes or its subsidiaries in the US and/or other countries.
Other company, product, and service names may be trademarks or service marks of their respective
owners. For additional information concerning trademarks, copyrights, and licenses, see the Legal
Notices in the Abaqus 6.12 Release Notes and the notices at:
http://www.3ds.com/products/simulia/portfolio/product-os-commercial-programs.
3
Revision Status
Lecture 1 5/12 Updated for 6.12


Workshop 1 5/12 Updated for 6.12
4
Notes
5
6
Notes
L1.1
Lesson 1: Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Lesson content:
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
90 minutes
L1.2
Overview
This lecture is optional.
It aims to introduce the necessary fracture mechanics concepts and quantities that are relevant to the Abaqus
functionality that is presented in the subsequent lectures.
If you are already familiar with these concepts, this lecture may be omitted.
7
L1.3
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).
The objective of fracture mechanics is to characterize the local deformation around a crack tip in terms
of the asymptotic field around the crack tip scaled by parameters that are a function of the loading and
global geometry.
L1.4
Fracture Mechanisms (1/4)
For engineering materials, such as metals,

there are two primary modes of fracture: brittle
and ductile.
Brittle fracture
Cracks spread very rapidly with little or

no plastic deformation.
Cracks that initiate in a brittle material

tend to continue to grow and increase in
size provided the loading will cause
crack growth.
Ductile fracture
Three stages: void nucleation, growth,

and coalescence.
The crack moves slowly and is
accompanied by a large amount of
plastic deformation.
The crack typically will not grow unless
the applied load is increased.
8
L1.5
Brittle fracture in polycrystalline materials displays either cleavage (transgranular) or intergranular

fracture.
This depends upon whether the grain boundaries are stronger or weaker than the grains .
Cleavage fracture
L1.6
Ductile fracture has a dimpled, cup-and-cone fracture appearance .
Ductile fracture surfaces have larger necking regions and an overall rougher appearance than a
brittle fracture surface.
9
L1.7
Fracture process zone
The fracture process zone is the region around the crack tip where dislocation motions, material
damage, etc. occur.
It is a region of nonlinear deformation.
The fracture process zone size is characterized by

a number of grain sizes for brittle fracture or

either inclusion or second phase particle spacings for ductile fracture.
Different theories have been advanced to describe the fracture process in order to develop predictive
capabilities
LEFM
Cohesive zone models
EPFM
Etc.
L1.8
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (1/10)
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.
10
L1.9
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.
I. This creates a shear crack: the
crack slides along itself.

This is referred to as the in-plane shear
mode.
I. The forces do not cause out-of-
plane deformation.
Mode III:
The forces are transverse to the crack.
I. 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.
The objective of LEFM is to predict the critical loads

that will cause a crack to grow in a brittle material.
L1.10
Stress intensity factor
For isotropic, linear elastic materials, LEFM characterizes the local crack-tip stress field in the linear
elastic (i.e., brittle) material using a single parameter called the stress intensity factor K.
K depends upon the applied stress, the size and placement of the crack, as well as the geometry
of the specimen.
K is defined from the elastic stresses near the tip of a sharp crack under remote loading (or
residual stresses).
K is used to predict the stress state ("stress intensity") near the tip of a crack.
I. When this stress state (i.e., K) becomes critical, a small crack grows ("extends") and the
material fails.
II. This critical value is denoted KC and is known as the fracture toughness (it is a material
property; discussed further later).
11
L1.11
Asymptotic crack tip solutions
The stress and strain fields in the vicinity of the crack tip are expressed in terms of asymptotic series of
solutions around the crack tip.
They are valid only is a small region near the crack tip.
I. This size of this region is quantified by small scale yielding assumptions (discussed later).
The stress intensity factor is the parameter that relates the local crack-tip fields with the global
aspects of the problem.
L1.12
The leading-order terms of the asymptotic

solution are:
KI K II K
 ij (r ,q )  fijI (q )  fijII (q )  III fijIII (q ),
2 r 2 r 2 r
where x2 r
r is the distance from the crack tip, q
q = atan(x2/x1), x1
KI is the Mode I (opening) stress intensity
factor,
KII is the Mode II (in-plane shear) stress
intensity factor,
KIII is the Mode III (transverse shear) stress
intensity factor, and the
fij a define the angular variation of the
stress for mode a.
12
L1.13
Crack-tip singularity
The predicted stress state at the crack tip in a linear elastic (brittle) material possesses a square-root
singularity:
1
 .
r
In reality, the crack tip is surrounded by the fracture process zone where plastic deformation and
material damage occur.
I. Inside this zone, the LEFM solution is not valid.

II. Outside of this zone (i.e., sufficiently "far" from the fracture process zone), the LEFM is
accurate provided the plastic/damage zone is “small enough.”
» This is called small-scale yielding (discussed further later).
L1.14
Some comments on fracture toughness
Fracture toughness is strongly dependent on temperature.

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.
13
L1.15
Experimentally, the fracture toughness KC is a function of specimen thickness.
Since plane strain gives the practical minimum value of KC …
The plane strain value is usually the value that is determined experimentally.
However, if the application is fracture of thin sheets of material, KC values somewhere between
the plane stress and plane strain values may be appropriate.

Fracture toughness
KC
Thickness →
L1.16
Aside from temperature and thickness, the fracture toughness is also a function of the crack extension.
The fracture toughness as a function of crack extension is called the resistance curve (shown below).
ductile
Variation in fracture toughness with crack

growth is Kr(Da):
Kr(0)= KC
brittle
The resistance curve is used to predict crack growth stability.
14
L1.17
Crack growth and stability
The condition for continued crack growth for a crack length a + Da is
K applied  K R (Da).
The condition for stable continued crack growth is

K applied dK R
 .
a load
d Da
L1.18
Small-Scale Yielding (1/5)
Small-scale yielding (SSY) means the region of inelastic deformation at the crack tip is contained well within
the zone dominated by the LEFM asymptotic solution.
For LEFM to be valid, there must be an annular region around the crack tip in which the asymptotic
solution to the linear elasticity problem gives a good approximation to the complete stress field.
Plastic zone
K-dominated zone
Transition zone
15
L1.19
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:
plane strain plane stress plane stress

(diffuse) (Dugdale)
L1.20
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.
16
L1.21
If a is a characteristic dimension in the problem, such as remaining ligament size or thickness or crack length,
then, to have a finite zone rK in which the K-field dominates, we need
2
1 K 
a / 5  rK  3rp   IC 
2  0 
or
2
K  ASTM Standard for validity of
a  2.5  IC  . 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.
L1.22
For some typical metal materials rp is calculated by matching the yield stress to the Mises stress of the K field
and the minimum characteristic length is calculated using the ASTM standard limit.
For materials with high fracture toughness the size of the specimen for a valid fracture test is very large.
Characteristic
Material
T 0 KIC rp
dimension
(ºC) (MPa) (MN/m3/2) (mm)
(mm)
A061-T651 (Al) 20 269 33 5 38
A075-T651 (Al) 20 620 36 0.35 8.4
AISI 4340 (Steel) 0 1500 33 0.05 1.2
A533-B (Steel) 93 620 200 11 260
17
L1.23
Energy Considerations (1/4)
Energy principles play an important role in studying crack problems.
This is motivated by the fact that crack propagation always involves dissipation of energy. Sources of
energy dissipation include:
Surface energy, plastic dissipation, etc.
By considering fracture from an energetic point of view, crack growth criteria can be postulated in terms
of energy release rates.
This approach offers an alternative to the K-based fracture criteria discussed earlier and
reinforces the connection between global and local fields in fracture problems.
I. The energy release rate is a global parameter while the stress intensity factor is a local
crack-tip parameter.
L1.24
The energy available to grow a crack is defined

as
 ( PE )
G- ,
a Loads
where PE is the potential energy and G is the

Energy Release Rate.
We consider the difference in the energy for

two essentially identical specimens, one with
crack length a, the other with crack length
a + Da.
The area under the load-displacement curve

gives -PE for elastic materials.
18
L1.25
For isotropic linear elastic materials, one can show that
1 - v2 2
G K for plane strain
E
and
K2
G for plane stress.
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.
L1.26
Initiation of crack growth in SSY
The necessary condition for crack growth expressed in terms of the energy release rate is G  GC.
GC is a material property and represents the energy per unit crack advance going into:
the formation of new surfaces,

the fracture process, and

plastic deformation.
As noted earlier, for linear elastic materials, G and K are related.
This leads to an alternative condition for K  KC.
Recall KC is the fracture toughness of the material.
19
L1.27
The J-integral (1/3)
The J-integral is used in rate-independent quasi-static fracture analysis to characterize the energy
release associated with crack growth.
It can be related to the stress intensity factor if the material response is linear.
As will become apparent in the next section, it also has the advantage that it provides a method
for analyzing fracture in nonlinear materials.
L1.28
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:
I. The material is homogeneous in the crack direction.
II. 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
20
L1.29
J in small-scale yielding
Choose , the contour for J, to fall entirely within the annular region in which the K fields dominate.
3rp
The integrand for J can be evaluated directly in terms of the (known) K fields. Direct calculation for
Mode I in a linear elastic material gives
1 - v2 2
J G  K I for plane strain and
E
1
J  G  K I2 for plane stress.
E
L1.30
Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (1/9)
LEFM applies when the nonlinear deformation of the material is confined to a small region near the
crack tip.
For brittle materials, it accurately establishes the criteria for failure.
However, severe limitations arise when the region of the material subject to plastic deformation
before a crack propagates is not negligible.
Nonlinear fracture mechanics attempts to extend LEFM to consider inelastic effects.
The theory is sometimes called Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM).
However, the theory is not based on an elastic-plastic material model, but rather a nonlinear
elastic material.
21
L1.31
n
Consider a material that has a power-law hardening form,
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.
L1.32
For such a material, Hutchinson, Rice, and Rosengren (extended to mixed mode loading by Shih)
showed that the near-tip fields have the form
Loading parameter is J
1
 J  n1
 ij   0    ij (q ),
a e
 0 0 n 
I r
n
  n1
J
e ij  e 0   e ij (q ),
 a 0e 0 I n r 
n
 J  n1
ui - uî  ae 0 r   ui (q ).
 a 0e 0 I n r 
Here ui - uî is the displacement relative to the displacement of the crack tip, uî . These fields are
commonly referred to as the HRR crack-tip fields.
22
L1.33
Why not elastic-plastic?
The HRR field assumes a nonlinear elastic

power law material:
n
e  
a  
e0 0 
Under monotonic loading, this nonlinear elastic

material can be matched to the behavior of an
elastic-plastic material whose hardening
behavior is accurately modeled by a power
law.
Thus, evaluating J allows us to characterize

the strength of the singularity in the crack-tip
region in an elastic-plastic material subjected
to monotonic loading.
L1.34
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.
23
L1.35
Some comments on the HRR fields
The HRR fields, thus, describe the near-tip crack fields in terms of J.
J gives the strength of the near-tip singularity in any power-law material (nonlinear elastic or plastic)
solid
Recall that in LEFM K plays this role in linear elastic materials.
J-based fracture mechanics is applied in much the same way as LEFM.

Crack growth initiates when J reaches a critical value: J  JC .
To apply the theory, must ensure conditions for J-dominance are satisfied (discussed next).
L1.36
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):
I. Deeply notched bend specimen
d
c«d
24
L1.37
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):
I. Fully plastic flow of single-edge cracked specimens under tension loading
II. Shallow cracks under bending
III. Center-cracked panel

A two-parameter approach can be used to extend the fracture characterization to such cases
(discussed next).
L1.38
Two-parameter fracture mechanics
The Williams’ expansion of the Mode I stress field about a sharp crack in a linear elastic body with
respect to r, the distance from the crack tip, is
KI
 ij (r ,q )  fij (q )  T 1i1 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.
25
L1.39
Mixed-Mode Fracture (1/2)
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.
L1.40
Different criteria for homogeneous, isotropic

linear elastic materials have been proposed,
including:
I. The maximum tangential stress
criterion.
II. The maximum energy release rate
criterion.
III. The KII = 0 criterion.
Although all three imply that

KII = 0 as the crack extends, they
predict slightly different angles for crack
initiation.
Comparison of predictions of crack

propagation direction for different ratios
of KII / KI
26
L1.41
Interfacial Fracture (1/5)
Many engineering applications involve bonded materials.
Examples:
adhesive joints;
protective coatings;
composite materials;
etc.
Engineers must be able to predict the strength of the bond.
Interfacial fracture mechanics provides a method by which to do this.
It extends LEFM to predict the behavior of cracks between two linear elastic materials.
L1.42
Once a crack has started to grow in an

isotropic, homogeneous material, it generally
does so in an opening mode; that is, in Mode I.
A crack lying on an interface can kink off

the interface and grow under Mode I
conditions, or it can grow along the
interface under mixed mode conditions.
Whether the crack kinks off the interface or

propagates along it is frequently determined
through energy considerations.
27
L1.43
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 ().
I. Toughness depends strongly on the mode mixity .
L1.44
Asymptotic fields
The asymptotic stress field for an interfacial crack between linear elastic materials is given by
 K * ie 
 ij  Re  r  ij (q , e ) 
 2 r 
where K* = K1  iK2 is the complex stress intensity factor (i.e., it has real and imaginary parts)
and  ij (q , 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
28
L1.45
The complex exponent rie indicates that the stresses will oscillate near the crack tip:
12
22
e log(r)
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.
L1.46
Creep Fracture (1/5)
High-temperature fracture
For temperatures above 0.3qM (where qM 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.
I. This tends to retard crack growth.

Accumulation of creep damage (microcracks, void growth, and coalescence).
I. This enhances crack growth.
Steady-state creep crack growth occurs when the two effects balance one another.
29
L1.47
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, the study of creep fracture is not as well established as for elastic-plastic fracture.
Initially, the crack-tip field is the elastic field.

Stationary crack:O(e ) O(e el ) around the crack tip
cr
(RR field); around this field O(e el ) O(e cr ) (K field).

Growing crack: region develops where O(e el )  O(e cr )
(HR field), which is in turn surrounded by the RR field.
Eventually the HR field envelops the RR field (which
ultimately disappears).
L1.48
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 e
el 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 
C (t )   
 r 0  n  1
 ije ij n1 - ni  ij j  ds.
x1 
Under steady-state creep conditions, when creep dominates throughout the specimen, C(t) becomes
path independent and is known as C*.
30
L1.49
Asymptotic fields for stationary crack

The near tip stress and strain fields were obtained by Riedel and Rice in terms of C(t). They are known
as the RR fields and are analogous to the HRR fields in power law hardening plasticity.
C(t) acts like a time-dependent

loading parameter
1
 C (t )  n1
 ij   0    ij (q , n)
Crack tip fields are
 e 0 0 I n r 
similar to those for

n an elastic-plastic
 C (t )  n1 material
e ijcr  e0   e ij (q , n)
 e 0 0 I n r 
Here In is a function of n and the magnitude of  ij (q , n) is approximately 1.
L1.50
Small-scale vs. extensive creep
For the case of no crack growth the loading

parameters that characterize the crack-tip K
fields are reasonably well understood.   (q )
r
Under small-scale creep conditions with

secondary creep, K is the loading
parameter characterizing the crack-tip

field.
Small-scale creep
For extensive secondary creep C* is a
loading parameter characterizing the
crack-tip field upon which a fracture
criterion may be based.
Suitable criteria for crack extension that will creep zone

predict an initiation time for crack growth for
general cases are not yet available.
Extensive creep
31
L1.51
Fatigue (1/2)
Fatigue is a special kind of failure in which cracks gradually grow under a prolonged period of subcritical
loading.
It is the single most common cause of failure in metallic structures.
Damage at the ball grid array

(BGA) in a solder joint after 2700
thermal loading cycles
The Paris Law can be used to predict crack growth as a function of cycles (or time):
Kmax
da
da/dN I II III Kmean  C (DK ) n , where
dN
Kmin DK  K max - K min
t
DKI
L1.52
Fatigue (2/2)
Abaqus offers a direct cyclic low-cycle fatigue capability based on the Paris Law.
Models progressive damage and failure both in bulk materials and at material interfaces for a
structure subjected to a sub-critical cyclic loading.
For more advanced fatigue analysis capabilities, consult www.safetechnology.com.
fe-safe is a suite of fatigue analysis software that has a direct interface to Abaqus.
32
Notes
33
34
Notes
L2.1
Lesson 2: Modeling Cracks
Lesson content:
Crack Modeling Overview

Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options
90 minutes
L2.2
Crack Modeling Overview (1/4)
Abaqus offers two different ways to model cracks.
The first is based on the conventional finite element method.
It typically requires the user to conform the mesh to the cracked geometry.
This is the focus of this lecture.
The second is based on the extended finite element method (XFEM).

The method does not require the mesh to match the cracked geometry.
This method is discussed in Lecture 9.
35
L2.3
A crack can be modeled as either
Sharp
Small-strain analysis
Singular behavior at the crack tip
I. Requires special attention
In Abaqus, a sharp crack is modeled
using seam geometry
Blunted
Finite-strain analysis
Non-singular behavior at crack tip
In Abaqus, a blunted crack is modeled
using open geometry
I. For example, a notch
L2.4
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.
36
L2.5
The crack-tip singularity in small-strain analysis
For mesh convergence in a small-strain analysis, the singularity at the crack tip must be considered.
J values are more accurate if some singularity is included in the mesh at the crack tip than if no
singularity is included.
The stress and strain fields local to the crack tip will be modeled more accurately if singularities
are considered.
In small-strain analysis, the strain singularity is:
Linear elasticity   r -½
Perfect plasticity   r -1
Power-law hardening   r -n/(n+1)
L2.6
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Two Dimensions (1/15)
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.
37
L2.7
Example: Slanted crack in a plate
In Abaqus/CAE a seam is defined by through

the Crack option underneath the Special
menu of the Interaction module.
The seam will generate duplicate nodes

along the edge.
Seam
Create face partition to represent the

seam; assign a seam to the partition.
L2.8
To define the crack, you must specify
Crack front and the crack-tip
Normal to the crack plane or the

direction of crack advance
I. The crack advance direction is
called the q vector.
Crack tip
same as The crack extension direction (q vector)
crack defines the direction in which the crack
Select the vertex at either end as front in would extend if it were growing.
the crack front. (Repeat for the this case
other end.) It is used for contour integral calculations.
38
L2.9
Other options for defining the crack front and crack tip
Crack front for a

geometric instance
Crack tip for an
orphan mesh
Crack front may be:

Vertex/Node
Edges/Element edges Crack tip may be:
Faces/Elements Vertex/Node
Geometric Orphan Geometric Orphan

Instances Mesh Instances Mesh
L2.10
Example: crack on a symmetry plane
If the crack is on a symmetry plane, you do not

need to define a seam.
This feature can be used only for

Mode I fracture.
Crack normal
Crack tip
39
L2.11
Modeling the crack-tip singularity with second-order quad elements
To capture the singularity in an 8-node isoparametric element:
Collapse one side (e.g., the side made up by nodes a, b, and c) so that all three nodes have the
same geometric location at the crack tip.
Move the midside nodes on the sides connected to the crack tip to the ¼ point nearest the crack
tip.
L2.12
If nodes a, b, and c are free to move independently, then
A B
  as r  0
r r
everywhere in the collapsed element.
If nodes a, b, and c are constrained to move together, A = 0:

I. The strains and stresses are square-root singular (suitable for linear elasticity).
If nodes a, b, and c are free to move independently and the midside nodes remain at the
midsides, B = 0 :
I. The singularity in strain is correct for the perfectly plastic case.
For materials in between linear elastic and perfectly plastic (most metals), it is better to have a stronger
singularity than necessary.
The numerics will force the coefficient of this singularity to be small.
40
L2.13
Usage:
The crack tip nodes are Quarter-point midside nodes

independent: r -1 singularity on the sides 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
L2.14
Aside: Controlling the position of midside nodes for orphan meshes
Singularity controls cannot be applied to orphan meshes.
Use the Mesh Edit tools to adjust their position.

41
L2.15
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.
nodes moved to ¼ points
L2.16
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).
Nonlinear material response usually requires finer meshes.
42
L2.17
Modeling the crack-tip singularity with first-order quad elements
Collapsing the side of a first-order quadrilateral element with independent nodes on the collapsed side
gives
A
 as r  0.
r
L2.18
Example: Slanted crack in a plate
To enable the creation of degenerate quads, you must create swept meshable regions around the crack
tips (using partitions) and specify a quad-dominated mesh.
24 elements around
crack tip: 15 angles
Quarter-point nodes
CPE8R elements; typical nodal connectivity

Quad-dominated mesh + swept shows repeated node at crack tip:
technique for the circular regions Quadratic element 8, 8, 583, 588, 8, 1969, 1799, 1970
surrounding the crack tips type assigned to part
All crack-tip elements repeat node 8 in this
example (nodes are constrained).
43
L2.19
Example (cont’d): Alternate meshes
No degeneracy:
With swept meshable region: CPE6M With arbitrary mesh, singularity

elements at crack tip — cannot be only along edges connected to
used for fracture studies in Abaqus. crack tip.
Degenerate with duplicate nodes:
CPE8R elements at crack tip but no

repeated nodes:
1993, 1992, 583, 588, 2016, ...
Coincident nodes located

at crack tip
L2.20
Example (cont’d): Deformed shape

Arbitrary mesh;
Focused mesh; deformation
deformation scale
scale factor = 100
factor = 100
44
L2.21
Modeling Sharp Cracks in Three Dimensions (1/20)
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.
The face along the seam will have duplicate

nodes such that the elements on the opposite Penny-shaped seam
sides of the face will not share nodes. Quarter model
crack: Full model
Wedge elements must be created along the

crack front.
Generally, this will require partitioning.
Wedge elements Meshed model
L2.22
Options for defining the crack front and crack line
Crack front for a

geometric instance Crack line for an
orphan mesh
Crack front may be:

Edges/Element edges Crack line may be:
Faces/Element faces Edges/Element edges
Cells/Elements
Geometric Orphan
Geometric Orphan Instances Mesh
Instances Mesh
45
L2.23
Specifying the crack growth direction in three dimensions
In 3D you can specify either the
normal to the crack plane (only when the crack is planar)
or the
virtual crack extension direction (the q vector).
I. Only a single q vector can be defined for geometric instances.

II. The implications of this will be discussed shortly.
L2.24
Modeling the crack-tip singularity in three dimensions
20-node and 27-node bricks can be used with a collapsed face to create singular fields.
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
46
L2.25
On an edge plane (orthogonal to the crack line):
Double-edge notch specimen

(symmetry model)
A
 as r  0 A B
r   as r  0 B
r r  as r  0
r
Crack line
Edge plane nodes displace Edge plane nodes displace

independently together
L2.26
On a midplane for 20-node bricks:
If the two nodes on the collapsed face at the midplane can displace independently,   r -1 at the
midplane (i.e., element interior).
I. 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.
I. This generally causes local oscillations in the J-integral values along the crack line.
47
L2.27
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
3 nodes collapsed to same

location
L2.28
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.
48
L2.29
Example: Conical crack in a half-space
A conical crack in an infinite half-space is

considered.
Only the aspects related to the geometric

modeling are considered here.
The results of this analysis (J-integral

values, etc.) will be considered in the
next lecture.
The modeling procedure is outlined next.
L2.30
1 Example (cont’d): Create the basic geometry

Because of symmetry, only a quarter model is created
a = 15
r = 10
q = 45º
Large solid block (300 × 300 × 300) used to

represent the half-space. Conical shell of revolution (revolved 90º); this
will be used to cut the block.
49
L2.31
2 Example (cont’d): Merge the block and cone

This will create the edges and surface
necessary to define the seam and the crack.
Instance and merge the

two parts to create a new

part. The instance must be
independent.
L2.32
3 Example (cont’d): Define the seam and the crack front/line

Only one q vector can be defined for

geometry. The q vectors will be
adjusted at the end of the modeling
process by editing an orphan mesh.
50
L2.33
4 Example (cont’d): Partition the block for meshing
The regions surrounding the

crack front are partitioned to
permit structured meshing.
A small curved tube is

centered at the crack tip; this
region is meshed with a
single layer of wedge
elements. This mesh is swept
along the length of the tube.
L2.34
Aside: Why is the small curved tube needed?
The swept meshing technique sweeps a

mesh through a cross section.
For the curved tube, this implies the sweep
direction is along its length. In order for

Abaqus to automatically create a focused
mesh at the crack tip, however, it would
need to sweep around the circumference.
To overcome this, two concentric tubes are
used; the smaller one is meshed with a
single layer of wedge elements (which is
then swept along the length of the tube).
If only a single curved tube was created
(shown at right), the mesh around the
crack tip would be arbitrary—not focused
(wedge elements not created).
51
L2.35
Aside: What about the seam?
After all the partitions are created for meshing purposes, the definition of the seam remains intact.
Mesh seam
L2.36
5 Example (cont’d): Mesh the part
Specify appropriate edge seeds to create a

focused mesh around the crack front with
minimal mesh distortion.
52
L2.37
6 Example (cont’d): Adjust the q vectors
As noted earlier, only a single q vector can be

defined for geometry. As seen in the figure, the
vector that was defined is only accurate at the
left end of the crack line.
Individual q vectors can be defined on an

orphan mesh, however. Thus, either…
Create a mesh part (Mesh module) To take advantage of the input file
approach, define a set that contains
or
the conical region before writing the
Write an input file and import the model input file. Then you will be able to
I. This approach has the advantage easily create a display group based
that it preserves attributes (sets, on this set when manipulating the
loads, etc). orphan mesh.
L2.38
For the orphan mesh, adjust each vector

individually
To redefine this
particular vector,
select these
nodes as the
start and end
points of the
vector.
53
L2.39
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.
L2.40
Example: Conical crack model

54
L2.41
Finite-Strain Analysis of Crack Tips (1/7)
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.
I. 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.
I. Typically, the notch must blunt out to more than four times its original radius for this to be
true.
L2.42
Geometric modeling of blunt cracks
In 2D, the geometry of a blunted (or open)

crack is modeled as a cut having a significant
thickness.
Meshing is done in the usual way.

A very fine mesh is required at the crack

tip.
This can be achieved by simply

assigning small element sizes to the
notch.
55
L2.43
3D open cracks can be created in Abaqus/CAE

in one of two ways:
Adding a Cut feature in the Part module.
Subtracting a flaw from the original part

with a Boolean operation in the
Penny shaped open
Assembly module.
crack: Full model
Hex meshing more difficult due to

irregular geometry.
Creating a fine mesh at the crack front

generally requires many partitions.
Quarter model Meshed model
Partitions to control mesh Refined mesh
L2.44
The size of the elements around the notch must be about 1/10th 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
56
L2.45
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 front region Symmetry plane
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).
I. 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.
L2.46
Example: SEN specimen
Deformed shape
Moderate blunting
Undeformed
shape
Severe blunting
Deformed vs Undeformed Shapes Contours of PEEQ
57
L2.47
In situations involving finite rotations but small strains, such as the bending of slender structures, a small
keyhole around the crack tip should be modeled.
crack-front
region
The region defining the crack front for the contour integral consists of the region on the keyhole.
I. The elements should not be singular.
L2.48
Limitations Of 3D Swept Meshing For Fracture (1/3)
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
58
L2.49
Partition for a penny-shaped crack
Illustrates the limitation that the path for the partition must be perpendicular to its bounding surfaces;
thus, cannot properly partition along the arc of a circle as shown in this example:
Tangent direction of arc

arc (not a semi-circle

as in previous
example)
Cross-sectional
view of block
Partition by sweeping
circular edge along arc
L2.50
The workaround is to partition the face with circular arcs, and then partition the cell using the n-sided
patch technique.
Face partition n-sided patch

Note that the cross-sectional area of the

swept region is not constant along its length
because the tangents at the ends are not
perpendicular to the block (generalized Resulting mesh around the
sweep meshing) crack front using wedge
elements
59
L2.51
Modeling Cracks with Keyword Options (1/11)
Defining a crack with keyword options:
The *CONTOUR INTEGRAL option is used to define both, the crack itself and the fracture output, in an
Abaqus input (.inp) file.
In this section, we focus solely on the crack-specific parameters of this option.
These include:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, SYMM, NORMAL
In the next lecture, we discuss the output-specific parameters of this option.
As noted earlier, the main requirements in defining a crack are:
Defining the crack front
Defining the crack extension direction
L2.52
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.
60
L2.53
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, ...
In this case, give a list of the node set

names defining the crack front from one
end to the other end, in sequential
order, without missing any points on the
These sets define the crack front; the
crack line.
first node in each set defines the crack
I. In two-dimensional cases, only
tip node for that set.
one node set is needed.
(An optional CRACK TIP NODES
parameter is available to specify the
crack tip nodes directly).
L2.54
Example: Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space
*Contour integral, symm, normal, ...

0.0, 1.0, 0.0
Crack-Front-1, Crack-Front-2, Crack-Front-3, ...
Crack-Front-1
61
L2.55
If the NORMAL parameter is omitted, we must give the crack-tip node set name, and the crack
propagation direction q, at each node set defining the crack front.
Usage:
*contour integral, ...

nodeSet1, (qx)1, (qy)1, (qz)1
nodeSet2, (qx)2, (qy)2, (qz)2
Data must start with the node set at one end and be given for each node set defining the crack
line sequentially until the other end of the crack is reached.
I. The first node in each set is the crack tip node for that set unless the CRACK TIP NODES
parameter is used.
This format allows nonplanar cracks to be analyzed.
L2.56
Example: conical crack in an infinite half-space
*Contour integral, ...

Crack-Front-1, 0.707107, -0.707107, 0.
Crack-Front-2, 0.705994, -0.707107, 0.0396478
Crack-Front-3, 0.702661, -0.707107, 0.0791708
Crack-Front-1
62
L2.57
Generating a focused mesh with keyword options
Example: DEN specimen
The focused mesh shown in the figure will be generated with the use of keyword options.
The options include

*NODE
*NGEN
*NFILL
*ELEMENT
*ELGEN
L2.58
Node definitions
*node 8101
12101 4101
1, 0.0125, 0.0000
16001, 0.0125, 0.0000
101, 0.0250, 0.0000
4101, 0.0250, 0.0125
12101, 0.0000, 0.0125
16101, 0.0000, 0.0000 14101 2101

*ngen, nset=tip
1, 16001, 1000
*ngen, nset=outer
101, 4101, 1000
4101, 12101, 1000 16101 101
12101, 16101, 1000
tip
*NGEN generates nodes incrementally between

Start node End node Increment in any two previously defined nodes.
node number
In this example, 17 crack-tip nodes are created
(contained in the set tip); the 17 nodes on the
outer boundary are contained in set outer.
63
L2.59
Quarter-point nodes
*nfill, singular=1 This parameter generates quarter-point

tip, outer, 10, 10 nodes; the 1 indicates the first bound
represents the crack tip
Start set: End set: Node

first bound second bound number
increment
Number of intervals
between bounding 8021
nodes 4021
2021
4011 1021
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.
L2.60
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 Total number of

elements rows
Nodes 1, 1001, and

2001 are coincident
2021
1021 *ELGEN generates elements incrementally.

In this example, 5 elements form the first row
(extending radially outward from the tip); a total
of 8 rows of elements (based on the first row)
21 are created around the crack tip.
11
64
L2.61
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
I. Only node 16001 is independent in this case.
II. The strain-field singularity is   r -½.
65
66
Notes
67
68
Notes
L3.1
Lesson 3: Fracture Analysis
Lesson content:
Calculation of Contour Integrals

Examples
Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space
Conical crack in a half-space
Compact Tension Specimen
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations

J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
Through Cracks in Shells
Mixed-Mode Fracture
Material Discontinuities
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials
Residual Stresses
Workshop Preliminaries
Workshop 1: Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen
Workshop 2: Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
3 hours
L3.2
Calculation of Contour Integrals (1/11)
Abaqus offers two different ways to evaluate contour integrals.
The first is based on the conventional finite element method.
It typically requires the user to conform the mesh to the cracked geometry, to explicitly define the
crack front, and to specify the virtual crack extension direction.
This is the focus of this lecture.
The second is based on the extended finite element method (XFEM).
The method does not require the mesh to match the cracked geometry.
Contour integral evaluation with XFEM is currently limited to first-order or second-order
tetrahedron and first-order brick elements.
The method is discussed in Lecture 9.
69
L3.3
Abaqus offers the evaluation of J-integral values, as well as several other parameters for fracture
mechanics studies. These include:
The KI, KII, and KIII stress intensity factors, which are used mainly in linear elastic fracture
mechanics to measure the strength of local crack tip fields;
The T-stress in linear elastic calculations;
The crack propagation direction: an angle at which a preexisting crack will propagate; and
The Ct-integral, which is used with time-dependent creep behavior.
Output can be written to the output database (.odb), data (.dat), and results (.fil) files.
L3.4
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.
70
L3.5
Different contours (domains) are created

automatically by Abaqus.
The first contour consists of the crack

front and one layer of elements
surrounding it.
I. Ring of elements from one crack

surface to the other (or the

symmetry plane).
Contour 1 Contour 2
The next contour consists of the ring of
elements in contact with the first contour
as well as the elements in the first
contour.
Each subsequent contour is defined by

adding the next ring of elements in
contact with the previous contour.
Contour 3 Contour 4
L3.6
The J-integral and the Ct-integral at steady-state creep should be path (domain) independent.
The value for the first contour is generally ignored.
Examples of contour domains:

2nd contour 1st contour
crack-front nodes
2nd 1st Crack-tip node
contour contour Crack-tip node
71
L3.7
Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, CONTOURS= n,

TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS},
DIRECTION = {MTS, MERR, KII0}
Specifies the number of contours (domains) on

which the contour integral will be calculated This is the output
frequency in
increments
Note: In this lecture, we focus on the output-specific parameters of the *CONTOUR INTEGRAL option. The
crack-specific parameters SYMM and NORMAL were discussed in the previous lecture.
L3.8
Usage (cont’d):

J for J-integral output,

C for Ct-integral output.

T STRESS to output T-stress
calculations
K FACTORS for stress intensity factor
output
72
L3.9
Usage (cont’d):

Three criteria to calculate the crack

propagation direction at initiation
Use with TYPE=K FACTORS to specify the criterion to be used for estimating the crack propagation
direction in homogenous, isotropic, linear elastic materials:
Maximum tangential stress criterion (MTS)

Maximum energy release rate criterion (MERR)
KII = 0 criterion (KII0)
L3.10
Output files
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, OUTPUT
Set OUTPUT=FILE to store the contour

integral values in the results (.fil) file.
Set OUTPUT=BOTH to print the values

in the data and results files.
If the parameter is omitted, the contour

integral values will be printed in the data
(.dat) file but not stored in the results
(.fil) file.
73
L3.11
Loads
Loads included in contour integral calculations:
Thermal loads.
Crack-face pressure and traction loads on continuum elements as well as those applied using
user subroutines DLOAD and UTRACLOAD.
Surface traction and crack-face edge loads on shell elements as well as those applied using user
subroutine UTRACLOAD.
Uniform and nonuniform body forces.
Centrifugal loads on continuum and shell elements.
Not all types of distributed loads (e.g., hydrostatic pressure and gravity loads) are included in the
contour integral calculations.
The presence of these loads will result in a warning message.
L3.12
Other loads not included in contour integral calculations:
Contributions due to concentrated loads are not included.
I. If needed, modify the mesh to include a small element and apply a distributed load to the
element.
Contributions due to contact forces are not included.

Initial stresses are considered in the definition of contour integrals.
74
L3.13
Examples (1/28)
Penny-shaped crack in an infinite space
Model characteristics
The mesh is extended far enough from the

crack tip so that the finite boundaries will
not influence the crack-tip solution.
The radius of the penny-shaped crack is 1.
Two types of loading are considered:
I. Uniform far-field loading
II. Nonuniform loading on the crack

face: p = Ar n.
L3.14
Examples (2/28)
Different mesh characteristics: 20
Axisymmetric or three-dimensional
Fine or coarse focused meshes
With or without ¼ point elements

20
Various element types used:
First- and second-order

With and without reduced integration
Axisymmetric model
Crack tip
Focused mesh around

crack tip
75
L3.15
Examples (3/28)
Fine mesh vs. coarse mesh (axisymmetric and 3D models)

0.08
0.0004
The fine mesh is shown to the left; the coarse

mesh above. The length perpendicular to crack
line of the crack-tip elements are indicated.
~0.08
L3.16
Examples (4/28)
Axisymmetric model: geometry

Symmetry planes
Close up of crack tip region for coarse

mesh model (identical for fine mesh
model—only the inner semicircular
region is smaller)
Model geometry
76
L3.17
Examples (5/28)
Axisymmetric model: crack definition
Crack tip with extension direction

Set to 0.5 to use mid-point

rather than ¼ point elements
L3.18
Examples (6/28)
3D model: geometry and mesh
Fine 3D mesh
A 90 sector is modeled because of symmetry.
Symmetry planes
Additional partition
required for swept

mesh
On planes perpendicular to the crack front,

the mesh is very similar to the axisymmetric
mesh
Partitions used for coarse mesh model In the circumferential direction around the
(identical for fine mesh model—only the crack line, 12 elements are used.
inner semicircular region is smaller)
77
L3.19
Examples (7/28)
Why is the additional partition required?
Without the additional partition, the region shown below would require irregular elements at the vertex
located on the axis of symmetry.
This is not supported by Abaqus.

Irregular elements
required here
because revolving
about a point
A 7-node element is
an example of an
irregular element.
L3.20
Examples (8/28)
3D model: crack definition
Orphan mesh created to edit q vectors.

78
L3.21
Examples (9/28)
Contour integral output requests (axisymmetric and 3D)

Separate output requests are

required for J, K-factors, and the
T-stress.
L3.22
Examples (10/28)
Loads (axisymmetric and 3D)
The far-field load

is suppressed.
79
L3.23
Examples (11/28)
Results
MISES stress shown below for the axisymmetric fine mesh.
J analytical  J numerical
100%
Deformation scale J analytical
factor = 250
Analytical Contour 1 Contour 2 Contour 3 Contour 4 Contour 5

5.796E-02 5.8169E-02 5.8095E-02 5.8121E-02 5.8104E-02 5.8084E-02
Contour 6 Contour 7 Contour 8 Contour 9 Contour 10

5.8064E-02 5.8044E-02 5.8024E-02 5.8005E-02 5.7985E-02
L3.24
Examples (12/28)
J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (reduced integration)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical C3D20R CAX8R
Loading
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
.0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
far field
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0578 .0580 .0579 .0581
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0356 .0357 .0356 .0358
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0256 .0260 .0256 .0258
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0199 .0206 .0200 .0202
Abaqus values are based on the average of contours 3−5 in each mesh.
80
L3.25
Examples (13/28)
J values from meshes with ¼ point elements (full integration)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 CAX8
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Fine
Uniform
far field .0580 .0577 .0572 .0578 .0580
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0577 .0572 .0578 .0580
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0355 .0352 .0356 .0358
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0255 .0253 .0255 .0258
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0198 .0197 .0199 .0201
L3.26
Examples (14/28)
J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (reduced integration)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20R C3D8R CAX8R CAX4R
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
far field .0580 .0574 .0580 .0563 .0574 .0581 .0562
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0574 .0580 .0563 .0574 .0581 .0562
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0350 .0357 .0336 .0350 .0358 .0337
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0250 .0260 .0234 .0250 .0258 .0236
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0193 .0206 .0177 .0193 .0202 .0179
81
L3.27
Examples (15/28)
J values from meshes without ¼ point elements (full integration)
3-D Axisymmetric
Analytical
Loading C3D20 C3D8 CAX8 CAX4
result
Coarse Fine Coarse Coarse Fine Coarse
Uniform
far field .0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
Uniform
crack face .0580 .0573 .0572 .0552 .0574 .0580 .0557
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 1) .0358 .0350 .0352 .0329 .0350 .0358 .0333
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 2) .0258 .0249 .0253 .0229 .0250 .0258 .0232
Nonuniform
crack face (n = 3) .0201 .0193 .0197 .0172 .0193 .0201 .0175
L3.28
Examples (16/28)
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.
82
L3.29
Examples (17/28)
Conical crack in a half-space
At each node set along the crack front, the crack propagation direction is different.
L3.30
Examples (18/28)
Three-dimensional model
Displaced shape and Mises stress distribution of full three-dimensional model.

Deformation scale factor = 1.e6
83
L3.31
Examples (19/28)
J values of three-dimensional mesh
There is some oscillation between J values evaluated at corner nodes compared to J values
evaluated at midside nodes.
Variation of J with angular position
1.338E-07
1.336E-07 3D contour 5
J-integral
1.328E-07
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)
L3.32
Examples (20/28)
Axisymmetric model and results

Contours 3-5 have

converged
Axisymmetric results are used

as reference results.
84
L3.33
Examples (21/28)
Comparison of axisymmetric and 3D results
Variation of J with angular position Variation of J with angular position

Contour 1 Contour 2
1.380E-07 1.334E-07
1.333E-07
J -integral
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)

Contour 3 Contour 5
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
L3.34
Examples (22/28)
Since the three-dimensional mesh is quite coarse around the axis of symmetry, these results are
considered to be good—the error is less than 0.5% for all but the first contour.
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results

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)
85
L3.35
Examples (23/28)
Submodeling
We can use submodeling to create two

meshes that are significantly smaller than the
full three-dimensional model.
The top-right figure is the coarse mesh

global model in the vicinity of the crack.
The bottom-right figure shows the

refined submodel mesh overlaid on the
global model mesh.
L3.36
Examples (24/28)
J values of submodel:
% difference in J between AXI and 3D results
Inaccuracies are introduced by the
coarser mesh used in the global model. 4.5
4.0 Contour 1
% difference
3.5
3.0 Contour 2
Errors in J are less than 1%. 2.5
2.0 Contour 3
1.5 Contour 4
1.0
0.5 Contour 5
CPU time was reduced by a factor of 3.
0.0
0 45 90
Angle (degrees)

Contour 5
1.326E-07
1.324E-07 3D contour 5 1.335E-07

J -integral
J -integral
3D contour 4 1.330E-07
1.322E-07 3D
1.320E-07 AXI
1.318E-07 1.315E-07
0 45 90 0 45 90
86
L3.37
Examples (25/28)
Compact Tension Specimen
This is one of five standardized specimens defined by the ASTM for the characterization of fracture
initiation and crack growth.
The ASTM standardized testing apparatus uses a clevis and a pin to hold the specimen and apply a
controlled displacement.
L3.38
Examples (26/28)
Prescribed load line displacement
Model details
Plane strain conditions assumed. Crack seam
The initial crack length is 5 mm.
Elastic-plastic material
I. Low alloy ferritic steel q-vector
1/√r singularity modeled in the

crack-tip elements
87
L3.39
Examples (27/28)
Results
Small strain analysis Finite strain analysis
L3.40
Examples (28/28)
At small to moderate strain levels, the

small and finite strain models yield Finite strain effects must be considered to
similar results. represent this level of deformation and
strain accurately.
88
L3.41
Nodal Normals in Contour Integral Calculations (1/3)
Sharp curved cracks
For sharp cracks, if the crack faces are curved,

Abaqus automatically determines the normal
directions of the nodes on the portions of the
crack faces that lie within the contour integral
domains. Normals to top crack
surface nodes
This improves the accuracy of the n (normal to

contour integral estimation. crack plane)
q
The normal is not used at the crack-tip Normals to bottom
node, however. crack surface nodes
L3.42
Example: sharp curved crack

Contour # 1 2 3 4 5
J without normals 3.363 2.980 2.475 1.888 1.283
J with normals 3.600 3.602 3.605 3.605 3.605
89
L3.43
Blunt cracks and notches
All nodes on the notch should be included in the crack-tip node set.
The J-integral results are more accurate since the q vector is parallel to the crack surface in this
case, as illustrated below.
Paths for contour

integrals
Crack surface
Crack surface
q q
All nodes on blunted surface in crack-

Single node in crack-tip node set; tip node set; q parallel to crack
normals calculated on nodes of blunted surface.
surface; q not parallel to crack surface.
L3.44
J-Integrals at Multiple Crack Tips
Abaqus can calculate J (or Ct ) at multiple

crack tips
Abaqus/CAE: multiple crack tips and

history output requests
Input file: repeated use of the

*CONTOUR INTEGRAL option.
If the domain for one crack tip envelopes the

other crack tip, the J value will go to zero (as it
should).
90
L3.45
Through Cracks in Shells (1/14)
Second-order quadrilateral shell elements must be used if contour integral output is requested.
Sides of S8R elements should not be collapsed. If a focused mesh is used, the crack tip must be
modeled as a keyhole whose radius is small compared to the other dimensions measured in the plane
of the shell.
Shell mesh Crack-tip mesh for S8R elements
L3.46
S8R5 elements can be collapsed and midside nodes moved to the 1/4 points.
Shell mesh Crack-tip mesh for S8R5 elements
The q vector must lie in the shell surface.
It should be tangent to the surface.
91
L3.47
Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load

Mean radius R = 10.5 in
Wall thickness t = 0.525 in
Crack half-angle q = p / 4
Longitudinal membrane stress = 100 psi
L3.48
Model details
Axial load is applied using a shell edge

load
Symmetry used to reduce mode size

Edge loads
symmetry
92
www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes www.3ds.com | © Dassault Systèmes
Results
Modeling a crack with a keyhole
Deformed shape—axial loading

Crack front
Crack tip
q vector
J values—axial loading
L3.50
L3.49
93
L3.51
In shell element meshes, mechanical loads which act normal to the shell surface and are applied within
the contour integral domain are not taken into account in the calculation of the contour integral.
For example, pressure loads are not considered because they act normal to the shell surface
Conversely, axial edge loads are considered because they act in the shell surface.
Two workarounds exist:

Run successive shell models with differing crack lengths and numerically differentiate the
potential energy
Use solid elements (if the response is membrane dominated)
L3.52
Using numerical differentiation to obtain J:
 ( PE )
J =
a Constant Load
Potential energy:
PE a Da  PE a
= . PE = ALLSE  ALLWK
Da
Constant Load
The PE values should be obtained from two separate analyses, with crack lengths differing by
Da.
The values of PE in the Abaqus data (.dat) file are generally not printed to a sufficient number of
figures to be useful for this calculation and must be read from the results (.fil) file.
A similar technique can be used to get Ct at long times.
94
L3.53
Using solid elements:
If membrane deformation is dominant, the shell can be modeled with a single layer of 20-node
bricks since these solid elements include loading contributions to contour integrals.
L3.54
To obtain accurate values of J through the shell thickness with solid elements, more than one
element should be used in the thickness direction.
J values will show significant path dependence unless averaged.
If only one element is used through the thickness, the values can be averaged by thinking of J as
a force per unit length:
The average is calculated as if the J values were equivalent nodal forces:
J A  4 J B  JC
J shell
= .
6 A
B
C
95
L3.55
Aside: Generating a solid element mesh from a shell mesh.
A shell mesh can easily be converted to a solid one using the ―Offset Mesh‖ tool.
I. Creates solid layers from a shell mesh.

L3.56
Example: Circumferential through crack in an

internally pressurized, closed-end pipe
The same pipe discussed earlier, now

subjected to 10 psi internal pressure + axial
load (which simulates the closed end).
Comparison of J values using one layer of

C3D20R elements through the thickness :
J values  100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
A
B
At Node A 2.0965 2.1317 2.1505 2.1557 2.1697 C
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
96
L3.57
Example: Circumferential through crack under axial load revisited
Now we revisit the problem in which the pipe is subjected to an axial load.
Comparison of J values using one layer of C3D20R elements through the thickness:
J values  100
CONTOUR
1 2 3 4 5
At Node A 2.2122 2.2524 2.2700 2.2740 2.2850
At Node B 3.7629 3.7202 3.7212 3.7184 3.7136
At Node C 4.9560 4.9893 5.0175 5.0737 5.1492
Averaged 3.7033 3.6871 3.6954 3.7036 3.7148
Analytical 3.7181
L3.58
Comparing these results with the shell element

results presented earlier:
Errors with respect to the analytical

solution for the 3D model are less than
1%.
Much closer agreement because

transverse shear effects are considered

in the 3D model.
Only in-plane stress and strain terms

are included in the Abaqus J
calculations for shells.
I. Transverse shear terms are

neglected.
97
L3.59
Abaqus uses interaction integrals to compute

the stress intensity factors.
This approach accounts for

mixed-mode loading effects.
Note that the J- or Ct-integrals do not

distinguish between modes of loading.
Usage:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL,
TYPE=K FACTORS
Stress intensity factors can only be

calculated for linear elastic materials.
L3.60
Example: Center slant cracked plate under tension
Element   

type  
22.5º CPE8 0.185 (2.9%)* 0.403 (0.2%)
22.5º CPE8R 0.185 (2.9%) 0.403 (0.2%)
67.5º CPE8 1.052 (3.6%) 0.373 (1.0%)

67.5º CPE8R 1.053 (3.8%) 0.374 (1.3%)
K0 =  p a
*Values enclosed in parentheses are

percentage differences with respect to
the reference solution. See Abaqus
Benchmark Problem 4.7.4 for more
information.
 = 67.5
 = 22.5
98
L3.61
Material Discontinuities (1/4)
The J-integral will be path independent if the

material is homogeneous in the direction of
crack propagation in the domain used for the
contour integral calculation.
If there is material discontinuity ahead of the

crack in this region, the *NORMAL option can n
be used to correct the calculation of J so that it
will still be path independent.
The normal to the material discontinuity line

must be specified for all nodes on the material
discontinuity that will lie in a contour integral
domain.
L3.62
Example: J-integral analysis of a two material plate
As an example, the figure shows a single-edge

notch specimen made from two materials in
which the material interface runs at an angle to
the sides of the specimen.
The material containing the crack (left) has a

Young’s modulus of 2  105 MPa and a

Poisson’s ratio of 0.3.
The uncracked material (right) has Young’s

modulus of 2  104 MPa and a Poisson’s ratio
of 0.1.
The specimen is stretched by uniform

displacement at its ends.
99
L3.63
J-integral analysis of a two material plate (cont’d)
Along the material discontinuity, the normal to the

discontinuity is given using the *NORMAL option.
The normal needs to be defined on both sides

of the discontinuity.
*NORMAL
LEFT, NORM, 1.0, 0.125, 0.0
RIGHT, NORM, -1.0, -0.125, 0.0
L3.64
The calculated J-integral values for 10 contours are as follows:
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.
100
L3.65
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials (1/2)
For Mises plasticity the plastic deformation is incompressible.
The rate of total deformation becomes incompressible (constant volume) as the plastic
deformation starts to dominate the response.
All Abaqus quadrilateral and brick elements suitable for use in J-integral calculations can handle this
rate incompressibility condition except for the ―fully‖ integrated quadrilaterals and brick elements without
the ―hybrid‖ formulation.
Do not use CPE8, CAX8, C3D20 elements with these materials. They will ―lock‖ (become
overconstrained) as the material becomes more incompressible.
Second-order elements with reduced integration (CPE8R, C3D20R, etc.) work best for stress
concentration problems in general and for crack tips in particular.
If the displaced shape plot shows a regular pattern of deformation, this state is an indication of
mesh locking.
I. Locking can be seen in quilt contour plots of hydrostatic pressure for first-order elements—
the pressure shows a checkerboard pattern.
II. Change to reduced integration elements if you are using fully integrated elements.
III. Increase the mesh density if you already using reduced integration elements.
IV. If these steps do not help, use hybrid elements.
L3.66
Numerical Calculations with Elastic-Plastic Materials (2/2)
Hybrid elements must be used for fully incompressible materials (such as hyperelasticity, linear elasticity
with n = 0.5).
Results with elastic-plastic materials (and nonlinear materials in general) are more sensitive to meshing
than for small-strain linear elasticity.
Meshes adequate for linear elasticity may have to be refined.

The more complex the solution, the more J values tend to be path dependent.
A lack of path dependence can be an indication of a lack of mesh convergence; however, path
independence of J does not prove mesh convergence.
101
L3.67
Residual Stresses (1/3)
Residual stresses may be present due to
Metal forming process in the absence of an anneal treatment

Service loads that produce plasticity
Thermal, swelling effects
The residual stress field is automatically taken into account when evaluating the contour integral
When the residual stresses are significant, the standard definition of the contour integral may lead to a
path-dependent value.
An additional term due to the residual stress field is included when evaluating the contour integral value
to ensure its path independence:
u  0
j ij
J =  (W    )n ds    dA
ij ij x i ij X
 i A i
L3.68
Usage
By default, the residual stress

state is assumed equal to the
initial stress field
To specify that the residual stress

should be based on the final stress
state from any other (previous) step:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL,
RESIDUAL STRESS, STEP=n
STEP=0 means initial stresses are

used.
I. Default; only option for XFEM.
102
L3.69
Example: Four point bending specimen
Step 1: Bend the structure Step 2: Unload to generate residual stress

(no crack) (no crack)
Step 3: Introduce crack
L3.70
Workshop Preliminaries (1/2)
1. Objectives
a. When you complete this exercise you will be able to extract all the files necessary to complete the
demonstrations and workshops associated with this course
2. Workshop file setup (option 1: installation via plug-in)

a. From the main menu bar, select
Plug-ins→Tools →Install Courses.
b. In the Install Courses dialog box:
i. Specify the directory to which the files will be written.

ii. Chooses the course(s) for which the files will be
extracted.
iii. Click OK.
5 minutes
103
L3.71
Workshop Preliminaries (2/2)
3. Workshop file setup (option 2: manual installation)

a. Find out where the Abaqus release is installed by typing
abqxxx whereami
where abqxxx is the name of the Abaqus execution procedure on your system. It can be defined to
have a different name. For example, the command for the 6.12–1 release might be aliased to abq6121.
This command will give the full path to the directory where Abaqus is installed, referred to here as
abaqus_dir.
b. Extract all the workshop files from the course tar file by typing
UNIX: abqxxx perl abaqus_dir/samples/course_setup.pl

Windows NT: abqxxx perl abaqus_dir\samples\course_setup.pl
c. The script will install the files into the current working directory. You will be asked to verify this and to
choose which files you wish to install. Choose y for the appropriate lecture series when prompted. Once
you have selected the lecture series, type q to skip the remaining lectures and to proceed with the
installation of the chosen workshops.
5 minutes
L3.72
Workshop 1: Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen
1. An edge crack in a three-point bend specimen in plane strain, subjected to Mode I loading, is considered.
2. You will perform a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip using a series of different mesh
configurations:
a. Focus vs. unfocused mesh
b. Quarter-point vs. mid-side nodes
60 minutes
104
L3.73
Workshop 2: Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
1. A flanged plate with a reinforced central hole is considered.

2. In this workshop, we apply fracture mechanics concepts to investigate the sensitivity of J and K for different
crack lengths and locations
60 minutes
105
106
Notes
107
108
Notes
L4.1
Lesson 4: Material Failure and Wear
Lesson content:
Progressive Damage and Failure

Damage Initiation for Ductile Metals
Damage Evolution
Element Removal
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials
Failure in Fasteners
Material Wear and Ablation
2 hours
L4.2
Progressive Damage and Failure (1/3)
Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage and failure in engineering structures
Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that results from progressive
degradation of the material stiffness.
Stiffness degradation is modeled using damage mechanics.
Progressive damage and failure can be modeled for:

Ductile materials
Continuum constitutive behavior
Fiber-reinforced composites
Interface materials
Cohesive elements with a traction-separation law

Damage and failure of cohesive elements are discussed in the next lecture.
109
L4.3
Two distinct types of ductile material failure can be

modeled with Abaqus
Ductile fracture of metals
Void nucleation, coalescence, and

growth
Shear band localization
Necking instability in sheet-metal forming
Forming Limit Diagrams

Marciniak-Kuczynski (M-K) criterion
Damage in sheet metals is not discussed

further in this seminar.
L4.4
Components of material definition Undamaged response


Undamaged constitutive behavior (e.g., A
elastic-plastic with hardening)
Damaged
response
Damage initiation (point A)
Damage evolution (path A–B)

Choice of element removal (point B)
B
Keywords 
*MATERIAL
Typical material response showing progressive
*ELASTIC damage
Multiple damage definitions are allowed
*PLASTIC
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=criterion
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION=YES
110
L4.5
Damage Initiation Criteria for Ductile Metals (1/12)
Damage initiation defines the point of initiation

of degradation of stiffness
It is based on user-specified criteria

Ductile or shear
It does not actually lead to damage unless

damage evolution is also specified
Output variables associated with each
criterion
Useful for evaluating the severity of
current deformation state
Output
DMICRT
DMICRT > 1 indicates damage has

initiated
Ductile Shear
Different damage initiation criteria on an

aluminum double-chamber profile
L4.6
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, including equation of state.
Ductile criterion for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6

(Courtesy of BMW)
111
L4.7
Usage:
Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of
I. Stress triaxiality
II. Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=DUCTILE
 pl , h ,  pl , T , fi
Equivalent fracture Temperature and field

strain at damage variable dependence
initiation optional
Output:
DUCTCRT (wD) The criterion for
damage initiation is
met when wD = 1.
L4.8
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
The shear criterion can be used with the

Mises, Johnson-Cook, Hill, and Drucker-Prager ks = 0.3
plasticity models, including equation of state.
Shear criterion for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6

(Courtesy of BMW)
112
L4.9
Usage:
Specify the equivalent plastic strain at the onset of damage as a tabular function of
I. Shear stress ratio
II. Strain rate
*DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=ks
 pl , q s ,  pl , T , fi
Equivalent fracture Temperature and field

strain at damage variable dependence
initiation optional
ks is a material parameter
Output:
SHRCRT (wS) The criterion for
damage initiation is
met when wS = 1.
L4.10
Example: Axial crushing of an aluminum double-chamber profile

Quasi-static buckling mode

Cross
section
113
L4.11
Model details
Steel base:
I. C3D8R elements
II. Enhanced hourglass control Rigid plate
III. Elastic-plastic material with initial
downward
velocity
Aluminum chamber:
I. S4R elements Aluminum

II. Stiffness hourglass control chamber
III. Rate-dependent plasticity
IV. Damage initiation
General contact
Variable mass scaling
Steel base: bottom is

encastred.
L4.12
Material definition : Keywords interface

Ductile criteria for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6
(Courtesy of BMW)
7
strain at damage initiation
strain rate=0.001/s
*MATERIAL, NAME=ALUMINUM 6
strain rate=250/s
*DENSITY 5
2.70E-09 4
*ELASTIC
3
7.00E+04, 0.33
2
*PLASTIC,HARDENING=ISOTROPIC,RATE=0
: 1
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE 0

5.7268, 0.000, 0.001 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001 stress triaxiality

2.8377, 0.133, 0.001
:
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
114
L4.13
Material definition : Keywords interface (cont'd)

Shear criteria for Aluminum Alloy AA7108.50-T6
(Courtesy of BMW)
strain at damage initiation

*MATERIAL, NAME=ALUMINUM 0.8
0.7
:
0.6
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=DUCTILE
0.5
5.7268, 0.000, 0.001
0.4
4.0303, 0.067, 0.001 0.3
: 0.2 strain rate=0.001/s
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=SHEAR, KS=0.3 0.1 strain rate=250/s
0.2761, 1.424, 0.001 0
0.2613, 1.463, 0.001 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
0.2530, 1.501, 0.001 shear stress ratio
:
0.2731, 1.424, 250 Strain rate,  pl
0.3025, 1.463, 250 Shear stress ratio, q s
0.3323, 1.501, 250
:
Equivalent fracture strain at damage
initiation, 
pl
L4.14
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
:
115
L4.15
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
:
L4.16
Results (without damage evolution)

Shear
Ductile
Quasi-static response
116
L4.17
Damage Evolution (1/10)
Damage evolution defines the post damage-initiation material behavior.
That is, it describes the rate of degradation of the material stiffness once the initiation criterion is
satisfied.
The formulation is based on scalar damage approach:

Stress due to undamaged response
 = (1 - d )
The overall damage variable d captures the combined effect of all active damage mechanisms.
When damage variable d = 1, material point has completely failed.
In other words, fracture occurs when d = 1.
L4.18
Elastic-plastic materials
For a elastic-plastic material, damage Undamaged

manifests in two forms response


Softening of the yield stress
Degradation of the elasticity (d = 0)
 y0
The strain softening part of the curve cannot - d

represent a material property.
softening
The above argument is based on
0 Degradation of
elasticity
I. Fracture mechanics
considerations E E
II. Mesh sensitivity (1 - d) E
 0pl  fpl 
Schematic representation of elastic-plastic
material with progressive damage.
117
L4.19
To address the strain softening issue, Hillerborg’s (1976) proposal is adopted.
The fracture energy to open a unit area of crack, Gf , is assumed to be a material property.
The softening response after damage initiation is characterized by a stress-displacement

response (rather than a stress-strain response)
This requires the introduction of a characteristic length L associated with a material point.
The fracture energy is written as

 fpl u fpl
Gf =  L y =   y u pl
pl
pl
0 0
where u pl is the equivalent plastic displacement.
The characteristic length L is computed automatically by Abaqus based on element geometry.

Elements with large aspect ratios should be avoided to minimize mesh sensitivity.
The damage evolution law can be specified either in terms of fracture energy (per unit area) or in terms of the
equivalent plastic displacement.
Both approaches take into account the characteristic length of the element.
The formulation ensures that mesh-sensitivity is minimized.
L4.20
Displacement-based damage evolution
d d d
1 1 1
0 0 0
u pl u fpl u pl u fpl u pl
(a) Tabular (b) Linear (c) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=DISPLACEMENT,
SOFTENING={TABULAR,LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
118
L4.21
pl
Procedure for generating d vs u table from tensile
test data Undamaged
response


pl
1. Plot true stress,  vs. total displacement u d = 0; u =0
measured over the gauge length L
2. For stress values in the softening branch (i.e.  y0 u
pl
f
- d
beyond damage initiation), compute damage

parameter d from the expression  = (1 - d )
softening
3. Compute the corresponding plastic
displacement u pl as shown in the schematic.
0
4. In the absence of intermediate data, choose E E
linear softening and provide value of E
L L (1- d )
L
u
u pl pl pl
pl d = 1; u =uf
u f
Schematic representation of tensile test data

in stress – displacement space for
elastic-plastic materials
L4.22
Energy-based damaged evolution
y y
2G f
 y0 u pl
=  y0 NOTE: The response is linear or
 y0
f
exponential only if the
Gf Gf undamaged response is perfectly
plastic
u fpl u pl u pl
(a) Linear (b) Exponential
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING={LINEAR,EXPONENTIAL}
119
L4.23
Example: Tearing of an X-shaped cross section
Tie constraints Fix this end

Pull and twist this this end

Failure modeled with different mesh densities
*damage initiation, criterion=fld

0.20,
*damage evolution, type=displacement, softening=tabular
0.0, 0.0
1.0, 0.003 damage-plastic displacement data pairs
L4.24
Comparison of reaction forces and moments confirms mesh insensitivity of the results.
120
L4.25
Example: Axial crushing of an aluminum double-chamber profile
Dynamic response with 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,
L4.26
With damage evolution, the simulation response is a good approximation of the physical response.
Simulation without damage Simulation with damage

evolution Aluminum double-chamber after
evolution
dynamic impact
121
L4.27
Element Removal (1/5)
Abaqus offers the choice to remove the

element from the mesh once the material
stiffness is fully degraded (i.e., once the
element has failed).
Failure is assumed when all section points at

any one integration point in an element have
lost their load carrying capacity.
By default, failed elements are deleted from

the mesh.
L4.28
Removing failed elements before complete degradation
The material point is assumed to fail when the overall damage variable D reaches the critical value
Dmax.
You can specify the value for the maximum degradation Dmax.
The default value of Dmax is 1 if the element is to be removed from the mesh upon failure.
122
L4.29
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
:
L4.30
Retaining failed elements

You may choose not to remove failed elements from the
mesh.
*SECTION CONTROLS, ELEMENT DELETION = NO
In this case the default value of Dmax is 0.99, which

ensures that elements will remain active in the
simulation with a residual stiffness of at least 1% of the
original stiffness.
Here Dmax represents:

I. the maximum degradation of the shear stiffness
(three-dimensional),
II. the total stiffness (plane stress), or
III. the uniaxial stiffness (one-dimensional).
Failed elements that have not been removed from the mesh
can sustain hydrostatic compressive stresses.
123
L4.31
Output
The output variable SDEG contains

the value of D.
The output variable STATUS Failed elements removed by

indicates whether or not an element default when STATUS output is
has failed. available
STATUS = 0 for failed elements

STATUS = 1 for active elements
Abaqus/CAE will automatically

remove failed elements when the
output database (.odb) file includes
STATUS.
failed
elements
Deactivate status variable to view failed elements
L4.32
Damage in Fiber-Reinforced Composite Materials (1/8)
Abaqus offers a general capability for modeling progressive damage and failure in fiber-reinforced composites.
Material failure refers to the complete loss of load carrying capacity that results from progressive
degradation of the material stiffness.
Stiffness degradation is modeled using damage mechanics.
Elements with a plane stress formulation (plane stress, shell, continuum shell, and membrane elements)
must be used for modeling.
Four different modes of failure are considered:
fiber rupture in tension;
fiber buckling and kinking in compression;
matrix cracking under transverse

tension and shearing; and
matrix crushing under transverse

compression and shearing
Common damage types in

composite laminates
124
L4.33
User interface for damage initiation
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HASHIN, ALPHA=<alpha>

XT, XC, YT, YC, SL, ST
L4.34
Damage Evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION,
TYPE=ENERGY,
SOFTENING=LINEAR
Gft,Gfc ,Gmt,Gmc
Viscous Regularization
*DAMAGE STABILIZATION
ηft, ηfc, ηmt, ηmc
125
L4.35
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
Status
STATUS – element status (1 – present, 0 – removed)
Energies
Damage energy (ALLDMD,DMENER,ELDMD,EDMDDEN)
Viscous regularization (ALLCD, CENER, ELCD, ECDDEN)
L4.36
Analysis of blunt notched fiber metal laminate
Fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are composed of:
Laminated thin aluminum layers
Intermediate glass fiber-reinforced epoxy layers

126
L4.37
Geometry of blunt notched fiber metal laminate (Glare 3 3/2–0.3)
1/8 part model Aluminum core and

exterior
a through-thickness hole glass fiber-reinforced epoxy

layers
Through-thickness view of the laminate:
Example Problem 1.4.6, "Failure of blunt

notched fiber metal laminates”
L4.38
Results
Net blunt notch strength (MPa)

damage in matrix and damage in fibers Test (De Vries, 2001) 446
for one of glass fiber-reinforced epoxy layers
Abaqus 453
127
L4.39
Abaqus allows the import of the damage model for

fiber-reinforced composites from Abaqus/Explicit to
Abaqus/Standard.
Details of the import capability will not be

covered in this lecture (please refer to
―Importing and transferring results,‖ Section 9.2
of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual).
One typical application is the analysis of Barely

Visible Impact Damage (BVID) in composite
structures used in aerospace applications.
Non-visible damage to composite structures is

a significant concern in the aerospace industry.
from McGowan, D.M., and Ambur, D.R., NASA TM-110303

Damage-Tolerance Characteristics of Composite Fuselage
Sandwich Structures With Thick Facesheets
L4.40
Damage in Fasteners (1/3)
Connection methodologies—point fasteners
Fastener (spot weld) compliance and failure are available in Abaqus.

multiple layers
attachment
points
radius of influence
128
L4.41
Fastener failure
Model combines plasticity and progressive

damage
Response depends on loading angle (normal/shear)

Stages
Rigid plasticity with Spot weld
variable hardening
F Plasticity + Damage
Damage initiation
0
Progressive damage evolution using
fracture energy 45
90 
damage
initiation
Plasticity boundary
Schematic representation of the predicted

u pl
numerical response
L4.42
Example
Spot-welded hat section of three layers of sheet metals subjected to severe compressive loading
Deformable fastener still

holding
Failed fasteners
Rigid spot welds Compliant spot welds with damage
129
L4.43
Material Wear and Ablation (1/12)
Material wear/erosion in Abaqus/Standard
Many applications require the modeling of

wear/erosion of material at one or more
surfaces
Capability enables modeling of material

wear/erosion on the surface of the body
Idea is to erode material while receding mesh

away from surface (with same number and
topology of elements)
Involves re-meshing, state mapping—

handled through an Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) technique
User interface takes advantage of
existing adaptive meshing framework to
define mesh motion Adaptive mesh domain for modeling material
wear. Wear extent/velocity applied as mesh
constraints
L4.44
Applications
Geotechnical
Well bore sand production
I. Plastic strain, fluid velocity
Aerospace
Rocket motor ablation
I. Pyrolysis, char formation

Solid propellants
Automotive
Tire wear
Disk brake wear
Manufacturing
Machining
Fluid velocity dependent

wear of a well bore
130
L4.45
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
L4.46
Example of wear criterion
Tire wear
Use of CSLIP, CSHEAR, CPRESS
h =E
Rate of recession Rate of frictional

of tread energy dissipation
Proportionality
constant
131
L4.47
Example: erosion of material from oil bore hole

perforation tunnel
Setup consists of bore hole with perforations,

loaded by weight of material above
Pore pressure gradient leads to flow into

perforation
Material wear rate controlled by fluid flux,

transport concentration, porosity, sand
production coefficient, and the local plastic
deformation
Optimum design to minimize wear rate

Perforation tunnel
Based on Example Problem 1.1.22
Bore hole
Geometry of oil well
Courtesy of Exxon
L4.48
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
132
L4.49
Adaptive mesh constraints
*Adaptive mesh, elset=Adaptive-Zone, Freq=1, Mesh=40

*Adaptive mesh constraint, constraint type=Lagrangian
Lag
*Adaptive mesh constraint, type=velocity, user
Rock-Perf, 1, 1, 1.0
Lag: Nodes on back face of

adaptive domain
Adaptive-Zone Rock-Perf
Cut section of the adaptive mesh domain

showing the perforation tunnel
L4.50
User subroutine
subroutine umeshmotion(uref,ulocal,node,nndof,lnodetype,alocal,
$ ndim,time,dtime,pnewdt,kstep,kinc,kmeshsweep,jmatyp,jgvblock,lsmooth)
c
include 'aba_param.inc'
c
parameter (zero=0.d0, ten=10.d0, peeqCrit=0.028d0)
parameter (nelemmax=100)
dimension array(1000)
dimension ulocal(*), time(2)
dimension jgvblock(*),jmatyp(*)
dimension alocal(ndim,*)
dimension jelemlist(nelemmax),jelemtype(nelemmax)
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)
When NDIM=3 the 3-direction if (peeq .gt. peeqCrit) then

is normal to the surface ulocal(ndim) = ulocal(ndim)- ten*(peeq - peeqCrit)
end if
return
ulocal passed in as the value determined
end
by the mesh smoothing algorithm
133
L4.51
Results
Material wear at bore hole/perforation junction

Total volume lost due to erosion is available with
history output variable VOLC
L4.52
Mesh smoothing
Two options
Original configuration projection method

I. Smoothing performed according to
the original configuration
Volume-based smoothing
Original-configuration
smoothing
Either method can include a
geometric-based enhancement
Volumetric
smoothing
134
L4.53
Smoothing permitted in conjunction with UMESHMOTION constraints
Enables UMESHMOTION to describe normal mesh motions, while the smoothing algorithm handles
the tangential mesh motions.
L4.54
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
135
136
Notes
137
138
Notes
L5.1
Lesson 5: Element-based Cohesive Behavior
Lesson content:
Introduction
Element Technology
Constitutive Response
Viscous Regularization
Modeling Techniques
Examples
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 1)
Workshop 4: Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements
3 hours
L5.2
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.

I. 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
139
L5.3
Introduction (1/6)
Cohesive behavior is useful in modeling adhesives,

bonded interfaces, and gaskets.
Models separation between two initially

bonded surfaces
Progressive failure of adhesives
Delamination in composites
Idealize complex fracture mechanisms with a

macroscopic “cohesive law,” which relates the

traction across the interface to the separation.
T-peel analysis: Cohesive elements are
The cohesive behavior can be: used for modeling adhesive patches
Element-based
Modeled with cohesive elements
Surface-based
Modeled with contact pairs in
Abaqus/Standard and
general contact in Abaqus/Explicit
Failed adhesive is red

(CSDMG = 1)
Rail crush: Cohesive surfaces
L5.4
Introduction (2/6)
Element-based cohesive behavior—cohesive elements
Cohesive elements allow very detailed modeling of adhesive connections, including

specification of detailed adhesive material properties, direct control of the connection mesh,
modeling of adhesives of finite thickness, etc.
Cohesive elements in Abaqus primarily address two classes of problems:

Adhesive joints
I. Adhesive layer with finite thickness
II. Typically the bulk material properties are known
Delamination
I. Adhesive layer of “zero” thickness
II. Typically the bulk material properties are not known
140
L5.5
Introduction (3/6)
The constitutive modeling depends on the class of problem:
Based on macroscopic properties (stiffness, strength) for adhesive joints
I. Continuum description: any Abaqus material model can be used

II. Modeling technique is relatively straightforward: cohesive layer has finite thickness;
standard material models (including damage).
III. The continuum description is not discussed further in this lecture.
Based on a traction-separation description for delamination
I. Linear elasticity with damage

» May include time-domain viscoelasticity to model rate-dependent adhesive behavior
both during the initial elastic response (prior to damage initiation), as well as during
damage progression (Abaqus/Explicit only)
II. Modeling technique is less straightforward: typical applications use zero-thickness cohesive
elements; non-standard constitutive law
III. This application is the primary focus of this lecture
L5.6
Introduction (4/6)
In addition, the uniaxial response of a laterally unconstrained adhesive patch can also be modeled
This represents the behavior of a gasket.
Limited capability for modeling gaskets with cohesive elements:
I. The complexity of the response in the thickness direction is not as rich as with gasket
elements available in Abaqus/Standard.
Compared to gasket elements, however, cohesive elements:
I. are fully nonlinear (can be used with finite strains and rotations);
II. can have mass in a dynamic analysis; and
III. are available in both Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit.
The use of cohesive elements for modeling gaskets is not discussed further in this lecture.
141
L5.7
Introduction (5/6)
Surface-based cohesive behavior—cohesive surfaces
This is a simplified and easy way to model cohesive connections, using the traction-separation interface
behavior.
It offers capabilities that are very similar to cohesive elements modeled with the traction-
separation constitutive response.
I. However, it does not require element definitions.

II. In addition, cohesive surfaces can bond anytime contact is established (“sticky” contact)
It is primarily intended for situations in which interface thickness is negligibly small.
It must be defined as a surface interaction property.
Damage for cohesive surfaces is an interaction property, not a material property.
The kinematics of cohesive surfaces is different from that of cohesive elements.
By default, the initial stiffness of the interface is computed automatically.
L5.8
Introduction (6/6)
Cohesive elements are the focus of this lecture.
Cohesive surfaces are discussed in the next lecture.
A workshop exercise will allow you to compare and contrast the two cohesive modeling techniques in the
context of a simple problem.
142
L5.9
Element Technology (1/3)
Element types*
Top face
3D elements
COH3D8
COH3D6
2D element
Bottom face
COH2D4
Axisymmetric element
COHAX4
These elements can be embedded

in a model via
shared nodes or
tie constraints.
*Cohesive pore pressure elements

are also available.
L5.10
Element and section definition
*ELEMENT, TYPE = COH3D8

*COHESIVE SECTION, ELSET =...,
RESPONSE = {TRACTION SEPARATION, CONTINUUM,
GASKET },
THICKNESS = { SPECIFIED, GEOMETRY},
MATERIAL = ...
Specify thickness in dataline (default is 1.0)
143
L5.11
Default thickness of cohesive elements

Traction-separation response:
Unit thickness
Continuum and gasket response
Geometric thickness based on nodal coordinates
Output variables
Scalar damage (i.e., degradation) variable
SDEG
Variables indicating whether damage initiation criteria met or exceeded
Discussed shortly
Element status flag
STATUS
Import of cohesive elements

The combination of Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit expands the range of applications for
cohesive elements.
For example, you can simulate the damage in a structure due to an impact event then study the effect of
the damage on the structure's load carrying capacity.
L5.12
Constitutive Response (1/22)
Delamination applications T
Traction separation law N
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
Modeling of damage under the general 

framework introduced earlier Typical traction-separation response
Damage initiation 7
I. Traction or separation-based 6
Shear mode
criterion 5
Damage evolution Normal mode
4
GTC
Removal of elements
3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mode Mix
Dependence of fracture energy

on mode mix
144
L5.13
Linear elasticity with damage

Linear elasticity
Defines behavior before the initiation of
damage
Relates nominal stress to nominal strain
I. Nominal traction to separation with
default choice of unit thickness
Uncoupled traction behavior: nominal
stress depends only on corresponding

nominal strain
Coupled traction behavior is more
general
When used with viscoelasticity

(Abaqus/Explicit only):
Specify whether moduli define
instantaneous or long-term behavior
The viscoelasticity data is specified as
usual, with the following interpretation:
I. The shear data is used to define
the shear part of the traction-
separation response. *ELASTIC, TYPE = { TRACTION,
II. The bulk (volumetric) data is used COUPLED TRACTION }
to define the normal (opening) part
of the traction-separation
response
L5.14
The elastic modulus for the traction separation

law should be interpreted as a penalty N
stiffness.
For example, for the opening mode: N max
Kn = Nmax / ninit
In Abaqus, nominal stress and strain quantities
are used for the traction separation law.
If unit thickness is specified for the
element, then the nominal strain

corresponds to the separation value.
Kn
Elastic response governed by Kn.
If you specify a non-unit thickness for 1
the cohesive element, you must scale
your data to obtain the correct stiffness
n
Kn. Example on next slide.  ninit  nfail
Displacement at damage
initiation in normal (opening)
mode
145
L5.15
Example: Peel test model
N = En n Abaqus evaluates this…
= K n n …which is equivalent to this
 n =  n / heff  K n = En / heff
Given separation at initiation  ninit = 1e-3

and Nmax = 6.9e9.
Thus, target stiffness is Kn = 6.9e12.
Find corresponding value for En (i.e., what Abaqus requires)
Two options:
For model A: use geometric thickness Geometric thickness (based on
nodal coordinates) of the
heff = hgeom =1e-3; En = Kn heff → En = 6.9e9 adhesive hgeom = 1e-3
For model B: specify thickness (e.g., unit thickness)
heff = 1; En = Kn heff = Kn →En = 6.9e12
L5.16
Example: Peel test model (cont’d)

En=Knheff
Geometric thickness (based on

nodal coordinates) of the
adhesive hgeom = 1e-3
146
L5.17
Damage initiation
Mixed mode conditions
Maximum stress (or strain)
criterion:
    
MAX  n , t , s  = 1
 max max max 
N T S
 for  n  0
n =  n
0 for  n  0
Output:
I. MAXSCRT
II. MAXECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { MAXS, MAXE }
L5.18
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
147
L5.19
Quadratic stress (or strain) interaction criterion:
2 2 2
 n   t    s 
      =1
 N max   Tmax   Smax 
I. No damage initiation
under pure compression
Output:
I. QUADSCRT
II. QUADECRT
* DAMAGE INITIATION,
CRITERION = { QUADS, QUADE }
L5.20
Summary of damage initiation criteria
Maximum nominal stress criterion Maximum nominal strain criterion

       n s  t 
MAX  n , s , t  = 1 MAX  max , max , max  =1
 max max max 
N S T   n s  t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXE

Nmax , Smax , Tmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
Quadratic nominal stress criterion Quadratic nominal strain criterion

2 2 2
 n    s   t 
2 2 2
  n    s   t 
      =1  max    max    max  = 1
 N max   Smax   Tmax    n    s   t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADE
Nmax , Smax , Tmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
n: nominal stress in the pure normal mode n: nominal strain in the pure normal mode
s: nominal stress in the first shear direction s: nominal strain in the first shear direction
t: nominal stress in the second shear direction t: nominal strain in the second shear direction
n s t where n, s, and t are components of relative displacement
Note :  n = , s = , t =
To To To between the top and bottom of the cohesive element; and To
is the original thickness of the cohesive element.
148
L5.21
Damage evolution
Post damage-initiation 
response defined by:

 = 1 - d 
- d
d is the scalar damage
variable (1 - d )
d = 0: undamaged
d = 1: fully damaged K0
d monotonically increases (1 - d ) Κ0

K0
Typical damaged response
L5.22
Damage evolution is based on energy or

displacement N
N max
Specify either the total fracture energy
or the post damage-initiation effective Area under the curve is the
displacement at failure fracture energy
May depend on mode mix

Mode mix may be defined in terms of GT C

energy or traction
n
Displacement at failure  n
fail
in normal (opening) mode
149
L5.23
Displacement-based damage evolution

Damage is a function of an effective
displacement: Traction
= n   s2   t2
2
Linear post-initiation
response
The post damage-initiation softening response
can be either
Linear
Exponential
Tabular
 init  fail 
L5.24
Keywords interface for displacement-based damage evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = DISPLACEMENT,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL | TABULAR },
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = TABULAR
For LINEAR and EXPONENTIAL softening:
Specify the effective displacement at complete failure fail relative to the effective displacement at
initiation init.
For TABULAR softening:
Specify the scalar damage variable d directly as a function of  –init.
Optionally specify the effective displacement as function of mode mix in tabular form.
Abaqus assumes that the damage evolution is mode independent otherwise.
150
L5.25
Abaqus/CAE interface for displacement-based damage evolution

L5.26
Energy-based damage evolution
The fracture energy can be defined as a function of mode mix using either a tabular form or one of two
analytical forms:
Power law
  
 GI   GII   GIII 
      =1
 GIC   GIIC   GIIIC 
BK (Benzeggagh-Kenane)

G 
GIC   GIIC - GIC   shear  = GTC
 GT 
where Gshear = GII  GIII
GT = GI  Gshear
For isotropic failure (GIC = GIIC), the response is insensitive to the value of .
151
L5.27
Keywords interface for energy-based damage evolution
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = ENERGY,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL},
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = { TABULAR | POWER LAW | BK },
POWER = value
Specify fracture energy as function of mode mix in tabular form, or

Specify the fracture energy in pure normal and shear deformation modes and choose either the POWER
LAW or the BK mixed mode behavior
L5.28
Abaqus/CAE interface for energy-based damage evolution

152
L5.29
Example
The preceding discussion was very general in Normal (opening) mode:
the sense that the full range of options for
modeling the constitutive response of cohesive Cohesive material law:
elements was presented. N max Traction, Damage Evolution
(nominal stress)
In the simplest case, Abaqus requires that you En
Kn =
Traction
input the adhesive thickness heff and 10 heff
material parameters: Kn GIC

1 (area under
entire curve)
*Elastic, type=traction
En, Et, Es
*Damage initiation, criterion  ninit  nfail
= maxs Separation
Nmax, Tmax, Smax
*Damage evolution, What do you do when you only have 1
type=energy, mixed mode property and the adhesive thickness is
behavior=bk, power= essentially zero?
GIC, GIIC , GIIIC
Diehl, T., "Modeling Surface-Bonded Structures with

ABAQUS Cohesive Elements: Beam-Type Solutions,"
ABAQUS Users' Conference, Stockholm, 2005.
L5.30
Example (cont’d)
Common case: you know GTC for the surface bond.
Assume isotropic behavior

GIC = GIIC = GIIIC = GTC
I. 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
I. 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
153
L5.31
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
K eff = 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.
I. For example, use fail = 0.050  typical cohesive element size as a starting point.
L5.32
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 section, thickness=SPECIFIED, ...
Cohesive material law:

Tult 1.0,
Traction, Damage Evolution
:
:
Eeff
(nominal stress)
K eff = *Elastic, type=TRACTION

Traction
heff Keff, Keff, Keff

K eff GTC *Damage initiation, criterion = MAXS
1 (area under Tult, Tult, Tult
entire curve)
*Damage evolution, type=ENERGY,
mixed mode behavior=BK, power=1
 init  fail GTC, GTC , GTC
Separation
154
L5.33
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 be chosen so that it does not adversely affect
the stable time increment.
I. The Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual provides guidelines for determining a cohesive
element density.
II. One option is to use mass scaling. Another is to adjust the cohesive properties control the
ratio of the stable time increment of the cohesive elements to that for the other elements.
L5.34
Viscous Regularization (1/7)
Cohesive elements have the potential to cause numerical difficulties in the following cases
Stiff cohesive behavior may lead to reduced maximum stable time increment in Abaqus/Explicit
Potentially addressed through selective mass scaling
Unstable crack propagation may lead to convergence difficulties in Abaqus/Standard

Potentially addressed through built-in viscous regularization option specific to cohesive elements
155
L5.35
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 )

L5.36
Consistent material tangent stiffness
d
D = (1 - d ) K 0 - f  

K0 is the undamaged elastic stiffness
f is a factor that depends on the details of the damage model

t
Viscous regularization ensures that when 
, 0 D = (1 - d ) K 0

“Offending” second term is eliminated when the analysis cuts back drastically
156
L5.37
User interface for viscous regularization
*COHESIVE SECTION, CONTROLS = control1

*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME = control1,
VISCOSITY = factor
Add-on transverse shear stiffness may

provide additional stability
*COHESIVE SECTION
*TRANSVERSE SHEAR STIFFNESS
Output
Energy associated with viscous regularization: ALLCD
L5.38
Example: Multiple delamination problem (Alfano & Crisfield, 2001)
Industry standard Alfano-Crisfield nonsymmetric delamination examples
Plies are initially bonded with predefined cracks, then peeled apart in a complex sequence
Example done in Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit

Effect of viscous regularization is investigated
12 layers 2 layers
Initial cracks Interface elements
10 layers
a1 a2 a2
157
L5.39
 = 5.e - 4
 = 1.e - 3
=0
 = 1.e - 4  = 2.5e - 4
L5.40
Effect of viscous regularization on convergence of multiple delamination problem:
Significant improvements with small regularization factor

Viscous Total number of

regularization factor increments
0. 375
1.0e-4 171
2.5e-4 153
1.0e-3 164
158
L5.41
Modeling Techniques (1/30)
Example: Double-cantilever beam (DCB)
Alfano and Crisfield (2001)
Pure Mode I
Displacement control
Analyzed using 2D (CPE4I) elements
Delamination assumed to occur along a straight line
Beams: Orthotropic material

Cohesive layer: Traction-separation with damage
I. The cohesive properties are given next slide.
-u
Initial crack Cohesive layer
(set: coh_elems)
L5.42
One-dimensional model
Use tie constraints between the cohesive layer and the beams
Require distinct parts for the beam and cohesive zone geometry
Geometry
159
L5.43
One-dimensional model (cont’d)

Assembly
Create 2 instances of the beam; one

of the cohesive zone
Position the parts to leave gaps

between them; this will later
facilitate picking surfaces
L5.44

Tie constraints
coh-top
beam-top
beam-bot
coh-bot
Define tie constraints between

mating surfaces.
The cohesive side should be the
slave surface (because it is a softer
material)
This approach is required when
quadratic displacement elements are
used.
160
Properties: beam
Properties: adhesive

L5.46
L5.45
161
L5.47

Meshing
1 For two-dimensional geometry,

use sweep meshable regions
for cohesive elements
Sweep path must be aligned
with thickness direction
3 Assign seeds and mesh
Only one element through 2 Assign cohesive element

the thickness
type to the swept region
L5.48

Meshing (cont’d)
4 Edit the nodal coordinates of each part instance so

that they all have the same 2-coordinate
Toggle this off; otherwise, nodes will project

back to their original positions
Final mesh
162
L5.49
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
I. Similar to the 1D model
L5.50
Two-dimensional model (cont’d)

Shared nodes
1 Define a finite thickness slit in the beam as shown below
I. Use the actual overall thickness of the DCB

II. The center region represents the cohesive layer
2 Mesh the part:
163
L5.51

Shared nodes (cont’d)
3 Edit the coordinates of the nodes along the interface
L5.52

Tie constraints
1 Create two instances of the beams and position them as shown below.
I. Suppress the visibility of the instances to facilitate picking surfaces, etc.
2 Create a finite thickness cohesive layer, position it appropriately in the horizontal direction, define
surfaces, etc.
I. After meshing, adjust the coordinates of all the nodes in the cohesive layer so that they lie
along the interface between the two beams.
164
L5.53
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
L5.54
Three-dimensional model (cont’d)

Shared nodes
1 Partition the geometry and

define a mesh seam between
these two faces
165
L5.55

2 Mesh the part with solid

(continuum) elements.
3 Create a orphan mesh

Mesh>Create Mesh Part
L5.56
Tip 1: Remove elements from top

region with display groups (select
by angle)
4 Create a single zero-thickness solid
layer by offsetting from the midplane
(selected by angle) of the orphan
mesh created in the previous step
Tip 2: Use the selection

options tools to facilitate picking.
In particular, select from
interior entities.
Create a set for the new layer so you can

easily assign element type and section
properties.
166
L5.57

5 Assign section properties and the

element type to the set created in
the previous step
L5.58

Tie constraints
The cohesive region can be defined as
I. Solid (with finite thickness)
» Edit nodal coordinates of
cohesive elements as in
previous examples
II. Shell geometry
» Mesh geometry then create

orphan mesh
» Offset a zero-thickness layer
of solid elements from the
orphan mesh
Define surfaces automatically to

facilitate tie constraints
167
L5.59

Tie constraints (cont’d)
When defining the tie constraints, query

the mesh stack direction to determine

when the “top” and “bottom” surfaces
should be used
Brown = top Purple = bottom
L5.60
What if I don't use Abaqus/CAE?

In this case do the following in the preprocessor of your choice:
1. Generate the mesh for the structure and cohesive layer (temporarily assigning an arbitrary
element type to the cohesive layer)
2. Position the layer of cohesive elements over the interface
3. Define surfaces on the structure and cohesive layer
4. Write the input file
Surface top-coh
Surface top-beam
Surface bot-beam Surface bot-coh
168
L5.61
Edit the input file:

5. Change the element type assigned to the cohesive layer
*element, elset=coh, type=coh2d4
6. Assign cohesive section properties
*cohesive section, elset=coh, material=cohesive,

response=traction separation, stack direction=2, controls=visco
1.0, 0.02
:
*material, name=cohesive
*elastic, type=traction
5.7e+14, 5.7e+14, 5.7e+14
*damage initiation, criterion=quads
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*damage evolution, type=energy, mixed mode behavior=bk, power=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0
L5.62
The stack direction defines the thickness direction based on the element isoparametric
directions.
I. Set STACK DIRECTION = { 1 | 2 | 3 } to define the element thickness direction along an
isoparametric direction.
II. 2D example (extends to 3D):
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
Stack direction = 2 Stack direction = 1
169
L5.63
Edit the input file (cont'd):

7. Define tie constraints between the surfaces
*tie, name=top, adjust=yes, position tolerance=0.002

Cohesive
top-coh, top-beam
surface is the
slave *tie, name=bot, adjust=yes, position tolerance=0.002

bot-coh, bot-beam
Setting adjust=yes will force Abaqus to move The position tolerance should be large enough to
the slave (cohesive element) nodes onto the contain the slave nodes when measured from the
master surface. By adjusting both the top and master surface. In this case the overclosure is
bottom cohesive surfaces in this way, a zero- equal to 0.0015 on either side of the interface so
thickness cohesive layer is produced. a position tolerance of 0.002 is sufficient to
capture all slave nodes.
0.0015
L5.64
Results
170
L5.65
Effect of viscous regularization
Viscous Total number of

regularization factor increments
1.e-5 636
2.5e-5 163
5.0e-5 129
1.0e-4 90
L5.66
Effect of mesh refinement
Typically, you will need to use a much finer

mesh (for both the stress/displacement and
cohesive elements) than may be necessary for
a problem without cohesive elements
171
L5.67
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
L5.68
Failure driven by mismatch in CTEs

View cut of the matrix-fiber interface at 100%

of the applied load (magnified 5×) Failure levels at 38% of the applied load
172
L5.69
Cohesive elements on a symmetry plane

N
The traction-separation law is based on the
N max
separation between the top and bottom faces
of the cohesive element.
GC
area =
2
On a symmetry plane, however, the separation
that is computed is ½ the actual value.
To account for this, specify: 2Kn
1
2 the cohesive stiffness that would be
used in a full model.
n
 ninit  nfail
½ the fracture toughness that would be
used in a full model. 2 2
Linear equations between the nodes on

the top and bottom faces in the lateral 2 En En
directions. 2Kn = =
heff heff / 2
L5.70
Symmetry example
Symmetric model (top)
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
173
L5.71
Examples (1/7)
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 skin/stiffener debonding
Delamination initiation and propagation
Beginning of separation After separation
Abaqus/Standard simulation of skin/stiffener debonding

(Example Problem 1.4.5)
L5.72
Examples (2/7)
Abaqus/Standard simulation of skin/stiffener

debonding
174
L5.73
Examples (3/7)
Electronic packaging (Courtesy: INTEL)
Solder to motherboard fracture due to static

overload
Experiments to assess integrity of solder joints

under various loading conditions (e.g., board
bending)
Strain in motherboard at which solder joint fails
Ball grid array
L5.74
Examples (4/7)
Debonded solder balls

Damage severity in cohesive layer between

motherboard and solder balls
175
L5.75
Examples (5/7)
Delamination of a metallic sandwich

This model illustrates delamination in a metallic
sandwich structure.
It comprises 3 layers of material with
adhesive layers applied between the
layers.
The structure delaminates under the
impact of a heavy mass.
Cohesive layers
L5.76
Examples (6/7)
Impact of moving mass with a stationary wall
Brick wall modeled with adhesives applied to

each face of each brick.
Simulating damage of the (stationary) wall from

high velocity impact with a heavy mass
Analysis performed in Abaqus/Explicit.
This model is a representative of several

problems that can be modeled using cohesive
elements
Hydroplaning
Machining
Oil Drilling
Excavation
Effect of explosion on a building.
Section of the model illustrating

the application of cohesive layers
around the bricks.
176
L5.77
Examples (7/7)
Deformation sequence
L5.78
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using element-based cohesive
behavior
a. Generate cohesive element mesh
b. Define/assign traction-separation behavior and damage properties
Layer of
cohesive
elements
60 minutes Complete Part 1 of this workshop
177
L5.79
Workshop 4: Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a helicopter airframe.

a. Use the mesh offset tool to create a layer of cohesive elements
b. Impose symmetry conditions on the cohesive elements using linear equations
Cohesive element
thickness shrunk to zero
This workshop is optional.

60 minutes
178
Notes
179
180
Notes
L6.1
Lesson 6: Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Lesson content:
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior

Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections (Part 2)
90 minutes
L6.2
Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (1/24)
Surface-based cohesive behavior provides a simplified way to model cohesive connections with negligibly
small interface thicknesses using the traction-separation constitutive model.
It can also model “sticky” contact (surfaces can bond after coming into contact).
The cohesive surface behavior can be defined for general contact in Abaqus/Explicit and contact pairs in
Abaqus/Standard (with the exception of the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation).
Cohesive surface behavior is defined as a surface interaction property.
To prevent overconstraints in Abaqus/Explicit, a pure master-slave formulation is enforced for

surfaces with cohesive behavior.
181
L6.3
User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive

*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive

surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit

*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
...
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive
L6.4
The formulae and laws that govern surface-based

cohesive behavior are very similar to those used for traction
cohesive elements with traction-separation behavior:
linear elastic traction-separation,

GC
damage initiation criteria, and
separation
damage evolution laws.
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 ()
Nominal strain () = between the top and bottom of Contact separation ()
the cohesive layer
separation
Initial thickness (To)
traction Nominal stress () Contact force (F)

Contact stress (t) =
Current area (A) at each
contact point
182
L6.5
Linear elastic traction-separation behavior
Relates normal and shear stresses to the normal and shear separations across the interface before the
initiation of damage.
By default, elastic properties are based on underlying element stiffness.
Can optionally specify the properties.

Recall this specification is required for cohesive elements.
The traction-separation behavior can be uncoupled (default) or coupled.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, TYPE = { UNCOUPLED, COUPLED }
Optional data line to specify Knn, Kss, Ktt
L6.6
Controlling the cohered nodes
The slave nodes to which cohesive behavior is applied can be controlled to define a wider range of
cohesive interactions: Can include:
All slave nodes

Only slave nodes initially in contact
Initially bonded node set
1 Applying cohesive behavior to all slave nodes (default)
Cohesive constraint forces potentially act on all nodes of the slave surface.
Slave nodes that are not initially contacting the master surface can also experience cohesive
forces if they contact the master surface during the analysis.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = CURRENT CONTACTS
183
L6.7
2 Applying cohesive behavior only to slave nodes initially in contact
Restrict cohesive behavior to only those slave nodes that are in contact with the master surface
at the start of a step.
Any new contact that occurs during the step will not experience cohesive constraint forces.
I. Only compressive contact is modeled for new contact.

*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = ORIGINAL CONTACTS
L6.8
3 Applying cohesive behavior only to an initially bonded node set (Abaqus/Standard only)
Restrict cohesive behavior to a subset of slave nodes defined using *INITIAL CONDITIONS,
TYPE=CONTACT.
All slave nodes outside of this set will experience only compressive contact forces during the
analysis.
I. This method is particularly useful for modeling crack propagation along an existing fault line.
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY = SPECIFIED CONTACTS
184
L6.9
Example: Double cantilever beam (DCB)
Analyze debonding of the DCB model using the surface-based cohesive behavior in Abaqus/Standard.
To model debonding using surface-based cohesive behavior,

you must define:
I. contact pairs and initially bonded crack surfaces;

1
II. the traction-separation behavior;

2
3
III. the damage initiation criterion; and
4
IV. the damage evolution.
You may also
5
I. specify viscous regularization to facilitate solution convergence in Abaqus/Standard.
Note: Steps 3, 4, and 5, will be covered later in this lecture.

u
-u
Initial crack Cohesive interface
Note: Only the Keywords interface is illustrated in the example;

the Abaqus/CAE interface is illustrated in the workshop exercise.
L6.10
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.
*NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE

1, 121, 1
*SURFACE, NAME=TopSurf
_TopBeam_S1, S1
*SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive
bond
TopSurf, BotSurf
*INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
slave surface
a list of slave nodes
master surface that are initially
Note: Frictionless contact is assumed.
bonded
185
L6.11
2 Define traction-separation behavior

In this model, the cohesive behavior is t
only enforced for the node set bond.
I. Use the ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS parameter to enforce Kn (or Ks or Kt)
this behavior. 1
II. Recall the default elastic
properties are based

on underlying element stiffness.

Here we specify the properties. Kn, Ks, and Kt: normal and
tangential stiffness components
...
bond
TopSurf, BotSurf
TopSurf TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
BotSurf
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 Optional
Kn Ks Kt
L6.12
Damage modeling for cohesive surfaces t
Damaged traction-separation response for 

tnmax tsmax , ttmax 
cohesive surfaces is defined within the same
general framework as used for cohesive
elements.
The difference between the two approaches is

    
that for cohesive surfaces damage is specified  nmax  smax ,  tmax  nf  sf ,  t f

as part of the contact interaction properties.
tnmax , tsmax , and ttmax :
peak values of the contact stress
 nmax ,  smax , and  tmax :

peak values of the contact separation
 nf ,  sf , and  t f :
separations at failure
186
L6.13
User interface
Abaqus/CAE
Abaqus/Standard

*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=cohesive
surface1, surface2
Abaqus/Explicit

*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR
*DAMAGE INITIATION
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION
*CONTACT
*CONTACT PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT
surface1, surface2, cohesive
L6.14
Damage initiation criteria
Maximum stress criterion Maximum separation criterion

 tn ts tt    n s  t 
MAX  max , max , max  1 MAX  max , max , max  1
 tn ts tt 
  n s  t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXU
tnmax , tsmax , ttmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
Quadratic stress criterion Quadratic separation criterion

2 2 2 2 2 2
 tn   ts   tt    n    s   t 
 max    max    max   1  max    max    max   1
 tn   ts   tt    n    s   t 
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADU
tnmax , tsmax , ttmax  nmax ,  smax ,  tmax
tn: normal contact stress in the pure normal mode n: separation in the pure normal mode
ts: shear contact stress along the first shear direction s: separation in the first shear direction
tt: shear contact stress along the second shear direction t: separation in the second shear direction
Note: Recall the damage initiation criteria for the cohesive elements: if the initial constitutive thickness To = 1,
then  = /To = . In this case, the separation measures for both approaches are exactly the same.
187
L6.15
Example: Double cantilever beam

3 Define the damage initiation criterion
The quadratic stress criterion is specified for this problem.
...
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond *SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive
*COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
TopSurf
BotSurf *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
tnmax tsmax ttmax
L6.16
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.
May depend on mode mix

Mode mix may be defined in terms of energy or traction

GTC

 nmax  smax ,  tmax  
 nf  sf ,  t f  
188
L6.17
Separation-based damage evolution

Damage is a function of an effective t Linear post-initiation
separation: response

 n   s2   t2
2
As with cohesive elements, the post damage-

initiation softening response can be either:
Linear
Exponential 
 nmax  smax ,  tmax  
 nf  sf ,  t f  
Tabular
L6.18
Separation-based damage evolution (cont’d)

Usage:
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = DISPLACEMENT,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL | TABULAR },
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = TABULAR
189
L6.19
Energy-based damage evolution
As with cohesive elements, the energy-based damage evolution criterion can be defined as a function of
mode mix using either a tabular form or one of two analytical forms:
Power law Benzeggagh-Kenane (BK)

   G 
 GI   GII   GIII  GIC   GIIC - GIC   shear   GTC
      1  T 
G
 GIC   GIIC   GIIIC 
where Gshear  GII  GIII
GT  GI  Gshear
L6.20
Energy-based damage evolution (cont’d)

Usage:
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE = ENERGY,

SOFTENING = { LINEAR | EXPONENTIAL},
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = { TABULAR | POWER LAW | BK },
POWER = value
190
L6.21

4 Define damage evolution
The energy-based damage evolution based on the BK mixed mode behavior is specified.
...
 *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=cohesive

G 
GIC   GIIC - GIC   shear   GTC TopSurf, BotSurf
 GT  *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
bond *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR, ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED
CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
TopSurf 5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
BotSurf
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0

GIC GIIC GIIIC
L6.22
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

191
L6.23

5 Specify a viscosity coefficient for
the cohesive surface behavior
...
TopSurf, BotSurf

bond *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
TopSurf *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
BotSurf 5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
280.0, 280.0, 280.0
1.e-5
viscosity coefficient, 
L6.24

Summary of the input for the traction-separation response
Cohesive elements Cohesive surfaces

*COHESIVE SECTION, MATERIAL=cohesive, *SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=cohesive

RESPONSE=TRACTION SEPARATION, *COHESIVE BEHAVIOR,
ELSET=coh_elems, CONTROLS=visco
ELIGIBILITY=SPECIFIED CONTACTS
, 0.02
*MATERIAL, NAME=cohesive 5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14
*ELASTIC, TYPE=TRACTION *DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS
5.7e14, 5.7e14, 5.7e14 5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=QUADS *DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY,
5.7e7, 5.7e7, 5.7e7 MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, 280.0, 280.0, 280.0
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=2.284 *DAMAGE STABILIZATION
280.0, 280.0, 280.0 1.e-5
*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME=visco,
VISCOSITY=1.e-5
192
L6.25
Results
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive elements
Failed cohesive elements

u2
u2 = 0.006
Cohesive surfaces
u2
L6.26
Element- vs. Surface-based Cohesive Behavior (1/6)
Preprocessing:
Cohesive elements
Gives you direct control over the cohesive element mesh density and stiffness properties.
Constraints are enforced at the element integration points.

I. Refining the cohesive elements relative to the

connected structures will likely lead to improved
constraint satisfaction and more accurate results.
Cohesive surfaces
Integration points on an
Are easily defined using contact interactions and 8-node cohesive element
cohesive interaction properties.
A pure master-slave in formulation is used.
Constraints are enforced at the slave nodes.
I. Refining the slave surface relative to the master surface will likely lead to improved
constraint satisfaction and more accurate results.
193
L6.27
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).
I. 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.
I. By default, debonded surfaces will not stick upon recurrent contact.
L6.28
Constitutive behavior:
Cohesive elements
Allow for several constitutive behavior types:
I. Traction-separation constitutive model

» Including multiple failure mechanisms
II. Continuum-based constitutive model
» For adhesive layers with finite thickness

» Uses conventional material models
III. Uniaxial stress-based constitutive model
» Useful in modeling gaskets and/or single adhesive patches
Cohesive surfaces
Must use the traction-separation interface behavior.
I. Intended for bonded interfaces where the interface thickness is negligibly small.
II. Only one failure mechanism is allowed.
194
L6.29
 Le 
Influence on stable time increment (Abaqus/Explicit only): t   
 cd 
Cohesive elements
Often require a small stable time increment.
Cohesive elements are generally thin and sometimes quite stiff.

I. Consequently, they often have a stable time increment that is significantly less than that of the
other elements in the model.
Cohesive surfaces
Cohesive surface behavior with the default cohesive stiffness properties is formulated to minimally
affect the stable time increment.
Abaqus uses default contact penalties to model the cohesive stiffness behavior in this case.
You can specify a non-default cohesive stiffness values.
I. However, high stiffnesses may reduce the stable time increment.
L6.30
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.
I. However, nonstructural mass can be added to the contacting elements if necessary.
195
L6.31
Summary:
Cohesive elements
Are recommended for more detailed adhesive connection modeling.
Additional preprocessing effort (and often increased computational cost) is compensated for by
gaining:
I. Direct control over the connection mesh
II. Additional constitutive response options

» E.g., model adhesives of finite thickness
Cohesive surfaces
Provides a quick and easy way to model adhesive connections.
I. Negligible interface thicknesses only
II. Surfaces can bond anytime contact is established (“sticky” contact)

» Model contact adhesives, velcro, tape, and other bonding agents that can stick after
separation.
L6.32
Workshop 3: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using Cohesive Connections
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using surface-based cohesive
behavior
a. Repeat the element-based exercise using surface-based behavior
b. Use default traction-separation elastic properties
c. Compare with element-based results
60 minutes Complete Part 2 of this workshop
196
Notes
197
198
Notes
L7.1
Lesson 7: Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
Lesson content:
Introduction
VCCT Criterion
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit
Output
Ductile Fracture with VCCT

VCCT Plug-in
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior
Examples
Workshop 5: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT
2 hours
L7.2
Introduction (1/2)
Motivation is aircraft composite structural analysis
To reduce the cost of laminated composite

structures, large integrated bonded structures
are being considered.
In primary structures, bondlines and

interfaces between plies are required to
carry interlaminar loads.
Damage tolerance requirements dictate

that bondlines and interfaces carry
required loads with damage.
Modeling debonding along

skin-stringer interface
199
L7.3
Introduction (2/2)
VCCT uses LEFM concepts*
Based on computing the energy release Pure Mode I

rates for normal and shear crack-tip Modified VCCT
deformation modes.
Compare energy release rates to

interlaminar fracture toughness.
See Rybicki, E. F., and Kanninen, M. F., "A Node numbers

are shown
Finite Element Calculation of Stress Intensity
Nodes 2 and 5 will start to release when:
Factors by a Modified Crack Closure Integral,"
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 9, pp. 1 v1,6 Fv,2,5
 GI  GIC Mode II treated
931-938, 1977. 2 bd
similarly
where
GI  mode I energy release rate
GIC  critical mode I energy release rate
b  width
*An “enhanced” version of VCCT is
Fv ,2,5  vertical force between nodes 2 and 5
available to model ductile fracture. This v1,6  vertical displacement between nodes 1 and 6
is discussed briefly later in this lecture.
L7.4
VCCT Criterion (1/4)
The debond capability is used to perform the crack propagation analysis for initially bonded crack
surfaces.
The crack propagation analysis allows for five types of fracture criteria:
1 Critical stress criterion
2 Crack opening displacement criterion
3 Crack length vs. time criterion

4 VCCT criterion
5 Low-cycle fatigue criterion
Defining case 4, “VCCT criterion,” is the subject of this lecture.
The details of cases 1, 2, and 3 are not discussed here. Please consult the Abaqus Analysis
User’s Manual for more details.
The details of case 5 will be discussed later in Lecture 8 “Low-cycle Fatigue.”
200
L7.5
When using VCCT to model crack propagation…

You must:
1 define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces;
2 define initially bonded crack surfaces;
3 activate the crack propagation capability; and

4 specify the VCCT criterion.
You also may:

define spatially varying critical energy release rates;
use viscous regularization, contact stabilization, and/or automatic stabilization to overcome
convergence difficulties for unstable propagating cracks;
use a linear scaling technique to accelerate convergence for VCCT.
L7.6
Abaqus/Standard vs. Abaqus/Explicit
VCCT is supported in both products. The user interface is different between the two, however.
The key difference is that Abaqus/Standard requires the use of contact pairs while Abaqus/Explicit the
use of general contact.
Therefore, VCCT can only be used with 3D models in Abaqus/Explicit

Summary of interface differences:
Abaqus/Standard Abaqus/Explicit
Crack surfaces *Contact pair *Contact
Initially bonded *Initial conditions, *Contact clearance

surfaces type=contact *Contact clearance assignment
Crack propagation *Debond *Contact property assignment
VCCT criterion *Fracture criterion, *Surface interaction

type = VCCT *Cohesive behavior
*Fracture criterion, type = VCCT
201
L7.7
Defining the VCCT criterion is not currently supported in Abaqus/CAE.
However, a VCCT plug-in is available and allows you to interactively define the debond interface(s).
The details of the VCCT plug-in will be discussed later in this lecture.
Download from “VCCT plug-in utility,” SIMULIA Answer 3235.

L7.8
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Standard (1/16)
Double cantilever beam (DCB)
Analyze debonding of a DCB model using the VCCT criterion.
Steps required for setting up the model include:
Define slave (TopSurf) and master (BotSurf) surfaces along the debond interface.
Define a set (bond) containing the initially bonded region (part of TopSurf in this example).
The Keywords interface for Abaqus/Standard is illustrated in this example;
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
202
L7.9
1 Define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces
Potential crack surfaces are modeled as slave and master contact surfaces.
Any contact formulation except the finite-sliding, surface-to-surface formulation can be used.
Cannot be used with self-contact.
bond *NSET, NSET=bond, GENERATE

1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
BotSurf
_BotBeam_S1, S1
*CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf, BotSurf
Note: The frictionless interaction property is assumed.

slave surface master surface
L7.10
2 Define initially bonded crack surfaces
The initially bonded contact pair is identified with the *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT option.

1, 121, 1
bond _TopBeam_S1, S1
_BotBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf TopSurf, BotSurf
BotSurf
slave surface master surface a list of slave nodes

that are initially
bonded
203
L7.11
The unbonded portion of the slave surface will behave as a regular contact surface.
If the node set that includes the initially bonded slave nodes is not specified, the initial contact condition
will apply to the entire contact pair.
In this case, no crack tips can be identified, and the bonded surfaces cannot separate.
For the VCCT criterion, the initially bonded nodes are bonded in all directions.
L7.12
3 Activate the crack propagation capability
The DEBOND option is used to activate crack propagation in a given step.
The SLAVE and MASTER parameters identify the surfaces to be debonded.


1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
_BotBeam_S1, S1
bond *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
TopSurf, BotSurf
TopSurf *STEP, NLGEOM
BotSurf
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
204
L7.13
Aside: Stability
Ramp-down of debonding force
By default, the traction between the two surfaces at the crack tip is released immediately during
the increment following debonding.
Can optionally have the traction released gradually during succeeding increments after
debonding to avoid a sudden loss of stability.
Usage:
*DEBOND, DEBONDING FORCE= STEP | RAMP
L7.14
4 Specify the VCCT criterion
The BK law model is used in this example.

1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
BK law: _BotBeam_S1, S1
 *CONTACT PAIR, INTER=...
 GII  GIII 
GequivC  GIC   GIIC  GIC    TopSurf, BotSurf
 GI  GII  GIII  *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
TopSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
BotSurf MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
GIC GIIC GIIIC 
205
L7.15
Crack propagation analysis is carried out on a nodal basis. The crack-tip node debonds when the
fracture criterion f
Gequiv
f  ,
GequivC
reaches the value 1.0 within a given tolerance, ftol:

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:
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=ftol
L7.16
Aside: More on stability
Debonding multiple nodes
For an unstable crack growth problem it is more efficient to allow multiple nodes at and ahead of
a crack tip to debond in one increment without cutting back the increment size.
Usage:
*DEBOND
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, UNSTABLE GROWTH TOLERANCE = fUtol
Recall debonding starts when f ≥ 1
If 1  ftol ≤ f ≤ 1  fUtol a corresponding crack front node will be released. New attempts will be
made with the same time increment instead of cutting back the time increment.
This process is repeated until f < 1 for all nodes ahead of the crack front.
The number of attempts made within an increment is specified using time incrementation
controls.
206
L7.17
In the DCB model, the tolerance is set to 0.1.

1, 121, 1
_TopBeam_S1, S1
_BotBeam_S1, S1
TopSurf, BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
TopSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
BotSurf MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
L7.18
In addition to the BK law model, Abaqus/Standard also provides two other commonly used mode-mix
criteria for computing GequivC: the Power law and the Reeder law models.
An appropriate model is best selected empirically.
Power law
am an ao
Gequiv G  G  G 
 I    II    III 
GequivC  GIC   GIIC   GIIIC 
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER

GIC, GIIC, GIIIC, am, an, ao
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, 
207
L7.19
Spatially varying critical energy release rates
The VCCT criterion can be defined with varying energy release rates by specifying the critical energy
release rates at all nodes on the slave surface.
In this case, the critical energy release rates should be interpolated from the critical energy
release rates specified at the nodes with the *NODAL ENERGY RATE option.
However, the exponents (e.g., ) are still read from the data lines under the *FRACTURE
CRITERION option.
*NODAL ENERGY RATE

node ID1, GIC, GIIC, GIIIC model data
node ID2, GIC, GIIC, GIIIC
...
*STEP
*STATIC
...
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, NODAL ENERGY RATE
L7.20
Viscous regularization for VCCT
Can be used to overcome some convergence

difficulties for unstable propagating cracks.
1, 121, 1
Example: DCB *SURFACE, NAME=TopSurf
_TopBeam_S1, S1
Set the value of the *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
viscosity coefficient to 0.1. _BotBeam_S1, S1

TopSurf, BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf,
TopSurf MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
BotSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, TOLERANCE=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 0.0, 2.284
208
L7.21
In addition, contact and automatic stabilization that are not specific to VCCT can be also used to aid
convergence.
They are built into Abaqus/Standard and are compatible with VCCT.
Note that the crack propagation behavior may be modified by the damping forces.
Therefore, monitor the damping energy (ALLVD or ALLSD) and compare it with the total strain
energy in the model (ALLSE) to ensure that the results are reasonable in the presence of
damping.
I. ALLVD stores the damping energy generated from viscous regularization.
II. ALLSD stores the damping energy generated from contact stabilization and automatic
stabilization.
L7.22
Linear scaling to accelerate convergence for VCCT
Abaqus provides a linear scaling technique to quickly converge to the critical load state. This reduces
the solution time required to reach the onset of crack growth.
This technique works best for models in which the deformation is nearly linear before the onset of
crack growth.
Once the first crack-tip node releases, the linear scaling calculations will no longer be valid and the time
increment will be set to the default value.
Usage:
*CONTROLS, LINEAR SCALING

where  is the coefficient of linear scaling.
For details of linear scaling to accelerate convergence for VCCT, see “Crack propagation analysis,”
Section 11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual.
209
L7.23
Tips for using the VCCT criterion
Crack propagation problems using the VCCT criterion are numerically challenging.
To help you create a successful model, several tips for using the VCCT criterion are provided:
The master debonding surfaces must be continuous.

The tie MPCs should NOT be used for the slave debonding surface to avoid overconstraints.
A small clearance between the debonding surfaces can be specified to eliminate unnecessary
severe discontinuity iterations during incrementation as the crack begins to progress.
Note: More tips are provided in “Crack propagation analysis,” Section 11.4.3 of the Abaqus Analysis
User’s Manual.
L7.24
LEFM Example using Abaqus/Explicit (1/7)
Double cantilever beam (DCB)
For the sake of comparison, the DCB problem will be solved using Abaqus/Explicit.
Illustrates the keyword interface for Abaqus/Explicit; the Abaqus/CAE interface is illustrated in a
workshop.
Because the VCCT criterion must be defined in the context of a general contact interaction, a 3D model
is required
Conventional shell elements are used in this example
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
210
L7.25
1 Define general contact
*Surface Interaction, name=coh

Use contact inclusions to specify crack
*Cohesive Behavior, eligibility=ORIGINAL
surfaces explicitly and assign pure slave and
CONTACTS
master roles
*Fracture Criterion, type=VCCT,
mixed mode behavior=BK, tol=0.1
In this case the top surface is assigned 280.0, 280.0, 280.0, 2.284
a slave role *Contact Clearance, name=clear,
search nset=bond
*Step
*Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
bond TopSurf, BotSurf
*Contact Formulation,
type=PURE MASTER-SLAVE
TopSurf, BotSurf, SLAVE
*Contact Property Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, coh
*Contact Clearance Assignment
TopSurf, BotSurf, clear
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.26
2 Define the initial crack

Requires the identification of:
CONTACTS
Two surfaces that will be considered *Fracture Criterion, type=VCCT,
for VCCT mixed mode behavior=BK, tol=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 280.0, 2.284
A node set for the initially bonded *Contact Clearance, name=clear,
nodes search nset=bond

*Step
*Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
TopSurf
BotSurf
211
L7.27
3 Specify the VCCT criterion

Define a VCCT-based cohesive behavior
surface interaction
CONTACTS
Mixed mode behavior options: mixed mode behavior=BK, tol=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 280.0, 2.284
BK (default) *Contact Clearance, name=clear,
search nset=bond
Power
*Step
Reeder *Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.28
4 Activate crack propagation

Simply assign the surface interaction to the
pair of surfaces
CONTACTS
mixed mode behavior=BK, tol=0.1
280.0, 280.0, 280.0, 2.284
*Contact Clearance, name=clear,
search nset=bond
*Step
*Dynamic, Explicit
:
*Contact
*Contact Inclusions
TopSurf
BotSurf
212
L7.29
General observations
Quasi-static response
Dynamic effects are of utmost relevance when assessing the results from a debonding analysis
using the VCCT criterion.
You must ensure that the Abaqus/Explicit analysis generates low ratios of kinetic energy to
internal energy if simulating a quasi-static process

I. Avoid the use of mass scaling; reduced densities will help significantly in recovering a
quasi-static response
II. Running the analysis over a longer period of time will not help in most cases because bond
breakage is an inherently fast and localized process.
Dynamic overshoot
The bond breakage at a given location is associated with a dynamic overshoot beyond the static
equilibrium position.
If the vibrations are significant (kinetic energy is clearly observable), the dynamic overshoot at
nodes behind the crack tip may lead to premature debonding of the crack tip.
L7.30
Meshing
To maximize the accuracy of the debonding simulation, use quad meshes between the slave and
master surfaces of the debonding surfaces.
Avoid using elements with aspect ratios greater than 2.
In most cases mesh refinement will help with obtaining a realistic result.
Material data
Highly mismatched critical energy values between modes tend to induce crack propagation in
continuously changing directions in a manner that may be unstable and unrealistic, particularly for
modes II and III.
Do not use such values unless experimental data suggest so.
Constraints
Avoid the use of other constraints involving nodes on both surfaces of the debonding interface
because the cohesive contact forces will compete with the constraint forces to achieve global
equilibrium.
Bond breakage might be hard to interpret in these cases.
213
L7.31
Output (1/4)
The following output options are provided to support

the VCCT criterion:
The same output is available for

Abaqus/Standard and Abaqus/Explicit.
*OUTPUT, FIELD, FREQUENCY=freq

*CONTACT OUTPUT,
MASTER=master, SLAVE=slave
*OUTPUT, HISTORY, FREQUENCY=freq

*CONTACT OUTPUT,
[(MASTER=master, SLAVE=slave)|(NSET=nset)]
L7.32
Output (2/4)
The following bond failure quantities can be requested as surface output:
DBT The time when bond failure occurred

DBSF Fraction of stress at bond failure that still remains
DBS Stress in the failed bond that remains
OPENBC Relative displacement behind crack.
CRSTS Critical stress at failure.
ENRRT Strain energy release rate.
EFENRRTR Effective energy release rate ratio.

BDSTAT Bond state (=1.0 if bonded, 0.0 if unbonded)
CSDMG Overall value of the scalar damage variable
All of the above variables can be visualized in Abaqus/Viewer.
The initial contact status of all of the slave nodes is printed in the data (.dat) file.
214
L7.33
Output (3/4)
Example: DCB
Request surface output:
bond
...
TopSurf, BotSurf, bond TopSurf
BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=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, CSDMG
*OUTPUT, HISTORY
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, NSET=bond history output
DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT, BDSTAT, CSDMG
*NODE OUTPUT, NSET=tip
U2, RF2
*END STEP
L7.34
Output (4/4)
Results
VCCT
215
L7.35
Ductile Fracture with VCCT (1/3)
The original VCCT criterion uses the principles of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM).
To account for ductile resistance, you can specify two different critical fracture energy release rates:
one for the onset of a crack and

the other for the growth of a crack with the reduction of the debonding force being governed by a user-
specified critical fracture energy release rate for crack growth
This capability is only available in Abaqus/Standard
Usage
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=ENHANCED VCCT
L7.36
Example: DCB considered earlier
The BK law model is used in this example.

Specify critical energy release rates 1, 121, 1
for the onset of a crack (GIC , …) *SURFACE, NAME=TopSurf
_TopBeam_S1, S1
Specify critical energy release rates *SURFACE, NAME=BotSurf
for crack propagation (GPIC , …) _BotBeam_S1, S1

TopSurf, BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM
bond *STATIC
...
TopSurf *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE= ENHANCED VCCT,
BotSurf MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280, 280, 0, 560, 280, 0, 2.284
GIC GIIC GIIIC GPIC GPIIC GPIIIC 
216
L7.37
Example (cont’d)
Results
L7.38
VCCT Plug-in (1/9)
VCCT plug-in
Provides an interactive interface to define the debond interface(s).
Accessible in the Interaction module
The plug-in can be obtained from SIMULIA Answer 3235 “VCCT plug-in utility.”
217
L7.39
VCCT Plug-in (2/9)
Example: Double Cantilever Beam (Abaqus/Standard analysis)
The VCCT plug-in is discussed in the context of the Keywords interface presented earlier.
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf initially bonded region
master surface
slave surface
L7.40
VCCT Plug-in (3/9)
1 Define contact pairs for potential crack surfaces
Frictionless contact is assumed.
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=IntProp-1

1.
*FRICTION
0.0
*CONTACT PAIR, INTERACTION=IntProp-1
TopSurf, BotSurf
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
218
L7.41
VCCT Plug-in (4/9)
2 Define the VCCT criterion
2a Select the fracture criterion, viscosity

coefficient, and cutback tolerance.
...
*STEP, NLGEOM
*STATIC
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf,
VICOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, TOLERANCE=0.2,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
L7.42
VCCT Plug-in (5/9)
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,
280, 280, 280, 2.284
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
219
L7.43
VCCT Plug-in (6/9)
The VCCT plug-in also supports defining spatially varying critical energy release rates.
Click mouse button 3 to manage the table.

*NODAL ENERGY RATE

...
*STEP
*STATIC
...
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, NODAL ENERGY RATE
L7.44
VCCT Plug-in (7/9)
3 Define the VCCT bonded interface
Select the initially bonded region, the

crack propagation output file and
frequency, and the debond initiation step.
Note: The VCCT plug-in allows

specification of linear scaling.

*STEP, NAME=Step-1
*STATIC, NLGEOM
...
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf, VISCOSITY=0.1
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
280, 280, 280, 2.284
220
L7.45
VCCT Plug-in (8/9)
The relevant keywords will be generated when Abaqus/CAE writes the input file.
initial contact conditions
debond
fracture criterion
L7.46
VCCT Plug-in (9/9)
Example: Double Cantilever Beam (Abaqus/Explicit analysis)
Procedure similar to that shown earlier;

must also define contact clearance.
bond
TopSurf
BotSurf
221
L7.47
Comparison with Cohesive Behavior (1/4)
VCCT and cohesive behavior are very similar in their application and formulation.
Both theories
I. are used to model interfacial shearing and delamination crack propagation and failure,
II. use an elastic damage constitutive theory to model the material's response once damage
has initiated, and
III. dissipate the same amount of fracture energy between damage initiation and complete
failure.
L7.48
The fundamental difference between VCCT and cohesive behavior is in the way crack propagation is
predicted.
In VCCT an existing flaw is assumed.
I. VCCT is primarily intended for brittle crack propagation problems.

II. However, ductile fracture and partial crack release is also supported (“extended” VCCT)
However, cohesive behavior can model damage initiation.
I. Damage initiation in cohesive behavior is based strictly on the predefined ultimate (normal
and/or shear) stress/strain limit.
II. Cohesive behavior can be used for both brittle and ductile crack propagation problems.
222
L7.49
VCCT may be viewed as more fundamentally based on fracture mechanics.
The damage initiation and damage evolution are both based on fracture energy, whereas
cohesive behavior use the fracture energy only during damage evolution.
Applicability of VCCT is limited to “self-similar” crack propagation analyses.
This implies a steady-state running crack.

Difficult to reproduce in practice.
L7.50
Summary: Complementary techniques for modeling of debonding
VCCT Cohesive behavior

Use the debond framework (surface based) Interface elements (element based) or contact
(surface based)
Assumes an existing flaw Can model crack initiation
Brittle fracture using LEFM occurring along a well Ductile fracture occurring over a smeared crack
defined crack front front modeled with spanning cohesive elements or

Ductile resistance using “enhanced” VCCT cohesive contact
Requires GI, GII, and GIII Requires E, σmax, GI, GII, and GIII
Crack propagates when strain energy release rate Crack initiates when cohesive traction exceeds
exceeds fracture energy critical value and releases critical strain energy
when fully open
Crack surfaces are rigidly bonded when Crack surfaces are joined elastically when
uncracked. uncracked.
Both are needed to satisfy general fracture requirements
223
L7.51
Examples (1/11)
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.
L7.52
Examples (2/11)
Compression Buckling/Delamination Single Disbond (Unreinforced)
Multiple crack tips

Buckling driven delaminations
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)
224
Examples (4/11)
Examples (3/11)
Multiple cracks can also be addressed

Compression Buckling/Delamination Multiple Disbonds (Unreinforced)
L7.54
L7.53
225
226
Examples (6/11)
Examples (5/11)
T-Joint Pull–off Model

L7.56
L7.55
L7.57
Examples (7/11)
Postbuckling Behavior of Skin-Stringer Panels

VCCT can be applied to determine the global

strength and failure mode for typical aerospace
composite structures like this skin/stringer panel
Courtesy Boeing
L7.58
Examples (8/11)
Displacement imposed
at corner nodes
Contact surfaces defined for
region of fracture
227
228
Crack tip
Examples (9/11)
Examples (10/11)
Initially debonded nodes
Initially bonded nodes
analysis can be downloaded from

http://www.3ds.com/products/simulia/
The Abaqus Tech Brief on skin/stringer bonded joint
L7.60
L7.59
L7.61
Examples (11/11)
L7.62
Workshop 5: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT
1. In this workshop you will simulate crack growth in a three-point bend specimen using the virtual crack closure
technique (VCCT).
a. Repeat the cohesive-based exercises using VCCT and compare results
60 minutes
229
230
Notes
231
232
Notes
L8.1
Lesson 8: Low-cycle Fatigue
Lesson content:
Introduction
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces
1 hour
L8.2
Introduction (1/5)
Low-cycle fatigue analysis is a quasi-static analysis of a structure subjected to sub-critical cyclic loading.
It can be associated with thermal as well as mechanical loading.
In Abaqus can simulate low-cycle fatigue in:
bulk ductile materials

material interfaces
Low-cycle fatigue can be simulated using
Traditional finite elements (discussed here)

XFEM technique (discussed in Lecture 9)
233
L8.3
Introduction (2/5)
Low-cycle fatigue analysis uses the direct cyclic procedure to directly obtain the stabilized cyclic
response of the structure.
The direct cyclic procedure combines a Fourier series approximation with time integration of the
nonlinear material behavior to obtain the stabilized cyclic solution iteratively using a modified
Newton method.
I. You can control the number of Fourier terms, the number of iterations, and the
incrementation during the cyclic time period to improve the accuracy.
Within each loading cycle, it assumes geometrically linear behavior and fixed contact conditions.
Geometric nonlinearity can be included only in any general step prior to a direct cyclic step
L8.4
Introduction (3/5)
Aside: Review of the direct cyclic analysis procedure
It is well known that after a number of repetitive

loading cycles, the response of an elastic-
plastic structure may lead to a stabilized state
in which the stress-strain relationship in each
successive cycle is the same as in the
previous one.
50-60 cycles
To avoid the considerable numerical expense
associated with a transient analysis, a direct
cyclic analysis can be used to calculate the
cyclic response of the structure directly
Uses a combination of Fourier series

and time integration of the nonlinear
material behavior
For more details, please see “Low-cycle

fatigue analysis using the direct cyclic
approach,” Section 6.2.7 of the Abaqus
Analysis User’s Manual.
234
L8.5
Introduction (4/5)
Defining low-cycle fatigue analysis
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE, [CETOL=tolerance, DELTMX=max]

t0, T, tmin, tmax, n0, nmax, n, imax
Nmin, Nmax, N, Dtol
t0: initial time increment
incrementation
controls the
T: time of a single loading cycle
tmin: minimum time increment allowed
tmax: maximum time increment allowed

series representations
n0: initial number of terms

controls the Fourier
in the Fourier series

nmax: maximum number of terms
n: increment in number of terms
imax: maximum number of iterations controls
allowed in a step the iteration
L8.6
Introduction (5/5)
Defining low-cycle fatigue analysis (cont’d)
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE, [CETOL=tolerance, DELTMX=max]

t0, T, tmin, tmax, n0, nmax, n, imax
Nmin, Nmax, N, Dtol
controls
N: total number of cycles allowed in a step damage
Nmin: minimum increment in N over which the damage is extrapolated forward extrapolation in
bulk materials;
Nmax: maximum increment in N over which the damage is extrapolated forward
not covered
Dtol: damage extrapolation tolerance here
235
L8.7
Low-cycle Fatigue in Bulk Materials (1/11)
Abaqus/Standard offers a general capability for modeling the progressive damage and failure of ductile
materials due to stress reversals and the accumulation of inelastic strain energy when the material is
subjected to sub-critical cyclic loadings.
Damage in low-cycle fatigue is defined within the same general framework of modeling progressive
damage and failure (continuum damage approach):
a constitutive behavior of undamaged ductile materials;

a damage initiation criterion; and

a damage evolution response.
The damage initiation and evolution are characterized by the stabilized accumulated inelastic hysteresis
strain energy per stabilized cycle.
Note: Damage initiation and evolution for low-cycle fatigue analysis is currently not supported in
Abaqus/CAE.
L8.8
Example: Thermal cycling failure of solder joint
Solder joint reliability analysis of automotive electronics under cyclic thermal loading.
The crack propagates forward
236
L8.9
Quarter-symmetry model:
electronic chip
Solder material (63Sn/37Pb)

solder joints gullwing
I. Modeled using temperature- leads
dependent elasticity and power-
law creep.
printed
Low-cycle fatigue analysis run for 801 circuit
cycles. board
I. Each thermal cycle is 1920
seconds.
Quarter-symmetry model
Define the low-cycle fatigue analysis step
*STEP, INC=800
*DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
Temperature load in once cycle
L8.10
Damage initiation criterion for ductile damage in low-cycle fatigue
The onset of damage in low-cycle fatigue is characterized by the accumulated inelastic hysteresis
energy per cycle, w, in a material point when the structure response is stabilized in the cycle.
The cycle number (N0) in which damage is initiated is given by
N0  c1wc2
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
237
L8.11
Defining damage initiation criterion
*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF
*ELASTIC
N0  c1wc2
31976, 0.4, 273 Quarter-symmetry model
20976, 0.4, 398
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
21E-6,
*CREEP,LAW=USER
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=HYSTERESIS ENERGY
c1 33.3, -1.52 c2
...
*STEP, INC=800
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100 solder joint
50, 100, 801, 1.1
bond pad
underneath
solder joint
L8.12
Damage evolution for ductile damage in low-cycle fatigue
Once the damage initiation criterion is satisfied at a material point, the damage state is calculated and
updated based on the inelastic hysteresis energy for the stabilized cycle.
The rate of the damage (dD/dN) at a material point per cycle is given by
dD c3wc4

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.
238
L8.13
Defining damage evolution
*MATERIAL, NAME=SOLDERF dD c3w 4 c


*ELASTIC dN L
31976, 0.4, 273 Quarter-symmetry model
20976, 0.4, 398
*EXPANSION, ZERO=273
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
60., 1920.,,, 29, 29,, 100
50, 100, 801, 1.1
L8.14
Results
Damage initiation at joint toe Damage evolution Damage evolution

Cycle number 199 Cycle number 749 Cycle number 801
239
L8.15
Characteristic length associated with an integration point
The characteristic length implemented in the damage evolution model is based on the element geometry
and formulation:
Element type Characteristic length used in

the damage evolution model
first-order element typical length of a line across the element
second-order element half of the typical length of a line across the element
beam and truss characteristic length along the element axis
membrane and shell characteristic length in the reference surface
axisymmetric element characteristic length in the rz plane only
cohesive element the constitutive thickness
L8.16
The characteristic length is used because the direction in which fracture occurs is not known in advance.
Therefore, elements with large aspect ratios will have rather different behavior depending on the
direction in which the damage occurs.
I. Some mesh sensitivity remains because of this effect, and elements that are as close to
square as possible are recommended.
II. However, since the damage evolution law is energy based, mesh dependency of the results
may be alleviated.
240
L8.17
Difficulties associated with element removal and LCF
When elements are removed from the model, their nodes remain in the model even if they are not
attached to any active elements.
When the solution progresses, these nodes might undergo non-physical displacements in
Abaqus/Standard.
I. For example, applying a point load to a node that is not attached to an active element will
cause convergence difficulties since there is no stiffness to resist the load.
It is the user’s responsibility to prevent such situations.
L8.18
Low-cycle Fatigue at Material Interfaces (1/15)
Delamination growth in composites due to sub-critical cyclic loadings is a widespread concern for the
aerospace industry.
The low-cycle fatigue criterion available in Abaqus models progressive delamination growth at interfaces
in laminated composites subjected to sub-critical cyclic loadings.
The interface along which the delamination (or crack) propagates must be indicated in the model.
The onset and growth of fatigue delamination at the interfaces are characterized by the relative
fracture energy release rate
I. The fracture energy release rates at the crack tips in the interface elements are calculated
based on the VCCT technique.
241
L8.19
The onset and fatigue delamination growth at

the interfaces are characterized by using the
Paris Law, which relates crack growth rates
da/dN to the relative fracture energy release
rate G,
G = Gmax – Gmin
where Gmax and Gmin correspond to the strain

energy release rates when the structure is

loaded up to Pmax and Pmin, respectively.
The Paris regime is bounded by Gthresh and Gpl.
Below Gthresh, there is no fatigue crack

initiation or growth.
Above Gpl, the fatigue crack will grow at a: crack length

an accelerated rate. N: number of cycles
G: strain energy release rate
Gthresh: strain energy release rate threshold
Gpl: strain energy release rate upper limit
GequivC: critical equivalent strain
energy release rate
L8.20
GequivC is calculated based on the

user-specified mode-mix criterion
and the bond strength of the interface.
This was discussed previously
Onset of fatigue delamination

The fatigue crack growth initiation

criterion is defined as:
N
f   1.0,
c1G c2
The interface elements at the

crack tips will not be released unless the a: crack length
above equation is satisfied and Gmax  N: number of cycles
Gthresh. G: strain energy release rate
energy release rate
242
L8.21
Fatigue delamination growth
Once the delamination growth criterion is

satisfied at the interface, the crack growth rate
da/dN can be calculated based on G.
da/dN is given by the Paris Law if

Gthresh< Gmax< Gpl,
da
 c3G c4
dN
a: crack length
N: number of cycles
G: strain energy release rate
energy release rate
L8.22
Fatigue crack growth governed by the Paris Law
a: crack length
N: number of cycles
If Gthresh < Gmax < Gpl
N: incremental number of cycles
G = Gmax(Pmax) – Gmin(Pmin) c1, c2 , c3, c4: material constants
1 2
Calculate the relative fracture energy Crack initiation: No  c1G c2
release rate, G, when the structure

da
is loaded between its maximum and Crack evolution:  c3G c4
minimum values. dN
aN N  aN  Nc3G c 4
If N + N > No
N + N
3
Release the most Damage extrapolation: Calculate the
critical element incremental number of cycles, N,
for each crack tip and find minimum
cycles to fail, Nmin
Repeat the above process until the maximum number of cycles is reached or until the ultimate load
carrying capability is reached.
243
L8.23
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:
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=[BK|REEDER]

c1, c2, c3, c4, Gthresh/GequivC, Gpl/GequivC, GIC, GIIC
GIIIC, , , fv
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER

c1, c2, c3, c4, Gthresh/GequivC, Gpl/GequivC, GIC, GIIC
GIIIC, am, an, ao, , fv
By default, Gthresh/GequivC = 0.01 and Gpl/GequivC = 0.85.
Note: Defining the low-cycle criterion is not currently supported in Abaqus/CAE.
L8.24
Example: Low-cycle fatigue prediction for the DCB model
This case consists of the following steps:
Step 1: VCCT analysis
I. This step can be used to check whether the peak loading leads to static crack propagation.
Step 2: Low-cycle fatigue analysis
I. This step assesses the fatigue life of the DCB model subjected to sub-critical cyclic loading.
u2 bond
u2
 =0.001
TopSurf
BotSurf
0 t
0 0.5 1
displacement loading in one cycle
u2
244
L8.25
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, MASTER=BotSurf
*STEP, NLGEOM *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,
*STATIC Step 2: MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK

... Fatigue 0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
*DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, analysis 280,2.284
MASTER=BotSurf *OUTPUT, FIELD
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, *CONTACT OUTPUT
Step 1:
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT
VCCT
280, 280, 280, 2.284 ...
analysis
*OUTPUT, FIELD *END STEP
*CONTACT OUTPUT, SLAVE=TopSurf,
MASTER=BotSurf
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS,
ENRRT bond
*END STEP
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.26
The procedure to complete the DCB model through ...

the first step (the VCCT analysis) is exactly the same *CONTACT PAIR, SMALL SLIDING
as that discussed previously. TopSurf, BotSurf
model
data *INITIAL CONDITIONS, TYPE=CONTACT
1 Define contact pairs for potential crack
surfaces TopSurf, BotSurf, bond
*STEP, NLGEOM
2 Define initially bonded crack surfaces *STATIC
...
3 Activate the crack propagation capability in the *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
first step *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT,

Step 1:
4 Specify the VCCT criterion in the first step (a VCCT
static, general step) 280, 280, 280, 2.284
analysis
*OUTPUT, FIELD
*CONTACT OUTPUT
The details of defining the low-cycle fatigue analysis
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT
(the second step) will be discussed next.
...
*END STEP
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
245
L8.27
5 Define the low-cycle fatigue analysis

...
The following data are used to define this low- *STEP, INC=5000
cycle fatigue analysis: Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
Initial time increment: 0.25 sec 0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
Time of a single loading cycle: 1 sec ,,1000
Initial number of terms in the Fourier
series: 25
Maximum number of terms in the
Fourier series: 25
Maximum number of iterations
allowed in the step: 5
Total number of cycles allowed in
the step: 1000
Default values are used for all other
entries.
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.28
6 Activate the crack propagation capability

...
Similar to the VCCT analysis, the *DEBOND *STEP, INC=5000
option is used to activate the crack propagation Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
in the low-cycle fatigue analysis step. *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
The SLAVE and MASTER parameters ,,1000
identify the surfaces to be debonded. *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
246
L8.29
7 Specify the low-cycle fatigue criterion

...
In this model, the material constants are *STEP, INC=5000
assumed to be the following: Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
N 0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
c1 = 0.5, f   1.0
c1G c2 ,,1000
c2 = –0.1
da *DEBOND, SLAVE=TopSurf, MASTER=BotSurf
c3 = 4.8768E–6  c3G c4 *FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,

dN
c4 = 1.15 MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK
Note: The values of these material 0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
constants should be determined 280,2.284
experimentally. GIC GIIC
GIIIC 
The BK model (default) is used.
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
L8.30
8 Request output
...
The output options for the low-cycle fatigue *STEP, INC=5000
criterion are same as those for the VCCT Low-cycle Fatigue Analysis
criterion. *DIRECT CYCLIC, FATIGUE
0.25,1,,,25,25,,5
,,1000
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=FATIGUE,

0.5,-0.1,4.8768E-6,1.15,,,280,280
280,2.284
*OUTPUT, FIELD
*CONTACT OUTPUT
BDSTAT, DBT, DBS, OPENBC, CRSTS, ENRRT
bond
TopSurf BotSurf
247
L8.31
Results
initially bonded nodes delamination

N=1 N=11
N=21 N=51
N is the number of cycles
L8.32
More results
delamination growth after 100 loading cycles
crack length vs. cycle number
248
Notes
249
250
Notes
L9.1
Lesson 9: Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)
Lesson content:
Introduction
Basic XFEM Concepts
Damage Modeling
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM

Example 3 – Low Cycle Fatigue
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack
Example 5 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack Propagation
Example 6 – Contour Integrals
Modeling Tips
Limitations
Workshop 6: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM
Workshop 7: Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
3 hours
L9.2
Introduction (1/4)
The fracture modeling methods discussed so far only permit crack propagation along predefined element
boundaries
This lecture presents a technique for modeling bulk fracture which permits a crack to be located
in the element interior
The crack location is independent of the mesh

251
L9.3
Introduction (2/4)
This modeling technique…
Can be used in conjunction with the cohesive zone model or the virtual crack closure technique
Delamination can be modeled in conjunction with bulk crack propagation
Can determine the load carrying capacity of a cracked structure

What is the maximum allowable flaw size for safe operation?
Can be used in general static and implicit dynamics procedures
Applications of this technique include the modeling of bulk fracture and the modeling of failure in composites
Cracks in pressure vessels and other engineering structures
Fiber and matrix cracking in laminated composites
L9.4
Introduction (3/4)
Some advantages of the method:
Ease of initial crack definition
Mesh is generated independent of the crack

Partitioning of geometry not needed at the crack location as in the case of conventional FEM
Nonlinear material and nonlinear geometric analysis

Solution-dependent crack initiation and propagation path
Crack path and the crack location do not have to be specified a priori
Mesh refinement studies are much simpler
Reduced remeshing effort
Improved convergence rates in case of stationary cracks
Due to the use of singular crack tip enrichment
252
L9.5
Introduction (4/4)
Mesh-independent crack modeling – basic ingredients
1. Need a way to incorporate discontinuous geometry – the crack – and the discontinuous solution field
into the finite element basis functions
eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM)
2. Need to quantify the magnitude of the discontinuity – the displacement jump across the crack faces
Cohesive zone model (CZM)

VCCT – Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
3. Need a method to locate the discontinuity
Level set method (LSM)
4. Crack initiation and propagation criteria
At what level of stress or strain does the crack initiate?

What is the direction of propagation?
These topics will be discussed in this lecture
L9.6
Basic XFEM Concepts (1/7)
eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) background
XFEM extends the piecewise polynomial function space of conventional finite element methods with
extra functions
The solution space is enriched by the extra “enrichment functions”

Introduced by Belytschko and Black (1999) based on the partition of unity method of Babuska
and Melenk (1997)
Can be used where conventional FEM fails or is prohibitively expensive
Appropriate enrichment functions are chosen for a class of problems
Inclusion of a priori knowledge of partial differential equation behavior into finite element space
(singularities, discontinuities, ...)
Applications include modeling fracture, void growth, phase change ...
Enrichment functions for fracture modeling
Heaviside function to represent displacement jump across crack face

Crack tip asymptotic function to model singularity
253
L9.7
XFEM displacement interpolation
Heaviside enrichment term

H(x) Heaviside distribution
aI Nodal enriched DOF (jump discontinuity)
NG Nodes belonging to elements cut by crack
 
 4 
u h (x)   N I (x)  u I  H (x )a I   Fa (x)baI 
I N  I NG
a 1 
 I N  
uI Nodal DOF for conventional Crack tip enrichment term

shape functions NI Fa(x) Crack tip asymptotic functions
baI Nodal DOF (crack tip enrichment)

NG Nodes belonging to elements containing crack tip
L9.8
The crack tip and Heaviside enrichment functions are multiplied by the conventional shape functions
Hence enrichment is local around the crack
Sparseness 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
n crack
s
 1 if (x  x* )  n  0
H ( x)   
1 otherwise  x*
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*
254
L9.9
Crack tip enrichment functions (stationary cracks only)
Account for crack tip singularity
Use displacement field basis functions for sharp cracks in an isotropic linear elastic material
q q q q
[ Fa ( x), a  1 - 4]  [ r sin , r cos , r sin q sin , r sin q cos ]
2 2 2 2
Here (r, q ) denote coordinate values from a polar coordinate system located at the crack tip
L9.10
Phantom node approach (propagating cracks)
Discontinuous element with Heaviside enrichment is treated as a single element with real and phantom
nodes that gets split into two parts
Does not include the asymptotic crack tip enrichment functions
Introduced by Belytschko and coworkers (2006) based on the superposed element formulation of
Hansbo and Hansbo (2004)
255
L9.11
Level set method for locating a crack
A level set (also called level surface or isosurface) of a real-valued function is the set of all points at
which the function attains a specified value
Example: the zero-valued level set of f (x, y) : x2  y2  r2 is a circle of radius r centered at the
origin
Popular technique for representing surfaces in interface tracking problems
Two functions F and Y are used to completely describe the crack
The level set F = 0 represents the crack face

The intersection of level sets Y = 0 and F = 0 denotes the crack front
Functions are defined by nodal values whose spatial variation is determined by the usual finite
element shape functions (example follows)
Function values need to be specified only at nodes belonging to elements cut by the crack
L9.12
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 0.25 1.5
3 4
4 0.25 1.0
1.5
256
L9.13
Damage Modeling
Two distinct types of damage modeling within an XFEM framework
Cohesive damage
Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM)
Cohesive damage
Uses traction-separation laws

Follows the general framework introduced earlier for element-based cohesive behavior
Damage properties are specified as part of the bulk material definition
LEFM-based damage
Uses the virtual crack closure technique (VCCT)

VCCT for XFEM uses the same principles as those presented earlier
Damage properties are specified via an interaction property assigned to the XFEM crack
Enables modeling low-cycle fatigue
L9.14
Cohesive Damage Modeling (1/8)
Cohesive Damage Initiation Criteria
Three stress-based and three strain-based damage initiation criteria are readily available
Maximum nominal stress (MAXS) and maximum nominal strain (MAXE)

Quadratic nominal stress (QUADS) and quadratic nominal strain (QUADE)
Maximum principal stress (MAXPS) and maximum principal strain (MAXPE)
In addition, a user-defined damage initiation criterion can be specified in user subroutine UDMGINI (not
discussed here)
Crack initiation occurs at the center of enriched elements
257
L9.15
Maximum nominal stress (MAXS) and maximum nominal strain (MAXE) criteria
Initiation occurs when the maximum nominal stress or strain reaches a critical value
      for  n  0
MAXS MAX  n , t , s   f n   n
 N max Tmax S max 
0 for  n  0
 for  n  0
 n t s 
MAXE MAX  max , max , max  f n   n

 n  t  s  0 for  n  0
The damage initiation criterion is satisfied when 1.0 ≤ f ≤ 1.0 + ftol where ftol is a user-specified tolerance
value (default is 0.05)
Similar to the criterion used in conjunction with element-based cohesive behavior
User may specify a local material direction as the crack plane normal
L9.16
Maximum nominal stress (MAXS) and maximum nominal strain (MAXE) criteria (cont’d)
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { MAXS | MAXE },

NORMAL DIRECTION = {1 (default)| 2}, TOLERANCE = {0.05 (default)}
258
L9.17
Quadratic nominal stress (QUADS) and quadratic nominal strain (QUADE)
2 2 2
 n   t    s  2
  n    s   t 
2 2
      1  max    max    max   1
 N max   Tmax   Smax    n    s   t 
Similarities with MAXS and MAXE

User selects the crack plane normal

User specifies critical values of normal and shear stresses (strains)
User interface in Abaqus/CAE similar to that of MAXS/MAXE
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { QUADS | QUADE },
NORMAL DIRECTION = {1 (default)| 2},
TOLERANCE = {0.05 (default)}
L9.18
Maximum principal stress (MAXPS) and maximum principal strain (MAXPE) criteria
Initiation occurs when the maximum principal stress or strain reaches a critical value ( f 1)
n n
MAXPS f  MAXPE f 
 max
0
 max
0
Crack plane is solution-dependent
Perpendicular to the direction of the maximum principal stress (or strain)
Can handle a changing crack plane and crack propagation direction
259
L9.19
Maximum principal stress (MAXPS) and maximum principal strain (MAXPE) criteria (cont’d)
* DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION = { MAXPS, MAXPE },

TOLERANCE = {value}
L9.20
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

260
L9.21
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
L9.22
LEFM-based Damage Modeling (1/3)
Linear elastic fracture mechanics in an XFEM framework
A critical strain energy release rate criterion based on the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT)
Specified as an interaction property in association with an XFEM crack

Similar to VCCT used in conjunction with surface-based cohesive behavior
Three mode-mix formulae available: the BK law, the power law, and the Reeder law models
Good choice for brittle fracture
User must specify the crack plane normal direction a priori
The maximum tangential stress (MTS) direction is used as the default normal direction for the
crack plane
Can choose local 1- or 2- directions
Although VCCT requires a crack to calculate the energy release rate, the LEFM approach can be used
when no initial crack is present
Specify damage initiation in the material property definition

VCCT becomes active when damage initiation criteria are met
261
L9.23
User interface
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=LEFM-contact-property

*SURFACE BEHAVIOR
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE = VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = POWER,
NORMAL DIRECTION = MTS, VISCOSITY = 0.0001
4220.,4220.,4220.,1.,1.,1.
L9.24
Low-cycle fatigue
The onset and fatigue crack growth are characterized by using the Paris law (discussed previously)
Defined in the framework of direct cyclic procedure (discussed previously)
Assumes a pre-existing crack (follows aero-industry practice)

If you perform a fatigue analysis in a model without a pre-existing crack, you must precede the
fatigue step with a static step that nucleates a crack
The crack can then grow along an arbitrary path under cyclic fatigue loading
Usage (not currently supported by Abaqus/CAE)
*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=LCF-contact-property

*SURFACE BEHAVIOR
:
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE = FATIGUE,
MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR = BK | POWER | REEDER
262
L9.25
Creating an XFEM Fracture Model (1/5)
Steps
1. Define damage criteria
a. If cohesive damage is being used, define damage criteria in the material model
b. If LEFM is being used, then specify damage criteria in the interaction property definition
2. Define an enrichment region

Crack type – stationary (3D only) or propagating (2D or 3D)
3. Define an initial crack, if present, and assign the appropriate interaction property
4. If needed, set analysis controls to aid convergence
L9.26
Steps will be illustrated later through the following examples
Crack initiation and propagation in a plate with a hole
Cohesive damage
LEFM
Propagation of an existing crack

Delamination and through-thickness crack propagation in a DCB
Contour integral evaluation
263
L9.27
Step-dependent enrichment activation
Crack growth can be activated or deactivated in analysis steps
*STEP 1
.
.
.
*ENRICHMENT, NAME=Crack-1, ACTIVATE=[ON|OFF]
L9.28
Output quantities
Two output variables are especially useful
PHILSM
I. The scaled signed distance function F used to represent the crack surface
II. The scale factor is chosen on a per element basis.
III. Needed for visualizing the crack
STATUSXFEM
I. Indicates the status of the element with a value between 0.0 and 1.0
II. 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
264
L9.29
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)
L9.30
Example 1 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using Cohesive Damage (1/11)
Model crack initiation and propagation in a plate with a hole
Crack initiates at the location of maximum stress concentration
Half model is used to take advantage of symmetry
Modeled using traction-separation based cohesive damage

Subsequently, we will consider LEFM in Example 2
Reference: Abaqus Benchmark Problem 1.19.2
265
L9.31
1 Define the damage criteria
Damage initiation
*MATERIAL
.
.
.
*DAMAGE INITIATION, CRITERION=MAXPS, TOL=0.01
22e6
Damage initiation tolerance (default 0.05)
L9.32
1 Define the damage criteria (cont’d)
Damage evolution

22e6
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=1.0
2870.0, 2870.0, 2870.0
266
L9.33
1 Define the damage criteria (cont’d)

22e6
*DAMAGE EVOLUTION, TYPE=ENERGY, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=BK, POWER=1.0
2870.0, 2870.0, 2870.0

1.e-5
Coefficient of viscosity m
L9.34
2 Define the enriched region

Pick enriched region

Propagating crack
Specify contact interaction

(frictionless small-sliding contact only)
267
L9.35
2 Define the enriched region (cont’d)
Keyword interface
*ENRICHMENT, TYPE=PROPAGATION CRACK, NAME=CRACK-1,

ELSET=SELECTED_ELEMENTS, INTERACTION=CONTACT-1
Frictionless small-sliding contact interaction
3 No initial crack definition is needed
Crack will initiate based on specified damage criteria
L9.36
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior
Set reasonable minimum and maximum increment sizes for step

Increase the number of increments for step from the default value of 100
*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=1000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
268
L9.37
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior (cont’d)
Use numerical scheme applicable to discontinuous analysis

*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
L9.38
4 Set analysis controls to improve convergence behavior (cont’d)
Increase value of maximum number of attempts before abandoning increment

(increased to 20 from the default value of 5)
*STEP, NLGEOM=YES
*STATIC, inc=10000
0.01, 1.0, 1.0e-09, 0.01
.
.
.
*CONTROLS, ANALYSIS=DISCONTINUOUS
*CONTROLS, PARAMETER=TIME INCREMENTATION
, , , , , , , 20
8th field
269
L9.39
Output requests
Request PHILSM and STATUSXFEM in addition to the usual output for static analysis
PHILSM is needed for visualizing the crack

L9.40
Postprocessing
Crack isosurface (Crack_PHILSM) created and displayed automatically
Field and history quantities of interest can be plotted and animated as usual
270
L9.41
Example 2 – Crack Initiation and Propagation using LEFM (1/5)
Same problem studied in Example 1 modeled here using LEFM
Half-symmetry model of a rectangular plate with a hole in the center.
Modeled using LEFM-based VCCT

L9.42
1 Define the damage criteria
Specify damage initiation as part of the material definition as described in Example 1
Damage evolution and stabilization will be specified as part of the interaction property definition.
*DAMAGE INITIATION,CRITERION=MAXPS,TOL=0.01
22e6
271
L9.43
2 Define an interaction property with fracture criterion

*SURFACE INTERACTION, NAME=CONTACT

*SURFACE BEHAVIOR
*FRACTURE CRITERION, TYPE=VCCT, MIXED MODE BEHAVIOR=POWER, NORMAL
DIRECTION=MTS, TOLERANCE=0.1, VISCOSITY=1E-05
2870., 2870., 2870., 1., 1., 1.
L9.44
1 Define the enrichment region and assign the interaction property using the crack editor as described earlier
2 No initial crack is required - VCCT will become active once the damage initiation criteria specified as part of
the material definition are met
3 Set time incrementation parameters and analysis controls as described earlier
4 Request PHILSM and STATUSXFEM as described earlier

272
L9.45
Postprocessing
Animate the stress contours and the load-displacement curve

L9.46
Example 3 – Low Cycle Fatigue (1/2)
Same problem studied in Example 2 but subjected to cyclic distributed loading

*surface interaction, name=contact
*surface behavior
*fracture criterion, type=vcct, mixed mode behavior=power,
normal direction=mts, tolerance=0.1, viscosity=1e-05
2870., 2870., 2870., 1., 1., 1.
Described in *fracture criterion,type=fatigue,mixed mode behavior=power
Lecture 8 0.5, -0.1, 4.8768e-6, 1.15, 0.001, , 2870, 2870
2870., 1., 1., 1.
A static load nucleates a crack; followed by subcritical loading
*step, nlgeom
*static
:
*cload, amp=over
tdisp, 2, 1
:
*end step
*step, inc=10000
*direct cyclic, fatigue
0.01,1,,,25,25,,30
3,6,35,1.1
*cload, amp=subcrit
tdisp, 2, 1
:
*end step
273
L9.47
Example 3 – Low Cycle Fatigue (2/2)
Results
L9.48
Example 4 – Propagation of an Existing Crack (1/4)
Model with crack subjected to mixed mode loading
Initial crack needs to be defined
Crack propagates at an angle dictated by mode mix ratio at crack tip

274
L9.49
1 Define damage criteria in the material model as described in Example 1
2 Specify the enriched region as in Example 1
3 Define the initial crack
Two methods are available to define initial crack in Abaqus/CAE

1. Create a separate part representing the crack surface or line and assemble it along with the part
representing the structure to be analyzed
2. Create an internal face or edge representing the crack in the part
Method 1 is preferred as it takes full advantage of the mesh-independent crack representation possible
using XFEM
Meshing is easier using this method
Method 2 will create nodes on the internal crack face
Element faces/edges are forced to align with the crack
L9.50
3 Define the initial crack (cont’d)
The crack location can be an

edge or a surface belonging to

the same instance as the
enriched region or to a different
instance (preferred)
** 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
F Y
Relative Node Order in Connectivity
275
L9.51
The other steps are as described in Example 1 and are in line with those necessary for the usual static
analysis procedure
L9.52
Example 5 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack (1/2)
Model through-thickness crack propagation using XFEM and delamination using surface-based cohesive
behavior in a double cantilever beam specimen
Interlaminar crack grows initially
Through-thickness crack forms once interlaminar crack becomes long enough and the longitudinal
stress value builds up due to bending
The point at which the through-thickness crack forms depends upon the relative failure stress values of
the bulk material and the interface
276
L9.53
Example 5 – Delamination and Through-thickness Crack (2/2)
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
L9.54
Example 6 – Contour Integrals (1/4)
XFEM is significantly easier to use compared to traditional focused mesh approaches for the purpose of
evaluating contour integrals
The mesh does not have to conform to crack geometry
The data required for the contour integral are determined automatically based on the level set
signed distance functions at the nodes in an element.
Similar interface to that available for traditional contour integral calculations:
*CONTOUR INTEGRAL, XFEM,

CONTOURS= n,
TYPE={J, C, T STRESS, K FACTORS}
277
L9.55
Semi-elliptical crack in a half-space
Stationary crack
Dummy part representing the crack

location; the part is instanced in the
assembly but is not meshed and no
properties are assigned to it
L9.56
Results
278
L9.57
Some limitations:
Only the asymptotic crack tip fields in an isotropic elastic material are currently considered for a
stationary crack
Contour integral evaluation with XFEM is currently limited to first-order or second-order

tetrahedral and first-order brick elements with isotropic elastic material properties
L9.58
Modeling Tips (1/4)
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
Crack propagates completely through an element in one increment
Only the initial crack tip can lie within an element
279
L9.59
Modeling Tips (2/4)
The enrichment region must not include “hotspots” due to boundary conditions or other modeling artifacts
Otherwise, unintended cracks may initiate at such locations
Damage initiation tolerance
A larger value may result in multiple cracks initiating in a region

Small value results in a small increment size and slower convergence
As mentioned earlier, judicious use of viscous regularization can aid in convergence
Avoid specifying initial cracks tangential to element boundaries
Convergence difficulties may arise
Use displacement control rather than load control
Crack propagation may be unstable under load control
L9.60
Modeling Tips (3/4)
Limit maximum increment size and start with a good guess for the 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)
280
L9.61
Modeling Tips (4/4)
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
Defining a through-thickness crack in a cylindrical vessel
L9.62
Limitations (1/2)
Can use only linear brick and linear/quadratic tet continuum elements
CAX4, CPE4, CPS4, C3D8 and their reduced integration/incompatible mode counterparts
C3D4, C3D10(H)
Intended for single or a few non-interacting cracks in the structure

Shattering cannot be modeled
An element cannot be cut by more than one crack
Cracks cannot turn more than 90 degrees in one increment
Cracks cannot branch
Element processing can be done in parallel using MPI
Thread-based parallel processing is not available
281
L9.63
Limitations (2/2)
The first signed distance function F must be non-zero
If the crack lies along an element boundary, a small positive or negative value should be used
This slightly offsets the crack from the element boundary
Frictional small-sliding contact is considered

The small-sliding assumption will result in nonphysical contact behavior if the relative sliding between
the contacting surfaces is indeed large
Only enriched regions can have a material model with damage
If only a portion of the model needs to be enriched define an extra material model with no damage for
the regions not enriched
Probing field quantities on an element currently returns values only from the “lower” element (corresponding to
negative values of F)
L9.64
Workshop 6: Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM
1. In this workshop, you will continue with the analysis of a cracked beam subjected to pure bending using XFEM
a. Create and instance a part to represent the crack geometry
b. Use the crack editor to create an enriched region and specify an initial crack.
c. Request XFEM-related output
d. Specify analysis controls to aid convergence
45 minutes
282
L9.65
Workshop 7: Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel with Abaqus using XFEM
1. In this workshop, you will model crack propagation in a pressure vessel

2. This workshop demonstrates:
a. The ease of crack definition compared to techniques presented in earlier lectures
b. Use of visualization tools to probe internal crack surfaces in a three-dimensional part
45 minutes
283
284
Notes
285
286
Notes
Workshop 1
Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen
Introduction
An edge crack in a three-point bend specimen in plane strain, subjected to Mode I
loading, is considered (see Figure W1–1). The crack length to specimen width ratio is
0.2. The length of the specimen is 55 mm, and its width is 10 mm. The material is
assumed to be linear elastic, with Young's modulus E = 2E5 MPa and Poisson's ratio
 = 0.3. The loading is in the form of bending moments applied to the ends of the
specimen. Small deformation conditions are assumed.
55 mm
M b=10 mm M =1075
N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
Figure W1–1 Schematic of the three-point bend specimen.
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop:
../fracture/bending
2. Run the script ws_fracture_3pt_bend.py using the following command:
abaqus cae startup=ws_fracture_3pt_bend.py
This script creates an Abaqus database file named three-point-bend.cae in the
current directory. The geometry, material, step, and loading definitions for the specimen
are included in the model named focused. The bending moments are applied to the ends
of the specimen using kinematic coupling constraints. In this workshop, you will perform
a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip using a series of different mesh
configurations. The results will be compared with the theoretical value.
© Dassault Systèmes, 2012 Modeling Fracture and Failure with Abaqus
287
W1.2
Focused mesh
You will begin by considering the case of a focused mesh around the crack tip.
1. In the context bar, select focused from the Model drop-down list.
2. In the Part module, click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and sketch a
vertical line of length 2.0 mm through the center of the plate, as shown in
Figure W1–2. This line represents the crack. Also, sketch a circle of radius
0.5 mm centered at the crack tip. This operation creates a circular partition
around the crack tip which will facilitate swept meshing.
Figure W1–2 Circular partition around the crack tip
The detailed steps are outlined below:

 Sketch a vertical line through the center of the plate (using the Create
Lines: Connected tool ) then dimension it to 2
(Add→Dimension or use in the toolbox), as shown in the
following figure.
 Sketch a circle using the Create Circle: Center and Perimeter tool
. Select the points indicated below (left) as the center and perimeter
points (the perimeter point should snap to the vertical line as indicated
by the small “○” at the intersection of the circle and line).
 If you happen to snap the perimeter point to the midpoint of the
vertical line, you will find that an Equal distance constraint ( ) is
also created. If this happens, delete the Equal distance constraint to
avoid overconstraining the sketch.
 Afterwards, dimension the radius of the circle, and edit its value so
that it is equal to 0.5, as shown below (right).
288
W1.3
center
perimeter
3. The crack-tip singularity may only be specified for independent part instances.
The part currently assumes the default dependent state. Thus, in the Model
Tree, expand the Assembly and then expand the list of instances. Click
mouse button 3 (MB3) on the instance named plate-1. In the menu that
appears, select Make Independent.
Quarter-point nodes with a single crack-tip node
To complete the model, you must define the crack and the output, generate the mesh, and
create a job.
Crack definition
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Engineering Features container underneath
the Assembly. In the list that appears, double-click Cracks.
2. In the Create Crack dialog box, select Contour integral and click Continue.
3. Select the vertex highlighted in Figure W1–3 as the crack front. Choose the q
vectors method to define the crack extension direction.
Figure W1–3 Crack front/tip
289
W1.4
4. Select the vertices highlighted in Figure W1–4 as the start and end points of
the vector.
end q
start
Figure W1–4 q vector direction
5. In the Singularity tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, set the midside
node parameter to 0.25 and choose Collapsed element side, single node
as the element control. This introduces a square-root singularity at the crack
tip.
6. From the main menu bar, select Special→Crack→Assign Seam to define
the crack seam. Select the entire length of the crack, as indicated in Figure
W1–5, to define the seam (use Shift+Click to select multiple entities or use
the by angle selection technique). The elements on either side of this seam
will not share nodes.
Figure W1–5 Crack seam

Output
1. In the Model Tree, double-click History Output Requests to create a contour
integral history output request. In the Edit History Output Request dialog
box, select Crack as the domain type, and choose the crack defined earlier as
the domain. Set the number of contours to 5 and request J-integral output.
2. Repeat the above step, this time choosing Stress intensity factors as the
output type.
Mesh
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Instances container underneath the Assembly
and double-click Mesh underneath the instance named plate-1.
2. Assign a global seed size of 1.0 to the part (Seed→Instance).
290
W1.5
3. Assign local edge seeds to the circular region surrounding the crack tip
(Seed→Edges):
a. In the Local Seeds dialog box, choose By number as the method and
specify 16 elements along the circular edge.
b. Specify 4 elements along the straight edge within the circular region. No
additional constraints are required.
4. Assign swept mesh controls to the circular region (Mesh→Controls; choose
Quad-dominated as the element shape and Sweep as the technique).
5. Assign the Quad element shape using the Medial axis algorithm to the rest of
the part.
6. Assign quadratic, reduced integration plane strain elements (CPE8R) to all
regions of the plate (Mesh→Element Type).
7. Generate the mesh (Mesh→Instance). It should appear similar to the one
shown in Figure W1–6.
Figure W1–6 Part mesh: entire part (left); close up of crack tip (right)
8. Query the elements attached to the crack tip to verify that their connectivity is
that of a collapsed quadrilateral element with a repeated node at the crack tip
(Tools→Query). For example, for the element highlighted in Figure W1–7,
the connectivity would be similar to that appearing at the bottom of the figure.
Note: The actual model connectivity may be different but with the same
pattern.
291
W1.6
Figure W1–7 Element connectivity at the crack tip
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the
job cpe8r-constrain-qtr.
2. Click mouse button 3 on the job name and select Submit from the menu that
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the
progress of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file
for this job (cpe8r-constrain-qtr.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open cpe8r-constrain-qtr.odb in the
Visualization module. Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part.
The deformed model shape (Plot→Deformed Shape) and Mises stress
distribution (Plot→Contours→On Deformed Shape) are shown in Figure
W1–8 and Figure W1–9 (using a deformation scale factor of approximately
250). The stress state is highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip. Away
from the crack tip, the stress state exhibits the pattern characteristic of pure
bending (Figure W1–10 shows the longitudinal stress S11).
Tip: To change the contour plot variable, select Result→Field Output from
the main menu bar and choose the appropriate variable for contouring.
Alternatively, use the Field Output toolbar.
Figure W1–8 Deformed model shape
292
W1.7
Figure W1–9 Mises stress distribution
Figure W1–10 Longitudinal stress distribution (S11)
2. Next, identify the domains for each contour. In the Results Tree, expand the
Node Sets container underneath the output database named cpe8r-
constrain-qtr.odb; double-click any set beginning with H-OUTPUT. The
five contour domains are shown in Figure W1–11. Note that each successive
contour domain contains the previous domain within its boundaries.
Figure W1–11 Contour integral domains

3. For each contour, plot the J-integral and the KI values:
a. In the Results Tree, click mouse button 3 on the History Output
container. From the menu that appears, select Filter.
b. In the filter field, enter J-int* to restrict the history output to just the J-
integral data.
c. Select all curves of the form J-integral: J at H-OUTPUT-*, and click
mouse button 3; from the menu that appears, select Plot.
d. Similarly, select and plot all curves of the form Stress intensity factor
K1: K1 at H-OUTPUT-* (filter the container according to Stress*).
293
W1.8
The results appear in Figure W1–12. As is seen in the figure, the values have
converged and exhibit path independence.
Note: Double-click the Y-axis in the curves to adjust the axis limits.
Figure W1–12 J-integral and KI values

4. Even though the differences in the values of J (and K) for each contour appear
to be small, common practice dictates that the first (and sometimes the
second) contour value be neglected to prevent adverse numerical effects due
to the singularity from influencing the interpretation of the results. Thus,
compute the average value of KI for contours 3-5 and enter the value in Table
W1–1.
Tip: To readily compute the average value, select the three curves indicated
above in the Results Tree, and click mouse button 3. From the menu that
appears, select Save As. In the Save XY Data As dialog box, select avg as
the operation that should be performed prior to saving the data. Then query
the data (Tools→Query; select Probe Values in the Query dialog box).
Analysis case KI (MPamm)
Theoretical 170. 24
Element type Midside node Crack tip: Single or Singularity
parameter duplicate nodes
CPE8R (focused) 0.25 Single node 1/r

CPE8R (focused) 0.25 Duplicate nodes A/r + B/r
CPE8R (focused) 0.5 Single node none
CPE8R (unfocused) 0.25 Single node 1/r (along edges)

CPE8R (unfocused) 0.5 Single node none
Table W1–1 KI values for parametric study
294
W1.9
Quarter-point nodes with independent crack-tip nodes
Edit the crack definition and select Collapsed element side, duplicate nodes as the
element control to allow each crack-tip element to possess independent crack-tip nodes.
Regenerate the mesh. Create a new job named cpe8r-indep-qtr and run the job.
Evaluate the results and enter the average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Mid-point nodes with a single crack-tip node
Edit the crack definition and select Collapsed element side, single node as the element
control and set the midside node parameter to 0.5. Regenerate the mesh. Create a new
job named cpe8r-constrain-half and run the job. Evaluate the results and enter the
average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Unfocused mesh
You will now use an unfocused, rectangular mesh to analyze the problem. Begin by
copying the model named focused to one named unfocused. All subsequent
instructions apply to the unfocused model.
Rectangular second-order mesh
Edit the part features to remove the circular face partition created at the beginning of this
exercise.
Tip: In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container. In the list of features underneath the
plate, double-click Partition face-1. In the Edit Feature dialog box, click . In the
toolbox, click the Delete Entities tool and select the circle as the feature to be
deleted.
In the Interaction module, redefine the seam and the crack front (reselect the crack tip,
and set the midside node parameter equal to 0.25 using no degeneracy).
In the Mesh module, delete all edge seeds ( ) and assign a global seed size of 1.0 to
the entire part and element type CPE8R to all regions. Also assign the Quad element
shape using the Medial axis algorithm using the mesh controls ( ). Re-mesh the part
instance.
Create a new job named cpe8r-unfocused-qtr and run the job. Evaluate the results
and enter the average value of KI for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Change the midside node parameter to 0.5 and create a new job named cpe8r-
unfocused-half. Run the job, evaluate the results, and enter the average value of KI
for contours 3-5 in Table W1–1.
Save your model database file.
295
W1.10
Theoretical result
The theoretical result from Tada, Paris, and Irwin (1985) for a b  0.6 gives:
6M

b2
K I    aF a  b
 b   1.122  1.40  a b   7.33 a b   b  b
2 3 4
F a  13.08 a  14.0 a
Discussion
The results of the simulations are summarized in Table W1–2 below.
Analysis case KI (MPamm)
Theoretical 170. 24
Element type Midside node Crack tip: Single or Singularity
parameter duplicate nodes
CPE8R (focused) 0.25 Single node 1/r 170.63
CPE8R (focused) 0.25 Duplicate nodes A/r + B/r 170.63
CPE8R (focused) 0.5 Single node none 170.18

CPE8R (unfocused) 0.25 Single node 1/r (along edges) 170.46
CPE8R (unfocused) 0.5 Single node none 165.66
Table W1–2 KI values for parametric study (results)
296
W1.11
The focused mesh results show excellent agreement with the theoretical results for K and
J. Note that the mesh with quarter-point nodes and a single crack-tip node introduces a
1/r singularity into the crack-tip elements. Since this problem is governed by LEFM and
the strength of this singularity is consistent with LEFM, a high degree of accuracy is
expected. For most practical problems, however, the exact form of the singularity cannot
always be represented. As noted in the lecture, a stronger form than necessary is
recommended in these cases. As shown in this example, when a stronger form of the
singularity is used (by permitting the crack-tip nodes to behave independently), very
accurate results are indeed obtained.
If the singularity is not explicitly modeled, mesh refinement can be used to obtain
accurate results. In this example accurate values of K and J were obtained in the absence
of a singularity when the mesh was focused (i.e., refined). When the meshes were coarse
(as in the case of the unfocused meshes), the singularity introduced by the quarter-point
nodes significantly improved the estimates of K and J. Thus, the benefit of the singularity
is most apparent for coarse meshes.
For all cases, the overall accuracy of the near-tip stress and strain fields is enhanced by
including a singularity in the mesh. Singular meshes tend to do a better job capturing the
steep gradient in the asymptotic stress and strain fields ahead of the crack tip. In addition,
the singularity is necessary to achieve mesh convergence of the stress and deformation
fields. The near-tip fields of a coarse mesh with a singularity will converge more rapidly
than those of a finer mesh without a singularity.
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these instructions
is available for your convenience. Run this script if you encounter difficulties
following the instructions outlined here or if you wish to check your work. The
script is named ws_fracture_3pt_bend_answer.py and is available using the
Abaqus fetch utility.
297
298
Notes
299
300
Notes
Workshop 2
Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component
Introduction
A flanged plate with a reinforced central hole is considered (see Figure W2–1). This part
is representative of many features found in helicopter fuselage frames. In practice, cracks
initiate and grow from a corner defect on the inner edge of the hole. In this workshop,
however, we do not investigate crack initiation or growth; that will be studied in a later
workshop. Instead, we apply fracture mechanics concepts to investigate the sensitivity of
J and K for two different crack lengths. In one case, the crack is in the flat plate; in the
other, the crack extends to the fillet between the plate and the flange, as indicated in
Figure W2–1. Their locations will illustrate different meshing techniques available for
modeling sharp cracks in complex three-dimensional structures. The plate is made of
aluminum, with Young's modulus E = 7E4 MPa and Poisson's ratio  = 0.3. The loading
is in the form of an axial load applied to the bolt holes through kinematic coupling
constraints. In the interest of computational efficiency, a symmetric model is used. Small
deformation conditions are assumed. For reference, the stress state in the part when no
flaw exists is shown in Figure W2–2.
Second crack location
First crack location
Cracks initiate here

(studied later with
cohesive elements)
Figure W2–1 Symmetric portion of a helicopter airframe component.
301
W2.2
F=80000 N
Symmetry
Figure W2–2 Axial stress in the part in the absence of a flaw.
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop:
../fracture/damage
2. Run the script ws_fracture_damage.py using the following command:
abaqus cae startup=ws_fracture_damage.py
This script creates an Abaqus database file named damage.cae in the current directory.
The geometry, material, step, and loading definitions for the component are included in
the model named flaw-1. In this model, the overall component is broken up into two
parts: one named block (which contains everything but the flawed region) and one
named flaw-1 (which contains the region with the flaw), as shown in Figure W2–3. This
modeling approach allows you to focus on the smaller region containing the flaw
throughout the workshop. The two parts are tied together using surface-based tie
constraints.
flange
bore
flat plate
Figure W2–3 Parts used in model (block and flaw)
302
W2.3
In this workshop, you will perform a parametric study to evaluate J and K at the crack tip
for two different crack configurations.
Crack in the flat plate

To complete the model, you must partition the geometry and generate the mesh, define
the crack and the output, and create a job.
Partitions and meshing
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container and then expand flaw-1. In the
list that appears, double-click Mesh. In the Mesh module, click the Partition
Face: Use Shortest Path Between 2 Points icon (click and hold
to access the tool) and select the face and points indicated in Figure W2–4 as
the face to be partitioned and the start and end points, respectively.
Top face of plate
Partition this face using

the midpoints of the top
and bottom edges.
Figure W2–4 Line partition
2. Click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and select the top face of the flat
plate (indicated in Figure W2–4) as the face to be partitioned. In the Sketch
module, draw a circle of radius 2 centered at the vertex which was created by
the earlier partition. Place the perimeter point of the circle outside the part as
303
W2.4
Perimeter point
Figure W2–5 Circular partition
3. Select the Partition Cell: Extrude/Sweep Edges icon (click and hold
to access the tool) and select the flat region of the plate as the cell to be
partitioned. Extrude the semi-circular edge through the plate, as shown in
Figure W2–6.
Figure W2–6 Extruded partition
4. Click the Assign Mesh Controls icon and select the newly partitioned
cylindrical region as the one to which mesh controls will be assigned. The
region is colored yellow, indicating it is sweep meshable (a requirement for
generating the focused crack line mesh with collapsed elements).
However, the element shape needs to be changed to allow wedge-shaped
elements along the crack line and the sweep path needs to be redefined so that
it is along the circumference of the circular region. In the Mesh Controls
dialog box, select Hex-dominated as the element shape, Medial axis as the
algorithm, and click Redefine Sweep Path. Define a new sweep path by
304
W2.5
selecting the circular edge of the region as the sweep path, as shown in Figure
W2–7.
Figure W2–7 Sweep path
5. For all other sweep-meshable regions, choose the Hex element shape with the
Medial axis algorithm.
6. Assign second-order, reduced-integration 3D stress elements (C3D20R) to all
regions of the part.
7. Assign a global seed size of 2.5 to the part.
8. Assign local seeds as indicated in Figure W2–8:
a. 12 elements along the circular edge (constrained to increase only).
b. 8 elements through the thickness of the flat plate and along the straight
portions of the circular partition (constrained to increase only).
c. 8 elements along the straight edges of the bore.
d. 3 elements along the radius of the fillet between the bore and the plate.
e. 8 elements at the intersection of the flat plate with the flange.
f. 8 elements along the radius of the fillet between the plate and the flange.
305
W2.6
12
8
3
Figure W2–8 Local edge seeds
9. Generate the part mesh as shown in Figure W2–9.
Figure W2–9 Part mesh

10. You will now replace the instance of the flaw currently in the assembly with
the one you just partitioned and meshed. In the Model Tree, expand the
Assembly and then expand the Instances container. Click mouse button 3 on
the instance named flaw (this is an instance of the part named flaw). In the
menu that appears, select Suppress. Double-click the Instances container
and create an instance of the part named flaw-1. Afterwards, make the
instance independent.
306
W2.7
11. Redefine the surface named flaw to include the faces of the newly instanced
part that mate with the block. This surface is used in the tie constraint that
joins the two parts together.
Tip: Click to replace the contents of the viewport with the cells of
instance flaw-1; in the Model Tree, expand the Surfaces container underneath
the Assembly and double-click flaw to redefine it; select the appropriate
faces to redefine the surface. Afterwards, restore the visibility of the entire
model by clicking .
Crack definition
the Assembly. In the list that appears, double-click Cracks.
2. In the dialog box that appears, select Contour integral and click Continue.
3. Select the edge highlighted in Figure W2–10 as the crack front. Choose the q
vectors method to define the crack extension direction. Select the points
indicated in Figure W2–10 as the start and end points for the q vector.
Start
End
Crack front/line
Figure W2–10 Crack front/line and q vector
4. In the General tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, toggle on the
symmetry plane option.
5. In the Singularity tabbed page of the Edit Crack dialog box, set the midside
node parameter to 0.25 and choose Collapsed element side, single node
as the element control. This introduces a square-root singularity at the crack
tip.
6. Query the elements attached to the crack tip to verify that their connectivity is
that of a collapsed hexahedral element with a repeated node at the crack tip
(Tools→Query).
307
W2.8
Output
1. In the Model Tree, double-click History Output Requests to create a contour
integral history output request. In the Edit History Output Request dialog
box, select Crack as the domain type, and choose the crack defined earlier as
the domain. Set the number of contours to 5 and request J-integral output.
2. Repeat the above step, this time choosing Stress intensity factors as the
output type.
Boundary conditions
1. Apply symmetry boundary conditions to the regions indicated in Figure W2–
11. Name this boundary condition bonded.
Fix these three

regions in the X-
direction (XSYMM)
Figure W2–11 Symmetry conditions

Job
job flaw-1.
2. Submit the job for analysis and monitor its progress.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open flaw-1.odb in the Visualization module.
Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part. The Mises stress
distribution is shown in Figure W2–12 (plotted on the deformed model shape
using a deformation scale factor of approximately 90). The stress state is
highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip.
308
W2.9
2. Examine the values of J and K along the crack line. At a given position along
the crack line, the values have converged across each contour domain. Some
variation through the thickness of the plate is apparent, however, as seen in
Figure W2–13 for contour 5. In particular, the values at the outer edges of the
crack line (e.g., at the two nodes at each end of the crack line) are less
accurate. Ignoring these four points for the fifth contour, the average value of
J (evaluated directly) is 11.8 MPa·mm while the average value of KI is 952
MPa·mm (or 30 MPa·m).
Figure W2–13 Variation of J and K through the thickness of the plate
Note: Figure W2–13 was created by first manipulating the data outside of
Abaqus/CAE. These plots cannot be created directly within Abaqus. To examine
this data, filter the History Output container according to
Stress*K1*Contour_5; the curves are then listed in order through the
thickness starting at the bottom of the plate (an internal set with a name of the
309
W2.10
form H-OUTPUT-3_CRACK-1__PICKEDSET52-# is associated with each

contour through the thickness; you can determine the location to which each set
corresponds by selecting the set in the Node Sets container). To ignore the two
nodes at each end of the crack line, average all curves except for the first two and
the last two in the filtered list; i.e., the ones associated with set numbers 1, 2, 16,
and 17 following the naming convention described earlier.
Crack in the fillet

The partitions and meshing operations were relatively straightforward for the flat crack.
When the crack is in the fillet, more sophisticated partitioning must be performed. As
before, hex-dominated swept meshing will be used to create a mesh of collapsed second-
order elements.
Copy the model
1. Before proceeding, copy the model named flaw-1 to a model named flaw-2 (in
the Model Tree, click mouse button 3 on the model name and select Copy
Model in the menu that appears). All instructions that follow refer to the
model named flaw-2.
Partitions and meshing
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container and then expand the part
named flaw-2. In the list that appears, double-click Mesh. In the Mesh
module, click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and select the face
indicated in Figure W2–14 as the face to be partitioned.
Figure W2–14 Face to be partitioned
2. In the Sketch module, draw a vertical line a distance of 3.5 mm from the left
edge of the fillet, as shown in Figure W2–15. This edge represents the crack
front.
310
W2.11
Figure W2–15 First face partition
3. Partition the top and bottom faces of the fillet using the sketch technique to
create a circular partition around the crack line. Select the face indicated in
Figure W2–16 as the sketch plane, Through All as the projection distance,
and the direction indicated by the arrow as the projection direction.
This face acts as the

sketch plane.
These faces will be

partitioned.
Figure W2–16 Second face partition
4. Because only entities directly connected to the sketch plane are automatically
projected onto the sketch, you will need to project additional geometry to
serve as reference geometry. In the Sketch module, click the Project
References icon (click and hold to access the tool) to project the
point indicated in Figure W2–17 onto the sketch. This point is the vertex at
the top of the edge partition created in the previous step.
311
W2.12
Figure W2–17 Projected point
Tip: The sketch will be centered on the sketch plane and not the faces that will
actually be partitioned. To improve the visibility of the sketch, use the
sketcher options shown in Figure W2–18. To select the vertex, rotate the
view. To restore the original view, click the Reset View icon .
Figure W2–18 Sketcher options
312
W2.13
5. Sketch a circle of radius 0.25 centered at projected point. Place the perimeter
point of the circle outside the part. Complete the sketch operation.
6. Create the face partitions indicated in Figure W2–19 (using ).
New edges
Figure W2–19 Third and fourth face partitions
7. Use the Partition Cell: Use N-Sided Patch tool (click and hold to
access the tool) to partition the cell containing the crack, as shown in Figure
W2–20. Specify the patch using edges and the patch boundary using the loop
technique. Select the circular edge on the top face of the fillet.
Figure W2–20 First cell partition: n-sided patch
313
W2.14
8. Use the Point & Normal method ( ) to create the cell partition shown in
Figure W2–21.
Select both
cells
Point
Normal
Figure W2–21 Second cell partition: point and normal
9. To make the remaining cells hex-meshable, another partition (parallel to the

one created in the previous step) is required. Create a datum plane offset a
distance of 2 mm from the face indicated in Figure W2–22 (click and hold
to access ) and then use this datum plane to create the partition using
.
Figure W2–22 Third cell partition: datum plane
314
W2.15
10. Finally, use the Point & Normal method to create the partition shown in
Figure W2–23. This partition will allow better control over the final mesh.
Additional partition
Figure W2–23 Fourth cell partition
11. Assign the Sweep mesh technique using the Medial axis algorithm to the
cells indicated in Figure W2–24. In addition, assign the Wedge element shape
to the two cells immediately surrounding the crack front.
Assign sweep meshing to

these four cells
Figure W2–24 Sweep mesh regions
12. Assign the Medial axis algorithm to all other sweep meshable cells (cells
colored yellow).
13. Assign second-order, reduced-integration 3D stress elements (C3D20R) to all
regions of the part.
315
W2.16
15. Assign local seeds as indicated in Figure W2–25:

a. 4 elements through the thickness of the plate and fillet (including the crack
line) and through the width.
b. 5 elements along each circular edge surrounding the crack line
(constrained to not allow the number of elements to change).
c. 10 elements lengthwise outside the cylindrical region
d. 1 element along the edges connected to the crack line.
e. 3 elements along the radius of the fillet between the bore and the plate.
3 (also on other
side of part)
1
4
10
10
316
W2.17
16. Generate the part mesh as shown in Figure W2–26.
Figure W2–26 Part mesh

Modifying the assembly
1. You will now replace the instance of the flaw currently in the assembly with
the one you just partitioned and meshed. In the Model Tree, expand the
Assembly and then expand the Instances container. Click mouse button 3 on
the instance named flaw-1-1. In the menu that appears, select Suppress.
Double-click the Instances container and create an instance the part named
flaw-2. Afterwards, make the instance independent.
2. Redefine the surface named flaw to include the faces of the newly instanced
part that mate with the block. This surface is used in the tie constraint that
joins the two parts together. (In the Model Tree, expand the Surfaces
container underneath the Assembly and double-click flaw to redefine it.)
3. Edit the symmetry boundary condition applied to the bonded region (BC
bonded) of the flaw (see Figure W2–27) so that it refers to the updated flaw
geometry.
Crack definition
the Assembly. In the list that appears, expand the Cracks container and
double-click Crack-1.
2. Edit the existing crack definition. Specify the edge highlighted in Figure W2–
27 as the crack front. Choose the normal method to define the crack extension
direction. Select the vertices of the edge indicated in Figure W2–27 to define
the normal direction.
317
W2.18
Normal direction
Crack front
Crack faces
Bonded faces
Figure W2–27 Crack front and normal direction
Note: The direction of the normal vector is very important. If negative values
for J or K are obtained, then the normal vector should be reversed and the
analysis rerun.
3. In the Mesh module, regenerate the mesh for the flaw to update the position of
the crack midside nodes.
Output
No edits are required as the output requests from the previous model are still in effect.
Job
job flaw-2.
2. Save your model database file.
3. Submit the job for analysis and monitor its progress.
Results
1. When the job is complete, open flaw-2.odb in the Visualization module.
Evaluate the deformed shape and stress state in the part. The Mises stress
distribution is shown in Figure W2–28 (plotted on the deformed model shape
using a deformation scale factor of approximately 90). The stress state is
highly localized in the vicinity of the crack tip.
318
W2.19
2. Examine the values of J and K along the crack line. At a given position along
the crack line, the values have converged across each contour domain. Some
variation through the thickness of the plate is apparent, however, as seen in
Figure W2–29 for contour 5. In particular, the values at the outer edges of the
crack line (e.g., at the two nodes at each end of the crack line) are less
accurate. Ignoring these four points for the fifth contour, the average value of
J (evaluated directly) is 4.87 MPa·mm while the average value of KI is 612
MPa·mm (or 19.4 MPa·m).
Note: Figure W2–29 was created by first manipulating the data outside of
Abaqus/CAE. These plots cannot be created directly within Abaqus
Figure W2–29 Variation of J and K through the fillet
319
W2.20
Optional analysis
Create a circular crack (radius = 2 mm) through the bore as indicated in Figure W2–30.
Using a partitioning scheme similar to that shown in the top-half of Figure W2–30, create
a mesh similar to the one shown in the bottom-half of Figure W2–30. Evaluate the stress
intensity factor at the crack front. (For reference, the computed value of K in this case is
approximately 10.3 MPa·m.)
Figure W2–30 Crack through the bore: partitions and mesh
320
W2.21
Parametric study
A parametric study varying the crack length gives further insight into the variation of K
with crack size. Such a study was carried out and the results are shown in Figure W2–31.
This type of study is used to evaluate the damage tolerance, fatigue and structural
integrity of the aircraft components (see e.g., Irving, Lin, and Bristow, “Damage
Tolerance in Helicopters,” Proceedings of the American Helicopter Society, 59th Annual
Forum, 2003).
Note that a crack propagation analysis using cohesive elements will be performed in a
subsequent workshop to study crack growth behavior in this part.
Figure W2–31 Variation of K with crack length
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these

instructions is available for your convenience. Run this script if you
encounter difficulties following the instructions outlined here or if you wish
to check your work. The script is named ws_fracture_damage_answer.py
and is available using the Abaqus fetch utility.
321
322
Notes
323
324
Notes
Workshop 3
Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen

using Cohesive Connections
Introduction
In this workshop we consider crack growth in the three-point bend specimen studied in
Workshop1 (see Figure W3–1 for geometry and load details). Cohesive behavior (both
element- and surface-based) with damage is used to model the crack growth behavior.
Linear elastic behavior is assumed (the cohesive traction-separation law is indirectly
related to LEFM in that the area underneath the traction-separation curve is equal to the
fracture toughness, i.e., the critical energy release rate).
The cohesive element material properties must be carefully chosen in this analysis since
there is no real adhesive and the strength of the bond is effectively “infinite.” While the
stiffness of the elements can be simply regarded as a penalty parameter, the proper choice
of the maximum traction across the interface is critical. Too low a value results in a
response that is too flexible; higher values require additional mesh refinement to predict
the onset of crack growth. In this workshop, the maximum strength is chosen to ensure
accuracy with the given mesh density. A discussion on how it was chosen is given at the
end of the workshop. This issue does not affect surface-based cohesive behavior.
55 mm
Cohesive
M b=10 mm M =1075
layer
N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
325
W3.2
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/bending
2. Open the model database file created in Workshop 1 (three-point-
bend.cae).
Note: The replay file ../fracture/bending/ws_fracture_3pt_bend_jint.py

can be used to generate the prerequisite model definitions for this workshop. In the event
you were unable to complete the previous workshop successfully, accidentally deleted
your model database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local directory, start
Abaqus/CAE, and run the script by selecting File→Run Script from the main menu bar.
Then proceed with the rest of the workshop.
Part 1: Element-based cohesive behavior

In this part of the workshop, you will modify the part geometry to insert a layer of
cohesive elements between the two halves of the specimen and study the crack growth as
the applied load surpasses the critical load. The load at which the crack begins to grow
will be compared with the theoretical value. Later in this workshop, this same problem
will be analyzed using surface-based cohesive behavior and the results between the two
analysis techniques will be compared.
Before continuing, copy the model named unfocused to one named cohesive. If you
did not complete the exercises with the unfocused mesh in Workshop 1, simply copy any
of your models from Workshop 1 to the new name given above. In the new model, follow
the instructions given in Workshop 1 for deleting the circular partition before proceeding.
The instructions that follow apply to the cohesive model.
Editing the geometry

Edit the geometry to introduce a finite-thickness slit representing the crack; this facilitates
additional partitions so that cohesive elements can later be generated and edited easily.
1. In the Part module, click the Create Cut: Extrude icon and sketch a
rectangle of width 1.0 mm centered about the crack faces and extending 2.0 mm
into the part, as shown in Figure W3–2. This operation creates a rectangular cut
around the crack faces.
Figure W3–2 Rectangular cut about the crack faces

Tip: In the Sketcher, use the Create Lines: Rectangle tool and place the
rectangle sketch about the vertical slit. The height of the slit is 2; use (vertical and
326
W3.3
horizontal) dimensions and (symmetry) constraints to position the rectangle as

shown in the following figure:
Rough sketch Dimensioned and

about the slit constrained sketch
2. Click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and sketch vertical lines as indicated
in Figure W3–3 to partition the specimen further. This partition separates the
region which will be meshed with cohesive elements from the rest of the model.
Figure W3–3 Face partitions
3. Use the geometry edit tools (Tools→Geometry Edit) to delete redundant entities
in the center portion of the plate (indicated in the following figure). This will
clean up the geometry so that redundant geometry does not unduly influence the
mesh.
Tip: Before choosing a region, use the Selections toolbar to select only vertices
inside the drag shape as indicated below.
Drag shape to select

vertices in this
region only. Select vertices
inside drag shape.
327
W3.4
Deleting obsolete attributes

The cut made in the previous step effectively deleted the mesh seam and sharp crack that
existed in the original model. Thus, any model attributes associated with these must also
be deleted.
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Engineering Features container underneath the
Assembly. Expand the Cracks container and click mouse button 3 on Crack-1.
In the menu that appears, select Delete.
2. In the Model Tree, expand the History Output Requests container. Delete the
output requests associated with the sharp crack (H-Output-2 and H-Output-3).
Step definition and output

The step definition will be edited to include geometrically nonlinear effects. Because the
cohesive behavior introduces additional highly nonlinear effects into the model, the time
incrementation parameters will be adjusted. The rotation and applied moment at one of
the reference points will be written as history data to the output database file to evaluate
the moment-rotation response and detect the onset of crack growth.
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Steps container and double-click Step-1.
2. In the Basic tabbed page of the step editor, toggle on Nlgeom.
3. To aid convergence once the specimen breaks in half, use automatic stabilization
with a constant damping factor equal to 0.01 (toggle off adaptive stabilization).
4. Set the maximum number of increments to 250, the initial time increment size to
0.01, the minimum time increment size to 1.e-8, and the maximum time
increment size to 0.01.
5. Write history output of the variables UR3 and CM3 for set right-refPt to the
output database file.
6. Edit the default field output request to include the element status, as shown in
Figure W3–4. This will allow you to easily evaluate when the cohesive elements
fail when postprocessing the results.
Figure W3–4 STATUS field output request
328
W3.5
Meshing
The part will be meshed with first-order incompatible mode elements. These elements
work well in bending and are compatible with cohesive elements when using shared
nodes (as will be done here).
1. In the Model Tree, expand the Instances container underneath the Assembly.
Expand the instance named plate-1 and double-click Mesh in the list that appears.
2. Assign the Quad element shape using the Medial axis algorithm to the right and
left regions of the part instance (Mesh→Controls). Assign CPE4I elements to
these regions (Mesh→Element Type).
3. Assign a swept mesh technique using the Quad element shape to the center region
of the part instance (Mesh→Controls). Choose a sweep direction that is
horizontal (this defines the stack direction of the cohesive layer). The center
region is colored yellow, indicating it is swept meshable, as shown in Figure W3–
5.
Figure W3–5 Center region is swept meshable
4. Assign COH2D4 elements with Viscosity equal to 1.e-5 to the center region of
the part instance (Mesh→Element Type). Invoking viscous regularization will
aid convergence.
5. Assign a global seed size of 0.5 to the entire instance (Seed→Instance).
6. Assign local edge seeds (Seed→Edges) according to Figure W3–6.
15 24 1
15
6
7. Generate the mesh (Mesh→Instance).
329
W3.6
8. Edit the nodes attached to the cohesive elements so that the elements have zero
thickness:
a. From the main menu bar, select Mesh→Edit.
b. In the Edit Mesh dialog box, select Node as the category and Edit as the
method.
c. Select the nodes indicated in Figure W3–7 as the ones whose coordinates
will be adjusted.
Figure W3–7 Nodes to be adjusted
d. In the Edit Nodes dialog box, choose Coordinates as the specification

method and specify a value in the 1-direction of 27.5 (this is the center
point of the specimen). Toggle off Project to geometry (or else the nodes
will snap back to the geometric edges) and click OK. The mesh appears as
Figure W3–8 Edited mesh
Note: Only the mesh has been altered and not the underlying geometry. If
you remesh the part, e.g., you will have to reposition the cohesive element
nodes.
330
W3.7
A comment on using second-order elements with cohesive elements
In this exercise, first-order stress-displacement elements are directly attached to cohesive

elements via shared nodes. To attach second-order stress-displacement elements to
cohesive elements, you need to model the specimen as two distinct parts (each
representing half the structure) and use tie constraints to attach the cohesive elements to
the stress-displacement ones.
Material and section properties

You will now assign appropriate section properties to the cohesive layer.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click the Materials container to create a new material
property. Name the material adhesive.
2. Define linear elastic properties using the Traction type
(Mechanical→Elasticity→Elastic; set E = G1 = G2 =8.43e8).
3. Define damage initiation using the QUADS criterion (Mechanical→Damage for
Traction Separation Laws→Quads Damage). Enter 175 in each of the data
fields.
4. Define damage evolution using the energy criterion (select Damage Evolution
from the list of Suboptions in the material editor). In the suboption editor, select
Energy as the type, BK as the mixed mode behavior, and set the power to 2.284.
Enter 0.1 in each of the data fields.
5. In the Model Tree, double-click the Sections container to create a new section
property. In the Create Section dialog box, name the section cohesive, choose
Other as the category and Cohesive as the type. Click Continue.
6. In the Edit Section dialog box, choose adhesive as the material and Traction
Separation as the response. Set the out-of-plane thickness equal to 1 and accept
all other default settings. Click OK.
7. In the Model Tree, expand the Parts container and then expand the part named
plate. Expand the Section Assignments container and delete the current
assignment.
8. Double-click Section Assignments and assign the newly created cohesive
section to the cohesive region and the previously created solid section to the
remaining regions.
Job
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Jobs to create a job for this model. Name the job
coh-3pt-bend.
2. Save your model database.
appears. In the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the progress
of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for this job
(coh-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
331
W3.8
Results
When the job is complete, open coh-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the deformed shape and contour the stress distribution in the specimen.
Animate the response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the
early stages can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at the increment
when the first cohesive element fails is shown in Figure W3–9 (using a
deformation scale factor of 250).
Figure W3–9 Stress state when crack begins to grow
2. Contour and animate the STATUS variable (toggle off Use status variable in the
Status Variable tabbed page of the Field Output dialog box to suppress the
removal of failed elements). The final state is shown in Figure W3–10 (using a
deformation scale factor of 1). The cohesive elements have failed along the length
of the interface (i.e., the crack has extended through the thickness of the part).
Figure W3–10 Final deformed shape with contour of STATUS
3. Using history data, create a moment-rotation curve of the response at the

reference point located at the right-hand side of the part (set right-refPt).
Normalize the load axis with respect to the applied load. The curve is shown in
Figure W3–11 (this plot has been customized).
332
W3.9
Figure W3–11 Moment-rotation response at the reference point
Does the load at which crack growth initiates agree with LEFM predictions? Does the
bend in the curve correspond to the point where the first cohesive element fails?
Discussion
In order to evaluate the results, consider the LEFM prediction. From the results obtained
in Workshop 1, the applied load (1075 N·mm) yielded a J-integral value of 0.132
MPa·mm. The fracture toughness of the material (i.e., the critical energy release rate Gc)
was specified as 0.1 MPa·mm (using damage evolution). This implies that the applied
load is greater than that required to make the crack grow. LEFM predicts crack growth
when J= Gc. Since J  M 2, we have the relationship
2
Gc  Mc 
 
Gapplied  M applied
 
or
Mc Gc 0.1
   0.871.
M applied Gapplied 0.132
Thus, LEFM predicts the onset of crack growth when 87% of the load has been applied.
Figure W3–11 indicates crack growth initiates at approximately 86% of the applied load
(this is the bend in the curve). This corresponds to the instant when the first cohesive
element fails. Thus, the numerical results are in close agreement with the LEFM.
333
W3.10
The cohesive properties used in this workshop were based on a relative scaling of the
properties used by Alfano and Crisfield. The ratio of the maximum cohesive strength Tmax
to the material Young’s modulus used in their work (57/135000) was used to calculate a
starting value for Tmax in this model. Following Alfano and Crisfield, the stiffness was
assumed to be 107 Tmax (resulting in a value of 8.43e8). The value of Tmax was adjusted
further (it was effectively doubled holding the stiffness constant) to improve the
correlation with LEFM. In general applications, sensitivity studies where the value of
Tmax is varied are recommended.
As discussed in the next part of this workshop, surface-based cohesive behavior is an

attractive alternative to element-based cohesive behavior in that it eliminates the need to:
1. embed a mesh of cohesive elements into a mesh of structural elements and
2. determine cohesive elastic properties
STOP. Proceed to Part 2 of this workshop only after completing Lecture 6 Surface-based
cohesive behavior.
334
W3.11
Part 2: Surface-based cohesive behavior
In this part of the workshop, you will solve the problem using surface-based cohesive
behavior and compare the results with those obtained using cohesive elements.
The instructions that follow apply to the coh-surfs model contained in three-point-
bend.cae.
Note: The replay file

../fracture/bending/ws_fracture_3pt_bend_cohels.py can be used to
generate the prerequisite model definitions for this part of the workshop. In the event you
were unable to complete the previous part of the workshop successfully, accidentally
deleted your model database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local
directory, start Abaqus/CAE, and run the script by selecting File→Run Script from the
main menu bar. Then proceed with the rest of the workshop.
Sets and surfaces

You will begin by defining assembly-level surfaces along the common interface of each
plate (excluding the initial crack faces) and an assembly-level set on the bonded region of
the left plate. Before proceeding, switch to the Assembly module.
1. Replace the contents of the viewport so that only the left half of the specimen is
visible (in the toolbar, click and then click the part on the left).
2. In the Model Tree, expand the Assembly container and double-click Surfaces.
3. Create a surface named left and select top-vertical edge on the right-hand side
of the part instance (indicated in Figure W3–12).
Figure W3–12 Surface/Set on left-half of specimen.
4. In the Model Tree, double-click Sets underneath the Assembly.

5. Name the set bond and select the portion of the interface that is initially bonded
as the set region, as indicated in Figure W3–12.
6. In the toolbar, click the invert display tool to display the right half of the
specimen.
7. Create a surface named right and select top-vertical edge on the left-hand side
of the part instance (indicated in Figure W3–13).
335
W3.12
Figure W3–13 Surface on right-half of specimen.
8. Restore the visibility of all part instances (click ).

cohesive behavior introduces highly nonlinear effects into the model, the time
incrementation parameters will be adjusted. The rotation and applied moment at one of
the reference points will be written as history data to the output database file to evaluate
the moment-rotation response and detect the onset of crack growth.
3. To aid convergence once the specimen breaks in half, use automatic stabilization
with a constant damping factor equal to 0.01 (toggle off adaptive stabilization).
4. Set the maximum number of increments to 250, the initial time increment to
0.01, the minimum time increment to 1.e-8, and the maximum time increment
to 0.01.
5. Write history output of the variables UR3 and CM3 for set right-refPt to the
output database file.
Mesh
The parts will be meshed with first-order incompatible mode elements.
1. In the Model Tree, expand the part named plate-left underneath the Parts
container. Double-click Mesh in the list that appears.
3. Assign local edge seeds according to Figure W3–14.
15 24 24 15
6 6
4. Assign CPE4I elements to the part (Mesh→Element Type).

5. Generate the part mesh.
336
W3.13
6. Repeat the previous steps for the part named plate-right.
Contact interaction
Surface-based cohesive modeling is based on contact pairs. Therefore, you will create a
contact interaction property (including the properties required for cohesive contact) and a
contact interaction. The two surfaces created earlier will serve as the master and slave
surfaces.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Interaction Properties. Choose Contact as the
type.
a. Define a frictionless contact property (Mechanical→Tangential
Behavior).
b. Define cohesive properties (Mechanical→Cohesive Behavior). Accept
all default settings (i.e., use the default elastic stiffness and allow any
slave node to be cohered).
c. Define damage properties (Mechanical→Damage).
d. In the Initiation tabbed page, choose Quadratic traction as the criterion.
Enter 175 in each of the data fields.
e. Toggle on Specify damage evolution.
f. In the Evolution tabbed page, select Energy as the type,
Benzeggagh-Kenane as the mixed mode behavior, and set the power to
2.284. Enter 0.1 in each of the data fields.
g. Toggle on Specify damage stabilization.
h. In the Stabilization tabbed page, enter 1e-5 as the viscosity coefficient.
Note that the damage stabilization option is the analog of viscous
regularization used earlier with cohesive elements.
2. In the Model Tree, double-click Interactions. Choose Surface-to-surface
contact (Standard) as the type and Initial as the step.
3. Choose the surface named right as the master surface and the one named left as
the slave surface (click Surfaces in the prompt area to choose the surfaces from
the Region Selection dialog box rather than the viewport).
4. Choose Node to surface as the discretization method.
5. Adjust the slave nodes in the set named bond. This will ensure initial contact
along the interface.
6. Accept all other default settings and click OK.
337
W3.14
Job
coh-3pt-bend-surfs.
(coh-3pt-bend-surfs.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open coh-3pt-bend-surfs.odb in the Visualization
module.
early stages can be seen more clearly).
Figure W3–15 (this plot has been customized).
For a more direct comparison with the cohesive element results an additional set
of cohesive surface results are included. This additional set of results was
obtained by specifying the elastic properties previously assigned to the cohesive
elements to the cohesive interface:
338
W3.15
All three sets of results are in excellent agreement. Better agreement between
cohesive elements and cohesive surfaces is obtained when the same elastic
properties are assigned to both (as expected). The results with the default elastic
properties, however, provide an excellent approximation and eliminate the need to
specify the cohesive elastic response (which is often unknown and difficult to
determine).
This analysis will be repeated in later workshops using the VCCT and XFEM
methods.
339
340
Notes
341
342
Notes
Workshop 4
Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe

Component using Cohesive Elements
Introduction
In this workshop we study crack growth in the flanged plate considered in Workshop 2
(see Figure W4–1). A 2 mm flaw is assumed to exist on the inner surface of the hole.
Cohesive elements with damage are used to model the crack growth behavior originating
from the flaw. Linear elastic behavior is assumed. Cohesive properties are taken directly
from Alfano and Crisfield.
Crack initiates here
Figure W4–1 Symmetric portion of a helicopter airframe component.
343
W4.2
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/damage
2. Open the model database file created in previously (damage.cae).
Note: The replay file ../fracture/damage/ws_fracture_damage_flaw.py can

be used to generate the prerequisite model definitions for this workshop. In the event you
were unable to complete the previous workshop successfully, accidentally deleted your
model database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local directory, start
In this workshop, you will modify the part geometry to add a layer of cohesive elements
along the symmetry plane containing the flaw. The load at which the crack begins to
grow will be compared with an estimate obtained from the results of Workshop 2.
Before continuing, copy the model named flaw-1 to one named cohesive. The
instructions that follow apply to the cohesive model.
Meshing
flaw. In the list that appears, double-click Mesh.
2. In the Mesh module, click the Partition Face: Sketch icon and select the
face indicated in Figure W4–2 as the face to be partitioned.
Figure W4–2 Face to be partitioned.
3. Sketch a circle of radius 2 mm centered at the corner of the bore, as indicated in

Figure W4–3.
344
W4.3
Figure W4–3 Face partition representing the crack line.
4. Assign a global part seed of 2.5.

5. For all sweep-meshable regions, choose the Hex element shape with the Medial
axis algorithm.
6. Assign element type C3D8I to the part and generate the mesh.
7. Create a new part based on this mesh (i.e., an orphan mesh; use Mesh→Create
Mesh Part).
8. Add a layer of elements to the symmetry plane (excluding the initial crack).
a. From the main menu bar, select Mesh→Edit.
b. In the mesh editor, select Mesh as the category and Offset (create solid
layers) as the method.
c. Select the element faces indicated in Figure W4–4 (i.e., all faces on the
symmetry plane, excluding those contained within the quarter-circle
representing the initial flaw).
345
W4.4
Tip: use the face angle

technique to select all
element faces on the
symmetry plane. Then,
switch to the individual
selection technique and
use Ctrl+Click to deselect
the element faces inside
the quarter circle.
Figure W4–4 Faces on which solid elements will be offset.
d. In the Offset Mesh – Solid Layers dialog box, set the Total thickness to
1 (this will facilitate defining sets, etc.; afterwards, the nodal coordinates
will be edited to produce a zero-thickness layer of cohesive elements).
Also, assign the offset elements to a set named cohesive. Accept all
other default settings and click OK. The required settings are shown in
Figure W4–5.
346
W4.5
Figure W4–5 Offset layer properties.
e. Assign element type COH3D8 with Viscosity equal to 1.e-5 to the set
named cohesive. Invoking viscous regularization will aid convergence.
Modifying the assembly

1. You will now replace the instance of the flaw currently in the assembly with the
orphan mesh just created. In the Model Tree, expand the Assembly and then
expand the Instances container. Click mouse button 3 on the instance named
flaw-1-1. In the menu that appears, select Suppress. Double-click the Instances
container and create an instance the part named flaw-mesh-1.
2. Redefine the surface named flaw to include the element faces of the newly
instanced part that mate with the block. Note that you cannot simply edit the
surface definition that currently exists since this surface was originally defined for
geometry and now a mesh-based surface is required. Thus, do the following:
a. Delete the surface named flaw.
b. Use display groups to restrict visibility to the meshed flaw part (replace
the viewport contents with part instance flaw-mesh-1-1)
c. Define a mesh-based surface named flaw and use the face angle
technique (using Shift+Click to make multiple selections) to select the
element faces that mate with the block, as shown in Figure W4–6. Note
the surface must be named flaw because that is the name used in the tie
constraint. If you choose to use another name, edit the tie constraint
accordingly.
347
W4.6
Figure W4–6 Mesh-based surface.
3. Further restrict the model visibility to the offset elements themselves.

Option 1: Click . In the prompt area, select Elements as the entities to be
replaced. Set the selection method to by angle and click on any cohesive element.
Option 2: Create a display group based on sets, choose the set named flaw-mesh-
1-1.cohesive, and replace the current viewport contents.
4. Define the node sets on the top and bottom faces of the cohesive elements, as
indicated in Figure W4–7. Name the sets coh-top and coh-bot, respectively.
348
W4.7
coh-top: nodes coh-bot

are shared with the
block
Figure W4–7 Node sets for the cohesive elements.
5. Restore the visibility of the entire model (click ).

6. Edit the symmetry boundary condition applied to the flawed region so that
XSYMM conditions are applied to the set named coh-bot.
7. Symmetry boundary conditions are not enough to enforce symmetric behavior of
the cohesive elements. Lateral stiffness effects must be included using linear
constraint equations. Thus, define linear constraint equations between the nodes
on the top and bottom faces of the cohesive elements in the lateral directions.
a. From the main menu bar, select Model→Edit Keywords→cohesive.
b. In the Keywords Editor, scroll down and place your cursor in the option
block that appears just prior to the *End Assembly option. Click Add
After to create an empty text box.
c. Edit the model keywords as indicated in Figure W4–8.
349
W4.8
Figure W4–8 Linear equation constraints.
8. At this point, you may edit the cohesive element coordinates.

a. In the list of items underneath flaw-mesh-1, double-click Mesh.
b. From the main menu bar, select Mesh→Edit.
c. In the mesh editor, select Node as the category and Edit as the method.
d. Using the face angle technique, select the nodes indicated in the left side
of Figure W4–9.
e. Specify the value of the 1-coordinate as 0.0. The final part mesh is shown
in the right side of Figure W4–9.
Figure W4–9 Edited nodes (left); final mesh (right).
350
W4.9

The crack that existed in the original model no longer exists in this new model. Thus, any
model attributes associated with the crack must also be deleted.

cohesive elements introduce additional highly nonlinear effects into the model, the time
incrementation parameters will also be adjusted. The displacement and applied force at
the reference point will be written as history data to the output database file to evaluate
the force-displacement response and detect the onset of crack growth.
3. Set the maximum number of increments to 250, the initial time increment to
0.05. Accept all other default settings.
4. Write history output of the variables U1 and CF1 for set refPt to the output
database file.
5. Edit the default field output request to include the element status. This will allow
you to easily evaluate when the cohesive elements fail when postprocessing the
results.

You will now assign appropriate section properties to the cohesive layer.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click the Materials container to create a new material
property. Name the material adhesive.
2. Define linear elastic properties using the Traction type
(Mechanical→Elasticity→Elastic; set E = G1 = G2 =11.4e5).
3. Define damage initiation using the QUADS criterion (Mechanical→Damage for
Traction Separation Laws→Quads Damage). Enter 57 in each of the data
fields.
Note: The stiffness and fracture toughness that are specified are twice and half,
respectively, of what would be specified in a full model. This accounts for the fact
that only half the separation between the top and bottom faces of the cohesive
elements is calculated (because of the symmetry condition).
351
W4.10
5. In the Model Tree, double-click the Sections container to create a new section
property. In the Create Section dialog box, name the section cohesive, choose
Other as the category and Cohesive as the type. Click Continue.
6. In the Edit Section dialog box, choose adhesive as the material and Traction
Separation as the response. Accept all other default settings and click OK.
flaw-mesh-1. In the list that appears, double-click Section Assignments to
assign the newly created section to the cohesive region.
8. Select the set cohesive as the region to which section properties will be assigned
and cohesive in the Edit Section Assignment dialog box. Click OK.
Job
flaw-coh.
(flaw-coh.odb) in the Visualization module.
The job will take approximately 1 hour to complete. Monitor its progress for
5-10 minutes to make sure the analysis is running smoothly and then
continue with the next lecture. After the next lecture, proceed with the
postprocessing instructions that follow.
352
W4.11
Results
When the job is complete, open flaw-coh.odb in the Visualization module.
early stages can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at different
stages of crack advance is shown in Figure W4–10.
Figure W4–10 Stress state at different stage of crack growth
353
W4.12
2. The force-displacement curve is shown in Figure W4–11.
Tmax = 83.5 MPa
Tmax = 57 MPa
Figure W4–11 Force-displacement curve
Discussion
In order to evaluate the results, consider the LEFM prediction. From the results quoted in
the optional portion of Workshop 2, the applied load (80 kN) yielded a J-integral value of
approximately 1.38 MPa·mm for the initial crack configuration considered here. The
fracture toughness of the material is 0.28 MPa·mm (specified as 0.14 MPa·mm due to
symmetry considerations). This implies that the applied load is greater than that required
to make the crack grow. LEFM predicts crack growth when J= Gc. Since J  F 2, we
have the relationship
2
Gc  Fc 
 
Gapplied  Fapplied
 
or
Fc Gc 0.28
   0.45.
Fapplied Gapplied 1.38
Thus, LEFM predicts the onset of crack growth when 45% of the load has been applied.
Figure W4–11 indicates crack growth initiates at approximately 30% of the applied load
(this is the bend in the curve). The agreement can be improved by increasing the value of
the maximum traction across the interface. For example, setting it to 83.5 MPa results in
crack growth at approximately 40% of the applied load, as indicated in Figure W4–11.
Note: A script that creates the complete model described in these

instructions is available for your convenience. Run this script if you
encounter difficulties following the instructions outlined here or if you wish
to check your work. The script is named ws_fracture_damage_answer.py
354
Notes
355
356
Notes
Workshop 5

using VCCT
Introduction
Workshop3 (see Figure W5–1 for geometry and load details). VCCT is used to model the
crack growth behavior. Linear elastic behavior is assumed.
55 mm
Initially
M bonded b=10 mm M =1075
region N·mm
a=2 mm
43 mm
Installing the VCCT plug-in

This workshop provides the option to use the VCCT plug-in. If you are taking this class
at a SIMULIA office, the plug-in will already be installed on your machine. If you are not
taking this class at a SIMULIA office and you wish to use the plug-in, please do the
following:
1. Login to the SIMULIA Online Support System and retrieve the file attachment in
SIMULIA Answer 3235.
3. In this directory, create a subdirectory named abaqus_plugins.
4. Extract the contents of the file obtained from SIMULIA Answer 3235 and place it
into the abaqus_plugins directory.
357
W5.2
Preliminaries
In this workshop, you will bond the two halves of the specimen and study the crack
growth as the applied load surpasses the critical load. The load at which the crack begins
to grow will be compared with the theoretical value. In Workshop 3, this same problem
was analyzed using both element-based and surface-based cohesive behavior; the results
between the three analysis techniques will be compared at the end of this workshop.
Open the model database file edited in Workshop 3 (three-point-bend.cae). Begin
by copying the model named coh-surfs to a model named vcct. If you did not complete
the exercises with cohesive surfaces (Part 2 of Workshop 3), follow the instructions given
there to define the surfaces and sets, step, mesh, and contact properties and interaction
before proceeding.
The instructions that follow apply to the vcct model.
Note: The replay file
../fracture/bending/ws_fracture_3pt_bend_cohsurf.py can be used to
generate the prerequisite model definitions for this workshop. In the event you were
unable to complete the previous workshop successfully, accidentally deleted your model
database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local directory, start
Surfaces
You will begin by extending the surfaces along the common interface of each plate to
include the initial crack faces. This, together with the bonded set, introduces an initial
flaw. Before proceeding, switch to the Assembly module.
1. Replace the contents of the viewport so that only the left half of the specimen is
visible (in the toolbar, click and then click the part on the left).
2. In the Model Tree, expand the Surfaces container underneath the Assembly.
3. Edit the surface named left and select both edges on the right-hand side of the part
instance (indicated in Figure W5–2; use Shift+Click to select both segments).
Figure W5–2 Surface on left-half of specimen.

4. In the toolbar, click the invert display tool to display the right half of the
specimen.
5. Edit the surface named right and select both edges on the left-hand side of the
part instance, as indicated in Figure W5–3.
358
W5.3
Figure W5–3 Surface on right-half of specimen.

6. Restore the visibility of all part instances (click ).
Because the node release due to VCCT introduces additional highly nonlinear effects into
the model, the solution controls parameters will be adjusted to allow up to 10 attempts
per increment.
Edit the general solution controls as follows:
1. From the main menu bar of the Step module, select Other→General Solution
Controls→Edit→Step-1.
2. In the dialog box that appears, select Specify to modify the default settings.
3. In the Time Incrementation tabbed page, set IA equal to 10.
You will also need to request output that allows you to track the progression of damage in
the part. Edit the default field output request to also include the variables indicated in
Figure W5–4.
Figure W5–4 Field output requests
Interaction properties
Edit the contact interaction properties to delete the cohesive and damage properties
inherited from the coh-surfs model.
359
W5.4
Defining the bond (keywords approach)
Note: To complete the model using keywords edits, complete this section. If you prefer
to complete the model using the VCCT plug-in, please skip this section and proceed to
the next one, titled Defining the bond (plug-in approach).
VCCT requires the use of the following options: *INITIAL CONDITIONS, *DEBOND,
and *FRACTURE CRITERION. These will be defined using the Keywords Editor as
indicated in Figure W5–5 (Model→Edit Keywords→vcct).
Figure W5–5 Keyword edits for debonding
360
W5.5
Defining the bond (plug-in approach)
Note: To complete the model using the VCCT plug-in, complete this section. If you
prefer to complete the model using keywords edits, please skip this section and return to
the previous one, titled Defining the bond (keywords approach).
VCCT requires the use of the following options: *INITIAL CONDITIONS, *DEBOND,
and *FRACTURE CRITERION. These will be defined using the VCCT plug-in as
described below.
1. Switch to the Interaction module.

2. From the main menu bar, select Plug-ins→VCCT→ Interface Property
Manager.
 In the VCCT Interface Property Manager, click Create.
 In the General Options tabbed page of the editor, enter 2.284 as the value
for eta for the BK LAW.
 In the Properties tabbed page of the editor, enter 0.1 as the critical strain
energy release rate for all modes.
 Accept all other defaults and click OK.
3. From the main menu bar, select Plug-ins→VCCT→Interface Manager.
 In the VCCT Interface Manager, click Create.
 In the Create Interface dialog box, select Standard as the analysis type.
 Select the contact interaction (created earlier) from the pull-down list.
Tip: If the interaction is not visible, edit it so that it is created in the Initial step
(use the Interaction Manager).
 Select the interface property created in the previous step, bond as the initially
bonded node set and Step-1 and the debond initiation step.
 Accept all other default settings and click OK.
361
W5.6
Job
vcct-3pt-bend.
(vcct-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open vcct-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
early stages can be seen more clearly).
2. Contour and animate the bond state (variable BDSTAT).
Figure W5–6 (this plot has been customized). For the sake of comparison the
cohesive-based results are also included.
362
W5.7
The response is very similar up to the point of initial crack growth. Both methods predict
the onset of crack growth reasonably accurately (at 86% of the applied load for the
cohesive models and at 90% of the applied load for the VCCT model versus a theoretical
value of 87%). The post-failure responses predicted by the three methods are also in
excellent agreement; the shift between the curves is due to the slight delay in the onset of
crack growth predicted by the VCCT model.
363
364
Notes
365
366
Notes
Workshop 6

using XFEM
Introduction
earlier workshops using the extended finite element technique or XFEM (see Figure W6–
1 for geometry and load details). Enriched finite elements that allow separation and a
traction-separation damage criterion, much like the one used for cohesive elements, are
used to model the crack growth behavior. Linear elastic behavior is assumed (the
cohesive traction-separation law is indirectly related to LEFM in that the area underneath
the traction-separation curve is equal to the fracture toughness, i.e., the critical energy
release rate).
Unlike the cohesive or VCCT models, the crack path is not prescribed a priori with the
XFEM technique. We need only specify the location and geometry of a crack, both of
which can be independent of the mesh. This advantage, not available in the previous
techniques, simplifies mesh creation considerably as we will see shortly.
55 mm
Crack
 path b=10 mm  = 0.003
a=2 mm
43 mm
Instead of applying moments as done previously, we will apply prescribed rotations to

illustrate the general differences between displacement-controlled and load-controlled
crack propagation.
367
W6.2
Preliminaries
2. Open the model database file created earlier (three-point-bend.cae).
We will slightly modify the geometry of the plate and create a separate part to specify the
crack location. Then we will study the crack growth in response to an applied rotation.
The load at which the crack begins to grow will be compared with the ones obtained from
the cohesive and the VCCT models.
Before continuing, copy the model named unfocused to one named xfem. If you did not
complete the exercises with the unfocused mesh in Workshop 1, simply copy any of your
models from Workshop 1 to the new name given above. In the new model, follow the
instructions given in Workshop 1 for deleting the circular partition before proceeding.
The instructions that follow apply to the xfem model.
Note: The replay file ../fracture/bending/ws_fracture_3pt_bend_vcct.py

can be used to generate the prerequisite model definitions for this workshop. In the event
you were unable to complete the previous workshop successfully, accidentally deleted
your model database file, etc., do the following: copy the file into a local directory, start
Editing the geometry

We will first delete the partition on the face that represented the crack in the original
model. In the Model Tree, expand the part named plate for the model named xfem. In the
Features container, click mouse button 3 on the Partition face-1 feature and select
Delete from the menu that appears.

The deletion of the face partition in the previous step deleted the mesh seam and the
sharp crack that existed in the original model. Thus, any model attributes associated with
these must also be deleted.
Creating an XFEM crack

To specify the location and geometry of an XFEM crack that is independent of the mesh,
we need a geometric feature in the assembly that can be selected in Abaqus/CAE.
Instead of creating a partition as we did before, we will now create a separate wire part
and instance it in the assembly. This part will represent the crack.
368
W6.3
1. In the Model Tree, open the container corresponding to the model named xfem
and double-click Parts to create a deformable 2D wire-based part named crack
with an approximate size of 20.
2. Using the Create lines: Connected tool sketch a 2 mm long vertical line
starting from the origin going upwards. Click Done to exit the sketcher.
3. Open the Assembly container in the Model Tree and double-click Instances to
create a dependent instance of the part named crack. The instance will appear
superimposed on the plate’s left vertical edge.
4. From the main menu bar in the in the Assembly module, select
Instance→Translate. Select the crack instance in the viewport and click Done.
5. Select the vertices at the bottom-left and bottom-center of the plate as the start and
the end points for the translation vector, respectively. This will move the part to
the desired location. Confirm the current location by clicking OK in the prompt
area.
We can now proceed to create an XFEM crack feature.

1. Switch to the Interaction module.
2. From the main menu bar, select Special→Crack→Create.
3. In the dialog box that appears, select XFEM as the type as shown in Figure W6–2,
and click Continue.
Figure W6–2 Create Crack dialog box.
4. Select the instance plate in the viewport as the crack domain. In the Edit Crack
dialog box that appears, toggle on Crack location and click (see Figure W6–
3).
5. Select the part instance crack as the crack location and click Done.
6. Toggle on Specify contact property and click . Accept the default name and
select Contact as the type.
369
W6.4
Figure W6–3 Edit Crack dialog box.
7. From the Mechanical menu select Normal Behavior as shown in Figure W6–4.
Accept the default choices and click OK.
Figure W6–4 Edit Contact Property dialog box.
8. Click OK in the Edit Crack dialog box. This completes the definition of the
XFEM crack.
This method of specifying the crack location and geometry is very useful in cases where
the crack geometry is complex. One can easily create a separate part and instance it in the
assembly without having to create numerous partitions in the existing part, which would
introduce difficulties in creating the mesh.
Edit Material Properties

We must include damage initiation and damage evolution criteria to model failure.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click steel in the Materials container to edit the
material properties.
370
W6.5
2. Define damage initiation using the Maxps criterion (Mechanical→Damage for

Traction Separation Laws→Maxps Damage). Enter 100 in the data field.
Note: We used 175 for the Quads criterion in the cohesive models. One can arrive
at this value based on a simple calibration study. Usually, we know KIc or Jc from
experiments. For a given geometry, a study involving a focused mesh with elements
that capture the singularity at the crack-tip will give us the load or displacement
required to reach these critical values. Then, by trial and error, we calibrate the
cohesive parameters such as the maximum stress and penalty stiffness, so that the
elements fail at the appropriate value of applied load or displacement.

The step definition will be edited to adjust the time incrementation parameters and
include nonlinear effects to aid convergence. The applied rotation and resulting reaction
moment at one of the reference points will be written as history data to the output
database file to evaluate the moment-rotation response and detect the onset of crack
growth.
3. To aid convergence if the specimen were to break in half, use automatic
stabilization with a constant damping factor equal to 0.0001. Toggle off adaptive
stabilization.
4. Set the maximum number of increments to 250, the initial time increment size to
0.01, the minimum time increment size to 1.e-8, and the maximum time
increment size to 0.01.
5. Write history output of the variables UR3, CM3 and RM3 for the set right-refPt to
the output database file.
6. Edit the default field output request to include PHISLM (level set value phi) from
the Failure/Fracture subsection, and STATUSXFEM (status of the xfem element)
from the State/Field/User/Time subsection as shown in Figure W6–5. This will
allow you to easily evaluate when the enriched elements fail during
postprocessing.
Figure W6–5 STATUSXFEM field output request
371
W6.6
7. Edit the general solution controls to allow up to 10 attempts per increment:

a. From the main menu bar of the Step module, select Other→General
Solution Controls→Edit→Step-1.
b. In the dialog box that appears, select Specify to modify the default
settings.
c. In the Time Incrementation tabbed page, set IA equal to 10.
Boundary Conditions
We will apply rotations to both reference points instead of moments as done previously.
Displacement-controlled loading allows the crack to grow in a stable fashion, which is
not possible under load control. First, we begin by suppressing the two loads.
1. In the Model Tree, click mouse button 3 on the load named left and select
Suppress from the menu that appears. Repeat the procedure for the load named
right.
2. Double-click the BCs container to create a new boundary condition named left-
rotation to be applied during Step-1. Choose Displacement/Rotation as the
type and click Continue.
3. Choose the set left-refPT as the location, and set UR3 to -0.003.
4. Using the same procedure, create another boundary condition named right-
rotation applied to the set right-refPT, and specify UR3 to be 0.003.
5. Leave the previously defined boundary condition named right unchanged.
6. Edit the boundary condition named left. Uncheck the label for U1 to remove the
constraint in the X-direction, which was used earlier to prevent rigid body motion.
We will prevent it through a constraint equation in this model as discussed below.
Constraints
The constraints defined in the previous workshops are needed for this model and we will
leave them unaltered. In the cohesive and VCCT models, there was no ambiguity
regarding the crack propagation direction as it is restricted to the mid-plane a priori; but
in the XFEM model, the crack path can change during the simulation based on the
direction of the maximum principal stress. Though the loading and geometry are
perfectly symmetric, small perturbations in the solution can cause the crack to deflect if
the principal stress directions rotate slightly (they will remain parallel to the global CSYS
in the absence of perturbations). To retain the simplicity of the problem and to compare
the XFEM solution with the cohesive and the VCCT models, we enforce an additional
symmetry constraint such that the horizontal displacements of the centers of the left and
right edges are equal and opposite. This eliminates any numerical instability in the model
and facilitates Mode I crack propagation.
1. In the Model Tree double-click Constraints to create a new constraint named

Equation, and select Equation as the type.
2. In the first row, set the Coefficient to 1, select left-refPT in the Set Name field
and enter 1 in the DOF field.
372
W6.7
3. Enter the same values for the Coefficient and DOF in the second row while
selecting right-refPT in the Set Name field.
4. Click OK.
Meshing
The part will be meshed with first-order reduced integration plane strain elements.
1. Switch to the Mesh module.
2. Assign CPE4R elements to the part (Mesh→Element Type).
3. Assign local edge seeds (Seed→Edges) to all the edges as shown in Figure W6–
6.
111
15 15
12 87
12
4. Generate the mesh (Mesh→Instance).
Job
job xfem-3pt-bend.
(xfem-3pt-bend.odb) in the Visualization module.
Results
When the job is complete, open xfem-3pt-bend.odb in the Visualization module.
1. Plot the Mises stress distribution contours on the deformed shape. Animate the
response (increasing the scale factor so that the deformation in the early stages
can be seen more clearly). The stress state in the part at the increment when the
first enriched element fails is shown in Figure W6–7 (using a deformation scale
factor of 250).
373
W6.8
Figure W6–7 Stress state when crack begins to grow
2. Contour and animate the STATUSXFEM variable. The final state is shown in
Figure W6–8 (using a deformation scale factor of 10). The value of this variable
ranges between 0 and 1 (blue to red), with 0 for elements that are not cracked and
1 for elements that have cracked completely. This allows us to pin-point the crack
location at any given increment.
Figure W6–8 Final deformed shape with contour of STATUSXFEM
3. Using history data create a moment-rotation curve of the response at the reference
point located at the right-hand side of the part (set right-refPt). The curve is
shown in Figure W6–9 (note that this plot has been customized).
374
W6.9
Does the load at which crack growth initiates agree with those seen in the cohesive and
VCCT models? Why does the moment-rotation curve look markedly different from those
obtained before?
Discussion
If the load remains the same, then for a given geometry KI increases monotonically with
crack length. For a given KIc, this means that the remote load required to grow a crack
decreases as the crack propagates. In a load-controlled experiment where the load is
increasing or maintained at a certain value, the difference in the applied load and the
required load increases monotonically as the crack grows. Thus, the specimen will
experience dynamic and catastrophic failure. Such a phenomenon cannot truly be
modeled in a static simulation. We employed damage stabilization in the cohesive as well
as the VCCT models in order to stabilize crack propagation artificially, and we saw that
the load increased even after crack propagation begins. The post-initiation response in
these cases is essentially artificial.
A similar experiment in displacement control would result in stable crack propagation

because the applied load is adjusted by increasing or decreasing it in order to maintain a
certain rate of displacement. Thus, one can model this phenomenon statically, provided
the applied displacement is below the amount that would cause dynamic crack growth.
For this reason, we did not employ damage stabilization in our model, and the post-
initiation response is physical and expected. This can be verified by comparing the results
375
W6.10
from all the different techniques in displacement control without damage stabilization.
As seen in Figure W6–10, the moment-rotation curves agree with each other quite well.
Figure W6–10 Moment-rotation response curves for different fracture models
To prevent rigid body motion, we imposed a constraint that forces the horizontal
displacements of the centers of the left and right edges to be equal and opposite. This
approach is different from that used in the cohesive and the VCCT models, where the
left-support was fixed in the horizontal direction and the right-support was allowed to
translate freely in this direction. Though this introduces a slight asymmetry, we do not
expect it to affect the solution in static simulations, as the choice of the location we fix in
the horizontal direction is completely arbitrary. However, in the case of XFEM, the small
amount of asymmetry created by this boundary condition perturbs the solution enough to
change the principal stress directions near the crack-tip; as the direction of crack
propagation is chosen to be normal to the maximum principal stress (we use the MAXPS
criterion), the crack deflects accordingly. Also, the direction in which the crack deflects is
sensitive to which support is constrained in the horizontal direction, as seen in Figures
W6–11 and W6–12. To avoid this problem, we replaced this boundary condition with a
constraint equation that ensures perfect symmetry in the loading and the boundary
conditions, and thereby prevented crack deflection.
376
W6.11
Figure W6–11 Crack path when the left-support is constrained in the X -

direction
Figure W6–12 Crack path when the right-support is constrained in the X -

direction
377
378
Notes
379
380
Notes
Workshop 7
Modeling Crack Propagation in a Pressure Vessel

with Abaqus using XFEM
Introduction
In this workshop, we will model crack propagation in a steel pressure vessel using
XFEM. The procedure is similar to that used earlier, but the ease of modeling as
compared to conventional methods will become more evident here in three dimensions.
In the postprocessing section of this workshop, we will get acquainted with tools and
features available in the Visualization module that allow one to effectively probe the
cracked geometry in a three-dimensional solid.
Figure W7–1 The pressure vessel
381
W7.2
The structure being modeled here is a 10m thick cylindrical pressure vessel with an inner
diameter of 40m at the base with a hemispherical cap. The entire structure is ~94m high
and is modeled using reduced-integration solid continuum elements (C3D8R). The
meshed model is shown in Figure W7–1. The pressure vessel is constrained at the bottom
against movement in all directions, and a uniform pressure of 210 MPa is applied on all
the interior surfaces. We will assume the material to be linear elastic; failure initiates
when the maximum principal stress reaches a critical value (the MAXPS damage
initiation criterion is used). We will use an energy-based damage evolution criterion that
accounts for mode mixing.
An initial crack is located in one of the nozzles near the bottom of the pressure vessel, as
shown in Figure W7–2. As done previously, the initial crack is defined using a part
constructed in the shape of the crack and instanced in the assembly at the desired
location. The crack geometry, i.e., the crack surface and the crack front are defined by
means of two level set functions φ and ψ which Abaqus/CAE calculates using the
geometric feature — in this case the part instance — used to define the crack. Note that
this part need not be meshed or assigned material properties; it is a dummy part present
only for the purpose of defining the initial crack.
Figure W7–2 Initial crack in the nozzle shown in (a) the unmeshed part (b) the
meshed part
Preliminaries
1. Enter the working directory for this workshop: ../fracture/vessel.
2. Run the script named ws_press_vessel_xfem.py.
The model created by this script contains the part geometry, model assembly, mesh and
the sets and surfaces necessary for defining the crack, boundary conditions and loads. We
will make the following additions to configure the model.
382
W7.3

Here we will define a linear elastic material named steel with a Young’s modulus of
210 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3, and specify damage initiation, evolution and
stabilization. We will then create a solid section referencing this material and assign it to
the part.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Materials; in the material editor that appears,
enter steel as the name.
2. Select Mechanical → Elasticity → Elastic. Enter 210.0E9 and 0.3 as the
Young’s modulus and the Poisson’s ratio, respectively.
3. Select Mechanical → Damage for Traction Separation Laws → Maxps
Damage. As shown in Figure W7–3, change the tolerance to 0.1 and enter
8.44E7 as the maximum principal stress.
Figure W7–3 The material editor
4. Select Suboptions → Damage Evolution. In the suboption editor that appears,

select Energy as the type and Power Law as the mixed mode behavior. Toggle
on Power and enter 1 in the data field. Enter 4220 in the three data fields
corresponding to fracture energy. The editor should resemble Figure W7–4. Click
OK.
383
W7.4
5. Select Suboptions → Damage Stabilization Cohesive. In the suboption editor

that appears, enter 1.0E-4 as the viscosity coefficient and click OK.
6. Click OK in the material editor.
7. In the Model Tree, double-click Sections and create a homogeneous solid section
named Solid with steel as the material.
8. Assign the section Solid to the predefined set named vessel. This set
encompasses the entire model.
Figure W7–4 Specifying damage evolution using the suboption editor
Step, time incrementation, and analysis controls

We will now create a general static step. The default choices for time incrementation are
usually not sufficient for crack propagation analyses that employ XFEM. We will reduce
the sizes of the minimum time increment as well as the initial increment. In general, the
discontinuous nature of crack propagation causes convergence difficulties, which can be
alleviated by specifying certain analysis controls. These analysis controls may not always
be necessary; but more often than not, they prove useful in bringing an analysis to
completion.
Three-dimensional XFEM analyses are usually time intensive and may require a large
number of increments. Here we will run the analysis just long enough to produce some
crack propagation for illustration purposes.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Steps. In the Create Step dialog box that
appears, select Static, General as the procedure type and click Continue.
384
W7.5
2. In the step editor that appears, toggle on Nlgeom and set the time period to 1.
3. Switch to the Incrementation tabbed page of the editor. Enter 0.05 as the initial
and the maximum time increment sizes. Reduce the minimum increment size to
1.0e-12. Enter 10 as the maximum number of increments and click OK.
4. From the main menu bar in the Step module, select Other → General Solution
Controls → Edit → Step-1. Abaqus/CAE displays a warning message. Review it
and click Continue.
5. In the General Solutions Controls Editor that appears, go to the Time
Incrementation tabbed page and toggle on Specify. Then, toggle on
Discontinuous Analysis.
Note: This increases I0 and IR to 8 and 10, respectively. While solving the
equations in any given increment, the automatic time integration algorithm will
check the behavior of residuals from iteration to iteration to gauge the likelihood
of convergence and decide whether or not to abandon iterations and begin again
with a smaller time increment. A check is made for quadratic convergence after I0
iterations and if quadratic convergence is not achieved, then a check is made to
maintain logarithmic convergence after IR iterations. In discontinuous analyses
convergence is generally slow and we are simply postponing these checks to
account for this by increasing I0 and IR.
6. Click the first More tab on the left to display the default values of time
incrementation parameters. Increase the value of IA, the maximum number of
attempts before abandoning an increment, from the default value of 5 to 20. This
data field is highlighted in Figure W7–5. Click OK.
Figure W7–5 The general solution controls editor
385
W7.6
Output requests
The output variables required to visualize and probe an XFEM crack are not included in
the default output. Edit the default field output request to include the output variables
PHILSM, PSILSM and STATUSXFEM. The first two are found under the category
Failure/Fracture, and the latter is found under State/Field/User/Time, as shown in
Figure W7–6.
Figure W7–6 Output requests
XFEM crack definition

Create a frictionless interaction property for the crack surfaces and define a propagating
XFEM crack in the Interaction module using the part instance crack-1.crack as the initial
crack location.
1. In the Model Tree, double-click Interaction Properties. In the Create
Interaction Property dialog box that appears, enter noFric as the name and
Contact as the type. Click Continue.
2. In the interaction editor that appears, select Mechanical → Tangential Behavior.
Accept the default friction formulation Frictionless.
3. Select Mechanical → Normal Behavior. Accept the default selection for the
pressure-overclosure relationship and click OK.
4. From the main menu bar in the Interaction module, select Special → Crack →
Create. In the Create Crack dialog box that appears, choose XFEM as the type as
shown in Figure W7–7 and click Continue.
5. Choose Single instance as the crack domain in the prompt area and select the
instance of the pressure vessel in the viewport. If the Region Selection dialog
386
W7.7
box appears, click Select in viewport in the prompt area to select the instance
directly from the viewport.
6. In the crack editor that appears, toggle on Allow crack growth.
7. Toggle on Crack location and click ; then click Sets in the prompt area. In
the Region Selection dialog box that appears, select crack-1.crack and click
Continue.
8. Toggle on Specify contact property in the crack editor. If it is not already
selected, select the contact property noFric. The crack editor should appear as
shown in Figure W7–8. Click OK.
Figure W7–7 Creating an XFEM crack
Figure W7–8 The crack editor
Boundary conditions and loads

Create an encastre boundary condition and apply it to the bottom of the pressure vessel in
the initial step. Use the predefined set named pressure_vessel-1.bottom for this
purpose.
1. In the Model Tree double-click BCs. In the Create Boundary Condition dialog
box that appears, enter fixed as the name. Select Initial as the step and
Symmetry/Antisymmetry/Encastre as the type, and click Continue.
387
W7.8
2. Click Sets in the prompt area and select the set pressure_vessel-1.bottom in
the Region Selection dialog box that appears. Click Continue.
3. In the boundary condition editor, select ENCASTRE and click OK.
Apply a pressure of 210 MPa on the interior surface of the pressure vessel. Use the
predefined surface named pressure_vessel-1.interior.
1. In the Model Tree double-click Loads. In the Create Load dialog box that
appears, enter Pressure as the name. Select Step-1 as the step and Pressure as
the type, and click Continue.
2. Select the predefined surface pressure_vessel-1.interior in the Region
Selection dialog box and click Continue.
3. In the load editor, enter 2.1E8 as the magnitude and click OK.
Job
vessel.
appears. From the same menu, you may also select Monitor to monitor the
progress of the job and Results to automatically open the output database file for
this job (vessel) in the Visualization module.
Results
Because we limited the maximum number of increments to 10, the job will exit with the
error message, Error in job vessel: Too many increments needed to
complete the step. Ignore the message and open vessel.odb in the Visualization
module.
Animate the response. Figure W7–9 shows the Mises stress at the end of the 10th
increment.
When enriched elements are used and PHILSM is requested as an output variable,
Abaqus/CAE automatically creates an isosurface named Crack_PHILSM where
the value of the signed distance function is zero corresponding to the surface of
the crack. This isosurface cut is turned on by default so that the crack is visible
upon opening the output database.
2. Contour and animate the variable STATUSXFEM to visualize crack propagation.
The last frame is shown in Figure W7–10. STATUSXFEM varies between 0 and
1, with 0 for elements where a crack has not initiated and 1 for elements that have
cracked completely. This allows us to pin-point the crack location at any given
time and to assess the extent of failure in a particular region.
388
W7.9
Figure W7–9 Mises stress distribution in the pressure vessel
Figure W7–10 STATUSXFEM showing progressive damage and failure
389
W7.10
3. Change the common plot options to display only the feature edges and contour the
output variable PHILSM. This allows us to view the crack in the pressure vessel
more clearly.
a. From the toolbar click to open the Common Plot Options dialog box.
b. Select Feature edges as shown in Figure W7–11 and click OK.
c. In the field output toolbar choose PHILSM. The resulting contour plot near the
cracked region is displayed in Figure W7–12.
4. Make the assembly translucent to visualize internal crack surfaces.
a. Click the Toggle Global Translucency icon to turn this feature on.
b. Click the Translucency value icon next to . Abaqus/CAE displays a

slider which can be used to set the translucency level. Adjust the slider until
the crack surfaces can be seen clearly. Rotate the model for better clarity if
necessary.
c. Animate PHILSM to view crack propagation on the exterior as well as in the
interior. The last frame is shown in Figure W7–13.
Figure W7–11 Changing common plot options
390
W7.11
W7–12 Contour plot of PHILSM near the nozzle
W7–13 Contour plot of PHILSM with global translucency turned on
391
W7.12
5. Using the View Cut Manager, it is possible to display the model on the cut,
which in the case of an XFEM crack will show only the crack surface without the
surrounding material.
a. From the main menu bar, select Tools → View Cut → Manager.
b. In the View Cut Manager that appears, toggle off for the cut named
Crack_PHILSM as shown in Figure W7–14. The resulting crack surface is
displayed in the viewport. Figure W7–15 shows the crack surface without the
surrounding material.
Figure W7–14 The view cut manager
Figure W7–15 The crack surface
392
W7.13
script is named
ws_press_vessel_xfem_answer.py
393

Dassault Systemes Inc. Modeling Fracture and Failure With Abaqus

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dassault Systemes Inc. Modeling Fracture and Failure With Abaqus

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.nz Abaqus@scion.cri.

About this Course

Lecture 1 Basic Concepts of Fracture Mechanics

Lecture 2 Modeling Cracks

Lecture 3 Fracture Analysis

Workshop 1 Crack in a Three-point Bend Specimen

Workshop 2 Crack in a Helicopter Airframe Component

Lecture 4 Material Failure and Wear

Lecture 5 Element-based Cohesive Behavior

Workshop 4 Crack Growth in a Helicopter Airframe Component using Cohesive Elements

Lecture 6 Surface-based Cohesive Behavior

Lecture 7 Virtual Crack Closure Technology (VCCT)

Workshop 5 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using VCCT

Lecture 8 Low-cycle Fatigue

Lecture 9 Mesh-independent Fracture Modeling (XFEM)

Workshop 6 Crack Growth in a Three-point Bend Specimen using XFEM

permission of Dassault Systèmes or its subsidiary.

Lecture 1 5/12 Updated for 6.12

Lecture 6 5/12 Updated for 6.12

This lecture is optional.

For engineering materials, such as metals,

Cracks spread very rapidly with little or

Cracks that initiate in a brittle material

Three stages: void nucleation, growth,

Brittle fracture in polycrystalline materials displays either cleavage (transgranular) or intergranular

Ductile fracture has a dimpled, cup-and-cone fracture appearance .

Fracture process zone

It is a region of nonlinear deformation.

The fracture process zone size is characterized by

a number of grain sizes for brittle fracture or

Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)

These encompass all possible ways a crack tip

The forces are perpendicular to the

The forces are parallel to the crack.

crack slides along itself.

The objective of LEFM is to predict the critical loads

Stress intensity factor

Asymptotic crack tip solutions

The leading-order terms of the asymptotic

I. Inside this zone, the LEFM solution is not valid.

Some comments on fracture toughness

Fracture toughness is strongly dependent on temperature.

The brittle-ductile transition temperature range depends on the material.

Experimentally, the fracture toughness KC is a function of specimen thickness.

Since plane strain gives the practical minimum value of KC …

the plane stress and plane strain values may be appropriate.

Variation in fracture toughness with crack

The resistance curve is used to predict crack growth stability.

Crack growth and stability

The condition for continued crack growth for a crack length a + Da is

The condition for stable continued crack growth is

plane strain plane stress plane stress

LEFM predicts infinite stress at the crack tip—obviously this is unrealistic.

KIC is KC (the fracture toughness) in Mode I.

A061-T651 (Al) 20 269 33 5 38

A075-T651 (Al) 20 620 36 0.35 8.4

AISI 4340 (Steel) 0 1500 33 0.05 1.2

A533-B (Steel) 93 620 200 11 260

Energy principles play an important role in studying crack problems.

Surface energy, plastic dissipation, etc.

of energy release rates.

The energy available to grow a crack is defined

where PE is the potential energy and G is the