Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2010
1
© 2010 Matthew Jon Pais
2
To my mother and father who have always supported me in all that I have done.
3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first and foremost like to thank my advisor Dr. Nam-Ho Kim for his valuable
Dr. Timothy Davis and Nuri Yeralan from the Computer Science Department for
their assistance in the creation and implementation of the reanalysis algorithm for quasi-
I would also like to thank the members of the Multidisciplinary Design and
Optimization group at the University of Florida for their invaluable comments during my
rehearsals. Extra thanks go to Alexandra Coppé and Felipe Viana for our collaboration
Dr. Jorg Peters from the Computer Science Department for his comments which
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 14
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 23
Level Set Method for Closed Sections .................................................................... 23
Level Set Method for Open Sections ...................................................................... 25
Summary ................................................................................................................ 27
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 28
Displacement Approximation .................................................................................. 29
Enrichment Functions ............................................................................................. 32
Crack Enrichment Functions ............................................................................ 33
Inclusion Enrichment Functions........................................................................ 38
Void Enrichment Function ................................................................................ 42
Integration of Element with Discontinuity ................................................................ 42
XFEM Software ....................................................................................................... 44
Abaqus ............................................................................................................. 44
MXFEM ............................................................................................................ 45
Others............................................................................................................... 49
Summary ................................................................................................................ 49
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 51
Stress Intensity Factor Evaluation .......................................................................... 52
Crack Growth Direction ........................................................................................... 56
5
Crack Growth Magnitude ........................................................................................ 58
Finite Crack Growth Increment ......................................................................... 58
Fatigue Crack Growth ...................................................................................... 59
Summary ................................................................................................................ 63
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 65
Kriging..................................................................................................................... 66
Kriging for Integration of Fatigue Crack Growth Law .............................................. 68
Example Problems .................................................................................................. 71
Center Crack in an Infinite Plate Under Tension .............................................. 71
Edge Crack in a Finite Plate Under Tension..................................................... 74
Summary and Future Work ..................................................................................... 75
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 77
Cholesky Factorization............................................................................................ 78
Reanalysis of the Extended Finite Element Method ............................................... 79
Example Problems .................................................................................................. 82
Reanalysis of an Edge Crack in a Finite Plate.................................................. 83
Optimization for Finding Crack Initiation in a Plate with a Hole ........................ 86
Summary ................................................................................................................ 88
Summary ................................................................................................................ 90
Future Work ............................................................................................................ 92
APPENDIX
6
B AUXILIARY DISPLACEMENT AND STRESS STATES........................................ 111
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
5-1. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆a for a center crack in an infinite plate. ....... 73
5-2. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆N for a center crack in an infinite plate. ...... 73
5-3. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆a for an edge crack in a finite plate. ............ 74
5-4. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆N for an edge crack in a finite plate. ........... 75
6-1. Crack initiation angle and time comparisons with and without reanalysis. ............ 88
A-1. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for a full and half model for
a center crack in a finite plate. ............................................................................ 96
A-2. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for an edge crack in a finite
plate.................................................................................................................... 98
A-3. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for an inclined edge crack
in a finite plate. ................................................................................................... 99
A-4. Comparison of the theoretical and MXFEM value for maximum energy release
angle as a function of average element size. ................................................... 107
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1. Representative S-N curve for a material subjected to cyclic loading. .................... 14
1-2. Representation of the Mode I (left), Mode II (center) and Mode III (right)
opening mechanisms.......................................................................................... 17
2-2. Example of the signed distance functions for an open section. ............................. 26
3-1. The nodes enriched with the Heaviside and crack tip enrichment functions. ........ 34
3-6. Example problem to show plots generated by MXFEM. A) The geometry being
considered, B) Example of the mesh output from MXFEM where blue circles
and squares denote the Heaviside and crack tip enriched nodes and the
black circles denote the inclusion enriched nodes. ............................................. 47
4-1. Plate with a hole subjected to tension. A) Geometry, B) Mesh ( h = 1/10) ............ 62
4-3. Close up view of the crack paths for ∆a around the hole..................................... 63
5-1. Kriging model with an arbitrary set of five points and the uncertainty in gray. ....... 68
6-1. Edge crack in a finite plate for assessment of the reanalysis algorithm. ............... 84
6-2. Comparison of the assembly time for the stiffness matrix with and without the
reanalysis algorithm............................................................................................ 85
9
6-3. Comparison of the sensitivity of the assembly time of the reanalysis algorithm.
A) Fixed ∆DOF , B) Fixed ∆a . .......................................................................... 86
6-4. Plate with a hole for crack initiation assessment of reanalysis algorithm. ............. 87
A-3. Representative geometry for an inclined edge crack in a finite plate. ................... 98
A-5. Representative geometry for a hard inclusion in a finite plate. ........................... 100
A-13. Representative geometry for a crack initiating at an angle θ for a plate with a
hole................................................................................................................... 106
A-14. Comparison of crack paths to those predicted by Bordas for a soft (left) and a
hard (right) inclusion. ........................................................................................ 108
A-15. Comparison between Paris model and XFEM simulation for fatigue crack
growth for a center crack in an infinite plate. .................................................... 110
10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
11
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
May 2011
problem. Fatigue crack growth occurs as the result of repeated cyclic loading well below
the stress levels which typically would cause failure. The number of cycles to failure for
characterized by a differential equation which gives the crack growth rate as a function
of material properties and the stress intensity factor. Analytical relationships for the
stress intensity factor are limited to simple geometries. Thus, a numerical method is
commonly used to find the stress intensity factor for a given geometry under certain
loading. Here the extended finite element method is used to this end.
As there is no sense of the future stress intensity factor, the forward Euler method
based on future stress intensity factor values. This limits the allowable step size to very
small increments for the forward Euler method to retain accuracy. This leads to a very
12
The use of kriging to assist higher-order approximations is introduced. Here all
stress intensity factor data is fit using a kriging surrogate, which allows for stress
intensity factor values beyond the current data point to be approximated. These
extrapolated points enable the use of midpoint and Runge-Kutta methods for the
approximation of the differential equations governing fatigue crack growth. This enables
larger step sizes to be taken without a loss in accuracy for the solution of the governing
differential equation.
There is still a large amount of simulations required even with the increased time
step from the use of kriging to help approximate the solution of the differential equation
governing fatigue crack growth. It was observed that for the extended finite element
method a small portion of the global stiffness matrix is changed as a result of crack
growth. It is possible to use this small portion to save on both the assembly and solution
of the resulting system of linear equations. For the first simulation, the full stiffness
matrix is calculated and factored using the Cholesky algorithm. This results in a series
of triangular solves for the resulting system of linear equations. This factorization can
then be modified to account for the changes to the stiffness matrix. This results in
savings in both the assembly and factorization of the stiffness matrix for repeated
simulations reducing the computational cost associated with numerical fatigue crack
growth.
13
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
repeated cyclic loading well below the yield stress of a material can cause sudden,
catastrophic failure. The relationship between the applied stress and the number of
cycles to failure is typically given by a material specific S-N curve as shown in Figure 1-
1. For fatigue failure once a small crack has formed, the cyclic loadings cause the
material ahead of the crack to slowly fail and the crack grows. Initially a crack grows
very slowly, maybe on the order of nanometers at a given cycle. Over time the crack
growth accelerates. Once the crack reaches a critical length ac a large amount of crack
growth occurs rapidly and without warning. There are many incidents caused by the
growth of fatigue cracks, many of which resulted in the loss of human lives.
Applied Stress
Figure 1-1. Representative S-N curve for a material subjected to cyclic loading.
In 1952 the world’s first jetliner the de Havilland Comet [1] was entered into
service. In January and May of 1954 two of the Comets disintegrated during flights
between New York and London. The failure was caused by fatigue cracks which
14
initiated near the front of the cabin on the roof. Over time the crack grew until it reached
a window, causing sudden catastrophic failure. In 1957 the 7th President of the
Philippines died [2] along with 24 others when fatigue caused a drive shaft to break,
subsequently causing power failure aboard the airplane. In 1968 a helicopter [3]
crashed in Compton, California due to fatigue failure of the blade spindle. Twenty one
In 1980 the Alexander L. Keilland [4] oil platform capsized killing 123 people. The
main cause of the failure was determined to be a poor weld, which lead to a reduction in
the fatigue strength of the structure. In 1985 Japan Flight 123 [5] from Tokyo to Osaka
crashed in the deadliest plane crash in history. There were 4 survivors of the 524
people on the airplane. The fatigue failure was due to the incorrect repair of an impact
the tail had with a runway in 1978. Fatigue cracks slowly grew until causing sudden
rupture 7 years later. In 1988 an Aloha Airlines [6] flight between the Hawaiian islands
caused by the combined effects of a fatigue crack and corrosion. The plane safely
landed in Maui with 94 survivors, 65 injuries and 1 death. In this case, the fracture was
exacerbated by being in service well past it’s design life (89,000 service hours instead
exposure to high levels of humidity and salt. In 1989 a United Airlines flight [7] from
Denver, Colorado to Chicago, Illinois crashed due to a maintenance crew failing to find
a crack in a fan disk within the engine. There were 112 fatalities among the 285 people
15
In 1992 a Boeing 747 [8] crashed in to the Bijlmermeer neighborhood in
Amsterdam, Netherlands, killing 43. The plane crashed when fatigue failure did not
allow for the engine to cleanly separate from the wing as designed, leading to the
fatigue failure of the train wheels. Of the 287 passengers aboard, there were 101 deaths
In 2002 China Airlines Flight 611 [10] broke apart during a flight killing all 225
people aboard the airplane. Similar to Japan Airlines Flight 123, an incorrect repair
procedure allowed fatigue cracks to grow eventually causing failure. In 2005 metal
fatigue caused a Chalk’s Ocean Airways flight [11] from Fort Lauderdale, Florida to
Bimini, Bahamas to crash in Miami Beach, FL after metal fatigue broke off the right
wing. There were 20 casualties. In 2007 a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C Eagle [12]
crashed due to a structural part not meeting specifications, leading to a series of fatigue
cracks to develop and propagate. As recently as July 2009 a Southwest Airlines flight
landing after a ‘football sized’ hole opened causing rapid decompression. Investigations
The series of accidents through history including those in the 1990s and 2000s
show that there is still much work to be done to prevent fatigue failures from taking
human lives. With the ever increasing speed of computers numerical methods such as
finite element methods are able to model problems with increasing fidelity and
increasing complexity. Fatigue crack growth models are empirical models which are
16
generally created by performing one or a series of experiments and fitting the resulting
da
= f ( ∆K ) (1.1)
dN
where da/dN is the crack growth rate and ∆K is the stress intensity factor ratio, which is
a driving mechanism to crack growth. The stress intensity factor is used to describe the
state of stress at the tip of a crack and depends upon, crack location, crack size,
distribution and magnitude of loading, and specimen geometry. There are three modes
of fracture as shown in Figure 1-2. On the left is Mode I or opening mode. In the middle
is the Mode II or in-plane shear mode. Finally, on the right is the Mode III or out-of-plane
shear mode. In two-dimensions only Modes I and II may be considered, while Mode III
is also considered for three-dimensional problems. When multiple modes are occurring
Figure 1-2. Representation of the Mode I (left), Mode II (center) and Mode III (right)
opening mechanisms.
17
For some simplified cases analytical expressions for the stress intensity factors
are available [15], but for a more general case a numerical method such as finite
element methods may be used to find the stress intensity factor. Specifically, the use of
a method such as the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) [16], J-integral [17] or the
domain form of the contour integrals [18, 19] may be used to extract the mixed-mode
stress intensity factors from the finite element solution. Note that Eq. (1.1) does not
provide the crack size directly. Rather, it provides the rate of crack growth at a given
range of stress intensity factor, which also depends on the current crack size. Thus, a
addition, the crack in a complex geometry may not grow in a single direction. The
circumferential stress criterion in the finite element framework as closed form solutions
Even if the finite element method (FEM) has been developed drastically during the
last century, modeling crack growth in the classical FEM is not without its challenges.
As the finite element mesh must conform to the geometry, the mesh around the crack
tip must be recreated [21] whenever growth occurs. Even if a concept such as crack-
blocks [22] is used where a small region around a crack tip is remeshed at each
iteration, the computational demands of the remeshing can contribute significantly to the
modeled.
There are two main opinions on how to attempt to approximate the solution of the
governing differential equation in Eq. (1.1): controlling cycles or crack increment. The
18
first model assumes that a fixed number of cycles ∆N is chosen prior to starting the
simulations [23]. Thus, ∆a is variable, being initially small and increasing with the
iteration number. At each simulation iteration, ∆K is calculated from the finite element
simulation, which is then used to approximate the solution of the ordinary differential
function of crack size, the differential equation cannot be directly integrated. Instead,
there are only values of ∆K at the current and all past simulation iterations, and an
explicit numerical integration method such as the forward Euler method [24] can be
used to approximate the current growth increment ∆a . As the crack increment is based
on ∆K , it is essential for the mesh to be sufficiently refined around the crack tip such
that ∆K has converged and an accurate representation of the localized state of stress
around the crack tip. The use of a higher-order integration method such as the midpoint
[24] or Runge-Kutta [24] methods requires information which is not available in the form
of simulations of crack increments between the current and next simulation iteration.
especially considering that crack growth does not occur at all instances within a loading
cycle [25]. The forward Euler method requires small time steps to be accurate;
The other solution procedure assumes a fixed size of crack increment [21] at each
simulation iteration. Therefore, the number of elapsed cycles is initially large and
decreases with the iteration number. Here, the challenge is accurately back-calculating
the number of elapsed cycles from the fixed crack growth data. The forward Euler
19
[26], but as with the approach of fixing ∆N there must be care taken in selecting a
sufficiently small value of ∆N for the forward Euler method to maintain accuracy. A
higher-order approximation could be applied here as well, but discrete values of ∆K are
not available for all data points required for the evaluation of the slope of the a-N curve
For a general mixed-mode crack growth simulation, it is also imperative that the
choice of fixed ∆a or ∆N be made with care. The path that the crack may take is also
influenced by the choice of ∆a or ∆N as having too large of a value of either can result
in deviation from the crack growth path that would be predicted with the use of smaller
growth increments. Once this deviation occurs the path of future crack growth is
definitely affected, but this deviation is not clear to a user unless a convergence study
with respect to crack path is performed. In the literature [21, 23], it is clear that the
chosen fixed crack increments influence the crack path under mixed-mode loading. In
addition to the localized mesh reconstruction around the crack tip care needs to be
taken to ensure accuracy in the crack path, displacement, and stress intensity factors
with FEM.
The extended finite element method (XFEM) [21] alleviates the challenges
displacement approximation through the property of the partition of unity [27]. Additional
nodal degrees-of-freedom are also introduced that act to ‘calibrate’ the enrichment
functions as well as are used for interpolating within an element and in the calculation of
20
stresses or stress intensity factors using a method such as the domain form of the
contour integrals. Without the need to worry about mesh construction, the XFEM still
requires for the convergence of the crack path, displacement, and stress intensity
The goals and scope of this work are focused on accurate modeling of fatigue
crack growth under constant and variable amplitude loading for complex geometries
ordinary differential equation. The influence that this increased step size has
to the differential equations governing fatigue crack growth and to control the
accuracy of prediction.
the global stiffness matrix are limited to a very localized region about the
global stiffness matrix, allowing for large time savings to be realized for both
the assembly and factorization of the global stiffness matrix. This reanalysis
21
the XFEM framework where the location of a discontinuity is iteration
dependent.
Outline
Chapter 2 introduces the level set method for tracking closed and open sections.
This method is used to track the location of discontinuities in the XFEM as they do not
conform to the mesh. This includes cracks, inclusions and voids. Chapter 3 introduces
the extended finite element method. First the general form is considered. Then
enrichment functions are introduced for cracks, inclusions and voids. A discussion of the
considers the crack growth model that governs the crack growth at a given iteration.
Criterions which determine the direction of future crack growth are introduced. The
domain form of the contour integral is detailed for the extraction of the mixed-mode
stress intensity factors from a XFEM analysis of a cracked body. Finally, methods to
determine the amount of crack growth are given. Chapter 5 introduces the use of the
kriging surrogate model for increased accuracy in the integration of the ordinary
differential equation governing fatigue crack growth allowing larger step sizes to be
considered without loss of accuracy. Chapter 6 introduces and details the use of a
This leads to the use of a smaller time step and thus, a more accurate approximation to
the fatigue crack growth model. Chapter 7 summaries the work and future work are
suggested.
22
CHAPTER 2
THE LEVEL SET METHOD
Introduction
The level set method was introduced by Sethian and Osher [28] as a numerical
method which can be used to track the evolution of interfaces and shapes. The method
the underlying problem which is being modeled. Level set methods have been used in a
incompressible [30] flow, computer vision [31], image processing [32], manufacturing
[33-35] and structural optimization [36, 37]. In this chapter, the general algorithm is
introduced for tracking either a closed or open section through the use of the level set
method. The level set method will be used for tracking the location of cracks, inclusions,
and voids in a structure for an extended finite element analysis. Inclusions and voids
The level set method uses a discretization at grid points in the domain of interest.
Each of these points is assigned a signed distance value from that point to the nearest
introduced where x is a point in the domain of interest Ω with interface Γ . The level set
φ ( x, t ) < 0 for x ∈ Ω
φ ( x, t ) > 0 for x ∉ Ω . (2.1)
φ ( x, t ) = 0 for x ∈ Γ
23
Thus, points inside the domain of interest are given negative signs, points outside of the
domain of interest are given positive signs, and points on the interface have no sign as
their signed distance is zero. An example of the signed distance function for a circular
domain is given in Figure 2-1. From Eq. (2.1) it can be noted that at any time t the
φ ( x, t ) = 0 (2.2)
φ (x) > 0
Γ
φ (x) < 0
φ (x) = 0
Ω
The evolution of the level set function is usually assumed to follow the Hamilton-
∂φ
= v ∇φ (2.3)
∂t
where v is the front speed and ∇φ is the spatial gradient of the level set function. The
solution of Eq. (2.3) is usually approximated using finite differencing techniques [24].
24
When the forward finite difference technique is considered, the derivative of φ with
φi −1 − φi
+ Vi ⋅ ∇φi = 0 (2.4)
∆t
where φi +1 is the updated level set value, φi is the current level set value, Vi is the front
velocity vector, and ∆t is the elapsed time between i and i + 1 . Equation (2.4) can be
∂φi ∂φ
φi +1 = φi − ∆t ui + vi i (2.5)
∂x ∂y
where ui is the front velocity in the x-direction and vi is the front velocity in the y-
direction. In Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5) the time step ∆t is limited by the Courant-Friedrichs-
Lewy (CFL) condition [38] which ensures that the approximation to the solution of the
max ( ∆x, ∆y )
∆t < (2.6)
max ( u, v )
where ∆x and ∆y are the grid spacing in the x and y-directions. In practice, the level
set function needs to only be defined in a narrow band [39-41] around the interfaces of
interest or can be represented using the fast marching method [42], a variant of the
The version of the level set method presented in the previous section is only valid
for a closed section. For an open section, the definition of the interior, exterior, and
interface as defined in Eq. (2.1) no longer have a physical meaning. Stolarska [39]
introduced a modified version of the level set method which allows for open sections to
25
be tracked with the use of multiple level set functions. An open section as shown in
Figure 2-2 can be described by two level sets φ ( x ) and ψ ( x ) . The interface of interest
φ (x) > 0
φ (x) = 0 ψ (x) > 0 ψ (x) = 0
φ (x) < 0
ψ (x) > 0
φ (x) > 0 φ (x) > 0
ψ (x) > 0 ψ ( x) < 0
φ (x) < 0
ψ (x) < 0
φ (x) > 0
φ (x) = 0
ψ ( x) < 0
Figure 2-2. Example of the signed distance functions for an open section.
An updating algorithm for these two coupled level set function is also given by
Stolarska [39]. For the case of the φ ( x ) level set function, the update is identical to that
presented in Eqs. (2.3)-(2.5). Two regions are defined with respect to the ψ ( x ) level set
function, Ω update = φ ( x ) > 0 and Ω no update ≤ 0 which correspond to the regions which will
and will not be updated. The level set function ψ ( x ) is updated at the ith node
according to
ψ in +1 = ψ in in Ω no update
Fy Fx (2.8)
ψ in +1 = ± ( x − xi ) − ( y − yi ) in Ω update
F F
26
where the crack tip displacement vector is given as F = ( Fx , Fy ) and the current crack tip
is given by the coordinates ( xi , yi ) . The sign of the updated value ψin +1 is chosen to
Summary
The level set method allows for a closed or open section to be tracked by defining
signed distance values at fixed points in the domain of interest. The value of the level
set function at these points is then updated based on the front velocity at each point in
the domain using a finite difference technique to approximate the solution to the
governing partial differential equation. The level set method seems to be ideal for use in
a finite element environment where the nodes of the finite element mesh could be used
as the fixed points in the level set algorithm. The finite element shape functions could be
used to interpolate within an element to identify the values of the level set function if this
would be of interest.
27
CHAPTER 3
THE EXTENDED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Introduction
represented independent of the finite element mesh by exploiting the partition of unity
finite element method [27] (PUFEM). In this method additional functions, commonly
element shape functions. The XFEM uses these enrichment functions as a tool to
represent a non-smooth behavior of field variables, such as stress across the interface
functions introduced into the displacement approximation are only defined over a small
number of elements relative to the total size of the domain. Additional degrees of
freedom are introduced in all elements where the discontinuity is present, and
depending upon the type of function chosen, possibly some neighboring elements
This chapter is divided into the following sections. First the incorporation of the
enrichment functions into the displacement approximation and effect these functions
have on the resulting system of equations are discussed. Then specific enrichment
functions are given with an emphasis on cracks, inclusions and voids for linear elastic
materials. The use of level set functions for the definition of the enrichment functions is
introduced. The integration of the enriched elements through the use of subdivision of
other methods is explored. Finally, a survey of the available commercial and open
28
source finite element codes which have incorporated the XFEM in various levels of
sophistication is provided.
Displacement Approximation
u h ( x ) = ∑ N I ( x ) uI + ∑υ J ( x ) a IJ (3.1)
I J
where uI are the classical finite element degrees of freedom, υ J ( x ) is the Jth
enrichment function, and a IJ are the enriched degrees of freedom corresponding to the
Jth enrichment function at the Ith node. The enriched degrees of freedom introduced
by Eq. (3.1) generally do not have a physical meaning and instead can be considered
approximation. Note that Eq. (3.1) does not satisfy the interpolation property,
required in order to calculate the physical displacement using Eq. (3.1). The
Therefore, it is common practice to shift [43] the enrichment function such that
ϒ JI ( x ) = υ J ( x ) − υ IJ ( x ) (3.2)
where υ IJ ( x ) is the value of the Jth enrichment function at the Ith node. As the shifted
enrichment function now takes a value of zero at all nodes, the solution of the resulting
used for additional actions such as interpolation and post-processing. Here, the shifted
29
enrichment functions are referred to with upper case characters, and the unshifted
enrichment functions are referred to with lower case characters. The shifted
u h ( x ) = ∑ N I ( x ) uI + ∑ ϒ JI ( x ) a IJ (3.3)
I J
where ϒ JI ( x ) is the Jth shifted enrichment function at the Ith node. Hereafter, N I ( x )
Kq = f (3.4)
where K is the global stiffness matrix, q are the nodal degrees of freedom, and f are
the applied nodal forces. By appropriately ordering degrees of freedom, the global
K K ua
K = uu (3.5)
T
K ua K aa
where K uu is the classical finite element stiffness matrix, K aa is the enriched finite
element stiffness matrix, and K ua is a coupling matrix between the classical and
enriched stiffness components. The elemental stiffness matrix, K e for any member of
K may be calculated as
K e = ∫ h BαT CB β dΩ α , β = u, a (3.6)
Ω
30
where C is the constitutive matrix for an isotropic linear elastic material, Bu is the
matrix of classical shape function derivatives, and B a is the matrix of enriched shape
( N I ϒ JI ) 0 0
,x
N I ,x 0 0
0 NI,y 0
0 (N ϒ )
I
J
I ,y 0
0 0 N I ,z
0 0 ( N I ϒ I ),z
J
Bu = ; Ba = (3.7)
0 N I ,z N I ,y
0 (N ϒ )
I
J
I ,z ( N I ϒ IJ ), y
N I ,z N I ,x
( N I ϒ JI ),x
0
( N I ϒ I ), z
J
0
N I , y N I ,x 0
( N I ϒ I ), y (N ϒ )
J J
I I ,x
0
as
∂ ( N I ( x ) ϒ IJ ( x ) ) ∂ ( NI ( x )) ∂ ( ϒ IJ ( x ) )
= ϒ J
I ( x) + NI ( x) . (3.8)
∂xi ∂xi ∂xi
T
q T = {u a} (3.9)
where u and a are vectors of the classical and enriched degrees of freedom and
where fu and fa are vectors of the applied forces for the classical and enriched
31
fu = ∫ h N I tdΓ + ∫ h N I bdΩ (3.11)
Γt Ω
and
Stress and strain must be calculated with the use of the enrichment functions and
enriched degrees of freedom such that the effect of the discontinuity with a particular
T
ε = [Bu B a ]{u a} (3.13)
and
σ = Cε . (3.14)
Enrichment Functions
The XFEM has been used to solve a wide range of problems involving
strong discontinuity can be considered one where both the displacement and strain are
discontinuous strain. There exist enrichment functions for a variety of problems in areas
including cracks, dislocation, grain boundaries, and phase interfaces [45-48]. Aquino
[49] has also studied the use of proper orthogonal decomposition to incorporate
experimental data into the displacement approximation for cases with no logical choice
of enrichment function. Fries [50] introduced the use of hanging nodes in the XFEM
framework with respect to inclusions, cracks, and fluid mechanics to allow for
32
Crack Enrichment Functions
The modeling of cracks in the XFEM has been thoroughly explored [45-48, 51, 52].
Belytschko [53] was the first to study cracks in the XFEM framework based on the
element-free Galerkin crack enrichment of Fleming [54]. Moёs [21] introduced the use of
the Heaviside enrichment function to simplify the representation of the crack away from
the tip. Works have been done in two [21, 39, 53, 55, 56] and three-dimensions [40-42,
57, 58] for linear elastic [21, 39-42, 53, 55-58], elastic-plastic [59, 60], and dynamic [61-
65] fracture.
The common practice is to incorporate two enrichment functions into the XFEM
to represent the crack away from the tip and a more complex set of functions is used to
represent the crack tip asymptotic displacement field. The Heaviside step function is
given as
1, above crack
h ( x) = . (3.15)
−1, below crack
It can be noticed that the enrichment given by Eq. (3.15) introduces a discontinuity in
displacement across the crack. For a linear elastic crack tip, four enrichment functions
[54] are used to incorporate the crack tip displacement field into elements containing the
crack tip:
θ θ θ θ
φα ( x ),α =1− 4 = r sin , r cos , r sin θ sin , r sin θ cos (3.16)
2 2 2 2
where r and θ are the polar coordinates in the local crack tip coordinate system the
origin it at the crack tip and θ = 0 is parallel to the crack. Note that the first enrichment
function in Eq. (3.16) is discontinuous across the crack behind the tip in the element
33
containing the crack tip, acting as the Heaviside enrichment does. Should a node be
enriched by both Eqs. (3.15) and (3.16), only Eq. (3.16) is used as shown in Figure 3-1
where the Heaviside nodes are denoted by filled circles, while the crack tip nodes are
open.
Figure 3-1. The nodes enriched with the Heaviside and crack tip enrichment functions.
Another useful set of crack tip enrichment functions are those introduced by
Sukumar [66] for the modeling of cracks located at the interface between materials,
increased number of functions to span to asymptotic crack tip displacement field at the
crack tip. The bi-material crack tip enrichment functions are given as:
34
θ θ
φα ( x ),α =1−12 = r cos (ε log r ) e − εθ sin , r cos ( ε log r ) e − εθ cos ,
2 2
θ θ
r cos ( ε log r ) eεθ sin , r cos ( ε log r ) eεθ cos ,
2 2
θ θ
r cos ( ε log r ) eεθ sin θ sin , r cos ( ε log r ) eεθ sin θ cos ,
2 2
(3.17)
θ θ
r sin (ε log r ) e − εθ
sin , r sin (ε log r ) e − εθ
cos ,
2 2
θ θ
r sin (ε log r ) eεθ sin , r sin (ε log r ) eεθ cos ,
2 2
θ θ
r sin (ε log r ) eεθ sin θ sin , r sin (ε log r ) eεθ sin θ cos
2 2
1 1− β
ε= log (3.18)
2π 1+ β
µ1 (κ 2 − 1) − µ2 (κ1 − 1)
β= (3.19)
µ1 (κ 2 + 1) + µ2 (κ 1 + 1)
where µi and κ i are the shear modulus and Kosolov constant for the Ith material. The
3 −ν i
plane stress
κi = 1 +ν i . (3.20)
3 − 4ν plane strain
i
In elements which are cut by the crack but not the crack tip the Heaviside enrichment
Because the mesh does not conform to the domain, a method must be used to
track of the location of the cracks. To this end the use of the open segment level set
method introduced by Stolarska [39] and detailed in Chapter 3 is used. Two level set
35
functions are used to track the crack, the zero level set of ψ ( x ) represents the crack
body, while the zero level sets of φ ( x ) , which is orthogonal to the zero level set of
ψ ( x ) , represents the location of the crack tips. The two enrichment functions given in
Eqs. (3.15) and (3.16) can be calculated in terms of φ ( x ) and ψ ( x ) such that
1 for ψ ( x ) > 0
h ( x ) = h (ψ ( x ) ) = . (3.21)
−1 for ψ ( x ) < 0
ψ ( x)
r = ψ 2 ( x) + φ2 ( x) and θ = arctan . (3.22)
φ ( x)
The enriched nodes corresponding to the crack tip enrichment can also be determined
through the use of the level set functions defining the crack. Consider an element where
the maximum and minimum values of ψ ( x ) and φ ( x ) are given as ψ max , ψ min , φmax , and
Therefore, the extended finite element and level set methods complement one another
well for the tracking of the location of the cracks. The representation of cracks in three-
dimensions [40, 42, 68] follows a similar methodology. In practice the level sets are
defined in only a narrow band about the crack as discussed in Chapter 3 or the fast
36
The convergence rate of XFEM with crack enrichment functions has been an area
of interest [47, 69-74], particularly with respect to the challenges presented by the
partially enriched or blending elements caused by the crack tip enrichment. No blending
issues exist with the Heaviside function as it vanishes along all element boundaries. It
was noticed by Stazi [71] that the convergence rate for the XFEM was lower than the
equivalent traditional finite element problem. Chessa [75] identified that the partially
enriched crack tip elements lead to parasitic terms in the displacement approximation
function in the blending elements to increase convergence. An area [70, 76, 77] instead
of single element crack tip enrichment has also been shown to increase convergence.
Through the use of these methods the convergence rate of cracked domains with the
XFEM has become equivalent to the equivalent traditional finite element problem [47,
69, 74].
Alternative crack tip conditions have also been explored such as cohesive cracks
[78-80], branching cracks [81], cracks under frictional contact [82], fretting fatigue cracks
[83], interfacial cracks [60, 66, 84, 85], cracks in orthotropic materials [86], and cracks in
piezoelectric materials [87]. Mousavi [88] introduced a unified framework for the
harmonic enrichment functions. The XFEM has also been used to study a variety of
problems involving cracks including: the effect of cracks in plates [89, 90], crack
detection and identification [91-93], shape optimization [94, 95], and optimization with
37
Inclusion Enrichment Functions
through the element-free Galerkin [96] as well as partition of unity finite element method
[43, 45, 47, 48, 97-101] has been studied. The enrichment function should incorporate
the behavior of the weak discontinuity, i.e., continuous displacement, but discontinuous
F+ − F− = a ⊗ n+ (3.25)
where F is the deformation gradient, n + is the outward normal material interface, and a
is an arbitrary vector in the plane. The Hadamard condition must be satisfied by the
Sukumar [99] first introduced the use of the absolute value enrichment in terms of
the level set function ζ ( x ) , which gives the shortest signed distance from a given point
to the interface between the two materials. Therefore, the enrichment function takes the
form:
υ ( x) = ζ ( x) . (3.26)
The enrichment function is assumed to be nonzero only over the domain of support for
the enriched nodes, as with the crack enrichment function. For a bi-material boundary-
value benchmark problem the absolute value enrichment given by Eq. (3.26) led to a
convergence rate less than the equivalent traditional finite element method problem
where the mesh conforms with the material interface. It was hypothesized that the poor
38
reduce the effects of the blending elements which increased the convergence rate, but
Moёs [97] studied modeling complex microstructure geometries with the use of
level set defined material interfaces and introduced a new enrichment function. The
ϒ ( x) = ∑ NI ( x) ζ I − ∑ N ( x)ζ
I I . (3.27)
I I
Note that the enrichment function given by Eq. (3.27) is zero at all nodes and thus, does
not need to be shifted such that traditional degrees of freedom are recovered. If an
interface corresponds to the mesh, then no nodes are enriched as the enrichment
function will be zero and the problem will be equivalent to the traditional finite element
problem. The same benchmark problem considered by Sukumar [99] was considered
rate was shown to equal the traditional finite element method. In three-dimensions the
convergence rate was slightly less than the traditional finite element method. This
method is considered the current state-of-the-art for modeling inclusions with the XFEM.
u h ( x ) = ∑ N I ( x ) u I + υ ( x ) ae (3.28)
I
υ I ( x ) = 0
υ ( x) = (3.29)
υ (ζ ( x ) = 0 ) = 1
39
and ae are elemental degrees of freedom. Thus, the enrichment function vanishes at all
nodes and takes a value of one at the interface locations. The proposed method allows
dimensions of the problem. The resulting system of equations needs fewer degrees of
freedom than either the traditional or extended finite element method to represent the
same domain. It was found that the convergence rate is comparable to the absolute
value enrichment given by Eq. (3.26), due to errors in the prediction of the shear stress
Eqs. (3.26)-(3.28) is given for the case of a bi-material bar shown in Figure 3-2.
Bar 1 Bar 2 P
0.25L 0.75L
Figure 3-2. One-dimensional bi-material bar problem.
For this example problem, Young’s modulus for bars 1 and 2 are 1 Pa and 10 Pa,
freedom for the absolute value, modified absolute value and element-based enrichment
40
Figure 3-3. Comparison of the various inclusion enrichment functions.
The problem given in Figure 3-2 can be solved using the absolute value
which yield equivalent final answers. When additional elements are considered, the
smoothing of the absolute value enrichment presents a challenge not found with the
displacement. Due to the improved convergence rate for the modified absolute value
enrichment this method is the most popular approach in the literature for modeling
Other work on modeling inclusions in the XFEM include a unified model for the
[100]. Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions for arbitrarily shaped interfaces were
presented for a general enrichment function. Instead of Lagrange multiplier [102, 103] or
41
boundary tractions, prescribed displacement differences and prescribed interfacial
displacement states were applied to a bi-material problem. Hettich [105, 106] studied
the modeling and failure of the interface between fiber and matrix in composite
materials.
Daux [81] was the first to represent voids with the XFEM. Sukumar [99] later
extended the void enrichment to take advantage of the use of the χ ( x ) level set
function to track the void. Unlike the other enrichment functions presented here, the void
enrichment function does not require additional degrees of freedom; instead the
u h ( x ) = V ( x ) ∑ N I ( x ) uI (3.30)
I
where V ( x ) takes a value of 0 inside the void and 1 anywhere else. In practice,
An area where the XFEM differs from the classical finite element method is on the
scheme used to perform the numerical integration described by Eq. (3.6). Challenges
requires that the integrands are smooth, which is not the case for an element containing
a strong or weak discontinuity. The approach introduced by Moёs [21] was to divide a
was placed along the boundary of one of the subdomains. Integration would then be
42
performed over each subdomain, resulting in a series of integrations over continuous
crack tip and the associated subdomains for integration are shown in Figure 3-4. The
creation of the subdomains is straightforward with the use of Delaunay tesselation for
Figure 3-4. Examples of elements containing a discontinuity and the subdomains for
integration.
elements. Mousavi also explored integration over arbitrary polygons [107] with an
application to XFEM [107] and through the use of the Duffy transformation [108],
43
mapping method for integration of discontinuous enrichments. Other methods are
XFEM Software
Due to the relatively short history of the XFEM, commercial codes which have
implemented the method are not prevalent. There are however, many attempts to
either a plug-in or native support [48, 112-115]. As most of these implementations are
Abaqus
In 2009, the Abaqus 6.9 release [114] introduced basic XFEM functionality to the
different from that which was previously presented in this chapter. The implementation
is based on the phantom node method which was introduced by Hansbo [116] and
subsequently modified by Song [117] and Rabczuk [118]. The fundamental difference
between this implementation and the original XFEM is that the discontinuity is described
an area where an element is continuous. Several elements are combined together such
implemented by Abaqus considers a cohesive crack model, which is only enriched with
the Heaviside function given by Eq. (3.21). Note that it has been shown repeatedly that
the use of only the Heaviside enrichment leads to poor accuracy of the resulting J-
integral calculation [115]. As a result of this enrichment scheme, all enriched elements
44
Some of the limitations and challenges with modeling crack growth within Abaqus
• Only linear continuum elements are allowed with or without reduced integration
• A crack may not turn more than 90° within a particular element
The Abaqus 6.9: Extended Functionality [113] update allows for energy release rate and
currently no method available for the extraction of stress intensity factors in two-
dimensions. In practice, the modeling of crack growth within Abaqus with the current
model the same challenges exist of solving the system of equations as with cohesive
elements and methods such as viscous regularization must be applied to solve the
MXFEM
Basic functionality of the XFEM was implemented by Pais [119] in MATLAB for
two-dimensional plane stress and plane strain. A domain may be defined with a
structured grid of linear square quadrilateral elements with arbitrary loading and
boundary conditions. Enrichments provided include the homogeneous [21] and bi-
material [66] cracks, inclusions [97] and voids [81, 99]. All discontinuities are tracked
using the level set method detailed in Chapter 3. The φ ( x ) and ψ ( x ) level set functions
45
track the crack, the χ ( x ) level set function tracks the voids, and the ζ ( x ) level set
A variety of plotting outputs may be requested including: level set functions, finite
element mesh, deformed finite element mesh, elemental and contours of stress, and
stress-intensity factor history for growing cracks. A graphical user interface (GUI) is
available which offers simplified functionality compared to the direct modification of the
input file. The GUI writes an input file based on the values of the GUI and then solves
the problem. An example of the GUI is given in Figure 3-5. Examples of some of these
plots are given for the geometry shown in Figure 3-6, Figure 3-7, and Figure 3-8, which
contains a circular inclusion below the crack and a void above the crack.
46
A B
Figure 3-6. Example problem to show plots generated by MXFEM. A) The geometry
being considered, B) Example of the mesh output from MXFEM where blue
circles and squares denote the Heaviside and crack tip enriched nodes and
the black circles denote the inclusion enriched nodes.
-1 0 1 2 -4 -2 0 2 0 2 4 0 2 4
A B C D
Figure 3-7. Example of the level set functions output from MXFEM. A) φ ( x ) , B) ψ ( x ) ,
C) χ ( x ) , D) ζ ( x ) .
47
σvm
0 2 4 -2 0 2 0 5 10 0 5 10
A B C D
The domain form of the contour integrals [18, 19] is used to calculate the mixed-
mode stress intensity factors. For the bi-material crack case the algorithm presented by
[66] is used to identify the stress intensity factors. The mixed-mode stress intensity
factors are used in the maximum circumferential stress criterion [18] to give the direction
of crack extension. Crack growth may be modeled using either a constant increment of
growth or a fatigue crack growth law, such as Paris Law [120]. All crack growth
problems with constant ∆a or ∆N are solved using the reanalysis algorithm presented
in Chapter 5.
optimum crack location and the ability to define a variable load history. Benchmark
problems for the various enrichment functions are provided in Appendix A including:
center crack in an infinite plate, center crack in a finite plate, center bi-material crack in
an infinite plate, edge crack in a finite plate, hard inclusion in a finite plate, void in a
infinite plate, crack growth in the presence of an inclusion, fatigue crack growth, and
48
optimization to identify the initial crack location with maximum energy release rate for a
Others
[121] has implemented XFEM functionality into the Morfeo finite element environment.
Giner [115] implemented the XFEM in ABAQUS with the traditional crack tip enrichment
scheme for modeling two-dimensional growth through the use of user defined elements.
Global Engineering and Materials, Inc. [112, 122] is developing a XFEM-based failure
prediction tool as an ABAQUS plug-in which includes a small time scale fatigue model
[123] for variable amplitude loading. Sukumar [55, 56] implemented the XFEM in
Fortran, specifically the finite element program Dynaflow. Wyart [124] discussed the
Summary
independent of the finite element mesh by incorporating discontinuous functions into the
Additional nodal degrees of freedom are introduced at the nodes of elements cut by a
tip conditions and the Heaviside step function is used to model the crack away from the
tip. Inclusions are modeled using the modified absolute value enrichment, which shows
convergence equivalent to that of the classical finite element method. Voids can be
incorporated through the use of a step function and without additional nodal degrees of
49
a discontinuity require special integration treatment through the use of either a
As the discontinuities do not correspond to the finite element mesh, some other
method must be used to track the discontinuities. The level set method for open
sections is used to track any cracks in the domain. The level set method for closed
sections is used to track inclusions and voids. The level set values are used as part of
A version of the XFEM for the modeling of cohesive cracks has been introduced in
Abaqus 6.9, but it is not without its limitations. An implementation within MATLAB had
been completed here. The XFEM is also available through the use of plug-ins or some
50
CHAPTER 4
CRACK GROWTH MODEL
Introduction
There are many models which attempt to predict the magnitude and direction of
crack growth caused by some arbitrary loading. The stress intensity factors, which give
the crack tip stress conditions, are accepted as the driving force behind crack growth.
The major focus here is on modeling fatigue driven crack growth. In general two cases
have been considered in the literature: where the increment of growth is fixed and the
iteration. The direction of crack growth is given in terms of the stress intensity factors. If
iteration is also given in terms of the stress intensity factors. For a fixed crack growth
increment, the stress intensity factors can be used to back-calculate the number of
elapsed cycles from one growth iteration to another. Thus, the critical component for the
modeling of fatigue crack growth is the evaluation of stress intensity factors such that
In order for the crack growth prediction to have meaning, there are several
considerations about the use of the XFEM before the crack path is considered. First and
foremost, the finite element mesh must be sufficiently refined such that the stress
intensity factors may be calculated accurately, as they are the critical parameters which
predict the growth direction and magnitude. Also, care needs to be taken when
selecting the given increment of growth. As shown by Edke [127], there is a definite
relationship between the mesh size and crack growth path. While the presented
51
discussion was about removing oscillations by increasing mesh density, the underlying
cause was most likely incorrect stress intensity factor evaluation, leading to a non-
This chapter is divided into the following sections. First, the extraction of mixed-
mode stress intensity factors is discussed. Then, methods for determining the direction
of crack growth in terms of the mixed-mode stress intensity factors are presented.
Finally, a discussion about the methods available for predicting the amount of crack
The most common way to extract the mixed mode stress intensity factors is
through the use of the domain form of the interaction integrals [18, 19, 128] in two [21,
55, 81] or three-dimensions [41, 57, 58]. The domain form of the interaction integrals is
an extension of the J-integral originally introduced by Cherepanov [129] and Rice [17].
In the domain form, the line integral specified by the J-integral is converted to an area
integral which is much more amenable to use with finite element simulations. As the J-
integral is used to calculate the energy release rate for a given crack, the interaction
integrals are used to extract the mixed-mode stress intensity factors. This method has
been shown to have excellent accuracy when applied to suitable meshes for many
crack conditions including homogenous [21], bi-material [66], and branching [81] cracks.
release rate G can be expressed in terms of the relationship between the J-integral,
52
K I2 K II2
J= + (4.1)
Eeff Eeff
E plane stress
Eeff = E (4.2)
1 − ν 2 plane strain
where E is Young’s modulus and ν is Poisson’s ratio. The J-integral takes the form
∂u
J = ∫ Wni − σ jk n j k dΓ (4.3)
Γ
∂xi
where W is the strain energy density. Equation (4.3) can be rewritten in the equivalent
form using the Dirac delta which is easier to implement in finite element code as
∂u
J = ∫ W δ1 j − σ ij i n j dΓ . (4.4)
Γ
∂x1
and stress states are superimposed onto one another. Auxiliary stress and
displacement states are superimposed onto the stress and displacement solution from
XFEM. The auxiliary stress and displacement states at the crack tip introduced by
Westergaard [130] and Williams [131] for a homogenous crack and by Sukumar [66] for
a bi-material crack are used in the calculation of the mixed-mode stress intensity factors
and are given in Appendix B. Hereafter, the XFEM states are given as uij(1) , ε ij( 2) , and
σ ij( 2) while the auxiliary states are given as uij( 2) , ε ij( 2) , and σ ij( 2) . The superposition of
1 (
∂ ui( ) + ui( )
1 2
) n dΓ .
J (1+ 2 )
Γ 2
(
( 1) ( 2)
)(
(1) ( 2)
) ( 1)
(
= ∫ σ ij + σ ij ε ij + ε ij δ1 j − σ ij + σ ij
( 2)
)
∂x1
j (4.5)
53
The expansion of the terms of Eq. (4.5) allows for the J-integral to be separated to the
where W (
1,2 )
is the interaction strain energy density given as
W(
1,2 )
= σ ij( )ε ij( ) = σ ij( )ε ij( ) .
1 2 2 1
(4.7)
The two superimposed stress states can be expressed using Eq. (4.1) after
rearrangement as
J (1+ 2 )
=J (1)
+J (2)
+
(
2 K I( ) K I( ) + K II( ) K II( )
1 2 1 2
). (4.8)
Eeff
Therefore, from Eqs. (4.6) and (4.8), the interaction state is given as
I (1,2 )
=
(
2 K I( ) K I( ) + K II( ) K II( )
1 2 1 2
). (4.9)
Eeff
Therefore the stress intensity factors for the XFEM state K I(1) and K II(1) are given by
selecting K I( 2 ) = 1 and K II( 2 ) = 0 , followed by K I( 2 ) = 0 and K II( 2 ) = 1 such that K I(1) and K II(1)
54
The calculation of stress intensity factors for a bi-material crack follows a similar
algorithm as that for a homogenous crack. The more complicated state of stress caused
by the crack being located at the interface between two materials leads to a different
energy release rate relationship than the homogenous case given in Eq. (4.1). For the
bi-material case the relationship between the energy release rate and mixed-mode
K I2 K II2
G= + (4.12)
*
Eeff cosh 2 (πε ) Eeff
*
cosh 2 (πε )
*
where Eeff is given by
*
2 E1,eff E2,eff
Eeff = (4.13)
E1,eff + E2,eff
where Ei ,eff is given by Eq. (4.2) and the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the materials in the
upper and lower half-planes. Following the steps for the homogenous crack case, the
I (1,Mode I ) Eeff
*
cosh 2 (πε )
K I(1) = (4.14)
2
and
I (1,Mode II ) Eeff
*
cosh 2 (πε )
K II(1) = . (4.15)
2
For either the homogenous or bi-material case the interaction integral in Eq. (4.6)
is converted from a line integral into an area integral and a smoothing function qs which
takes a value of 1 on the interior of the line integral defined by Eq. (4.6) and a value of 0
outside of the integral. Elements for the integration are selected by choosing a radius
from the crack tip. When this radius becomes sufficiently large the integral becomes
55
path-independent; i.e., any path larger than the path-independent radius rind will yield
equivalent solutions to Eq. (4.6). In practice a radius of three elements about the crack
1 ∂u ( 2 ) 2 ∂u
(1) ∂q
I( = ∫ σ ij( ) i − σ ij( ) i − W ( )δ1 j s dA
1,2 ) 1,2
(4.16)
A
∂x1 ∂x1 ∂x j
Other methods have also been used to extract the mixed-mode stress intensity
factors using XFEM. Duarte [132] used a least squares fit of the localized stress state
around the crack tip to extraction the stress intensity factors. Karihaloo [46] included
allowed for the stress intensity factors to be obtained directly without the use of
[45]. Lua [112, 123] introduced nodes along the crack fronts which were used with the
crack-tip opening displacement [16] to calculate the mixed-mode stress intensity factors.
This method is only valid for linear elastic cracks. Sukumar [42] attempted to evaluate
the stress intensity factors directly from the enriched degrees of freedom corresponding
to the crack tip enrichment function for pure mode I problem, but the accuracy of the
stress intensity factors was found to be insufficient. A similar method was introduced by
Liu [133] with much better results for homogeneous and biomaterial cracks.
stress intensity factors present at a crack tip. While there are several criteria available
56
for both two [20, 134-137] and three-dimensions [137], in general they only differ in the
angle of the initial kink, but then converge to similar crack paths [55]. In two-dimensions,
these methods will give the angle of crack extension, which in general is the direction
In two-dimensions the main criteria for the crack growth direction are the maximum
circumferential stress [135], maximum energy release rate [136] and the maximum
strain energy density criterion [20]. Other criterion available in the literature are the
criterion of energy release rates and the generalized fracture criterion [137]. The
criterion which is most amenable to modeling crack growth with finite elements is the
2 K II2 + K I K I2 + 8 K II2
θ c = − arccos . (4.17)
K I2 + 9 K II2
2
1 KI KI
θ c = 2 arctan − sign ( K II ) + 8 (4.18)
4 K II K
II
−2 ( K II K I )
θ c = 2 arctan . (4.19)
1 + 1 + 8 ( K K I )
2
II
57
Crack Growth Magnitude
At each cycle of fatigue loadings, the amount of crack growth is in the order of
equation in Eq. (1.1) is solved at discrete points, which will be referred to as simulation
iteration in this work. There are two main approaches presented in the literature for the
amount of crack growth at a given simulation iteration. The first method assumes that a
known and finite amount of growth will occur at a given iteration. The second method
assumes that some governing law, such as a fatigue crack growth law can be used to
In the literature, the selection of a constant crack growth increment is very popular
[23, 39, 51, 53, 56, 78, 82, 115, 138]. At a given cycle the amount of crack growth is
generally very small, approximately on the order of 10E-8 [127]. Therefore, it is more
made a priori. It has been shown in the literature by Moёs [21] and Pais [23] that the
Challenges with this method include selecting a ∆a such that the crack path
converges to the appropriate path. With a single analysis it is unclear how one can
know whether or not the predicted crack path has converged. It is also unclear how to
interpolate between the data points since the a − N crack growth curve is nonlinear.
For applications where a variable load history may be considered, the use of a
finite increment of crack growth increment may no longer be accurate. The interaction
between the different loading magnitudes such as overloads, underloads, and their
58
interaction between one another would not be captured through the use of a finite
growth increment.
The slow progressive failure of a structure caused by crack growth under cyclic
loading is called fatigue. This source of failure is one of the most common affecting
engineering structures. There are many fatigue crack growth models of varying
complexity [14]. Most fatigue crack growth laws are of the form
da
= f ( ∆K , R ) (4.20)
dN
where da/dN is the crack growth speed, ∆K is the stress intensity factor range, and R is
the stress ratio. Many different laws attempt to consider the effects of phenomenon [14]
such as crack growth instability when the stress intensity factor approaches it’s critical
value, threshold stress intensity factor, changing crack tip geometry, and elastic crack
tip conditions. For a variable load history, the interactions between overloads and
underloads are a crucial component of any fatigue crack growth model. An overload is a
load which is substantially greater than the mean, while an underload is a load which is
substantially less than the mean. Overloads increase crack tip plasticity which leads to
less crack growth in resulting loading cycles. An underload has the opposite effect and
The first fatigue model was presented by Paris [120]. The relationship between the
crack growth rate and the stress intensity factor range is given as
da
= C ∆K m (4.21)
dN
59
where C is the Paris model constant and m is the exponent; both of them are material
properties which can be derived from fatigue testing data. Limitations of the Paris model
include that it was originally designed for use only for Mode I loading. The stress ratio is
also neglected, as is any sort of crack closure model. Despite these limitations, the
∆a = ∆NC ∆K m . (4.22)
Care must be taken such that ∆N is not too large, otherwise the forward Euler method
have been proposed for the calculation of a single effective stress intensity factor range
∆K = 4 K I4 + 8 K II4 (4.23)
based on curve fitting observed experimental data. Yan proposed a different correction
1 θ
∆K = cos K I (1 + cos θ ) − 3K II sin θ (4.24)
2 2
rate is given as
∆K = K I2 + K II2 . (4.25)
With regards to the XFEM, crack growth models have been limited primarily to the
Paris model. Belytschko [43] used it to drive the crack growth for a plate with holes, but
60
no specifics about how the Paris model was used is given. Gravouil [40] coupled the
level set method to the Paris model, but no clear definition of the number of elapsed
cycles was given. Instead the growth was governed by assuming N to be equivalent to
the traditional time for the level set method. Sukumar [42] calculated the increment of
crack growth ∆a as
m
∆a KI
= max (4.26)
∆amax K I
where ∆amax was taken as 0.05a0 for initial crack length a0 for a value of K Imax
corresponding to the maximum value of K I along the crack front. Note that here a
value for ∆amax acts very similarly to that of a fixed ∆a such that a small value is
A fixed crack growth increment ∆a can be used to model fatigue crack growth and
then the corresponding number of elapsed cycles can be back-calculated through the
∆a
∆N = . (4.27)
C ∆K m
If the forward Euler method is going to be used as in Eq. (4.27) then care must be taken
with a hole as shown in Figure 4-1. The chosen plate dimensions were a width of 4 m
and a height of 8 m with a hole with radius 1 m centered at (2,2) m. The edge crack has
an initial length of 0.5 m. The material properties for the plate were chosen as Young’s
modulus of 10 MPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.33, Paris model constant and exponent of
61
1.5E-10 and 3.8 respectively. The applied stress was 14.5 MPa. The purpose of this
study was to attempt to assess the effect that the mesh density and crack growth
increments ∆a and ∆N on the predicted crack path. The results are shown in Figure
4-2.
A B
σ
Figure 4-1. Plate with a hole subjected to tension. A) Geometry, B) Mesh ( h = 1/10)
A B C
62
From Figure 4-2 it is clear that the choice of mesh size is very important as
expected. Without a sufficiently refined mesh, the accuracy of the stress intensity
factors will be poor leading to an inaccurate prediction of the crack growth direction. The
crack path is relatively insensitive to the choice of ∆a in this choice, but there is
deviation between the steps if a close up image of the crack paths near the hole is
examined as in Figure 4-3. The most sensitive case is that of ∆N where the cases of
Figure 4-3. Close up view of the crack paths for ∆a around the hole.
Summary
Crack growth is modeled using mixed-mode stress intensity factors which are
extracted with the use of the domain form of the contour integrals. The mixed-mode
stress intensity factors are used in the maximum circumferential stress criterion in order
to find the direction of future crack growth. If a fixed increment of growth is considered,
then the stress intensity factors are used to back-calculate the number of elapsed
cycles. For a fixed number of elapsed cycles, the stress intensity factors are used to
determine the magnitude of crack growth at a given iteration. If the Paris model is to be
63
used, then an effective ∆K must be calculated to convert the mixed-mode stress
64
CHAPTER 5
KRIGING FOR INCREASED FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH STEP SIZE
Introduction
Fatigue crack growth models are accepted to be a function of the stress intensity
of the boundary conditions, geometry and loading. This creates a challenge for
available to approximate the solution to the nonlinear crack growth governed by the
chosen fatigue crack growth model. Therefore the common practice is to use the
forward Euler approximation to the fatigue crack growth model, which only requires ∆K
at the current iteration. This limits the step size of crack growth increment ∆a [21] or
elapsed cycle increment ∆N [23] for the forward Euler approximation [24] to be
accurate. It is not possible to use a higher order approximation to the fatigue crack
growth law such as the midpoint or 4th order Runge-Kutta approximation [24] without
additional simulations at the locations needed for the additional slope evaluations of
simulations to calculate ∆K . Surrogate models are commonly used to reduce the cost
include polynomial response surface [139], kriging [140-142], radial basis neural
networks [143], and support vector regression [144]. Kriging is used here instead of
other surrogate models for several reasons. Kriging honors the observed data points
65
and interpolates between them. Further, kriging provides a measure of the uncertainty
In this chapter, two cases are considered for utilizing the kriging surrogate model.
First, when ∆a is fixed, the relationship between ∆K and ∆a is fitted using a kriging
surrogate. This surrogate is then used to approximate the corresponding ∆N for a given
∆a such that the cyclic crack growth history can be obtained. As all function evaluations
will be interpolating the kriging surrogate, results are very accurate even for very large
fitted using a kriging surrogate. This surrogate is then used to extrapolate forward in
time so that a higher order approximation to the chosen fatigue crack growth law can be
used to find the corresponding ∆a . In the future, the prediction variance will be used to
Kriging
y ( x ) = yˆ ( x ) + ε ( x ) , (5.1)
66
m
yˆ ( x ) = ∑ β i f i ( x ) + z ( x ) , (5.2)
i =1
m
where z ( x ) satisfies z ( x k ) = y ( x k ) − ∑ β i f i ( x k ) for all sample points ( x k ) and is
i =1
( )
cov Z ( x i ) , Z ( x j ) = σ 2 R ( x i , x j ) , (5.3)
1 T
σ2 = ( y − Xb ) R −1 ( y − Xb ) , (5.4)
p
actual responses at the sampled points, X is the Gramian design matrix constructed
using the basis functions at the sampled points, R is the matrix of correlations R ( x i , x j )
(5.2). Figure 5-1 shows the prediction and the error estimates of kriging. It can be
noticed that since the kriging model is an interpolator, the error vanishes at sampled
data points.
67
Figure 5-1. Kriging model with an arbitrary set of five points and the uncertainty in gray.
One of the first attempts to create a model to represent fatigue crack growth was
that of Paris [120]. The Paris model is well known and takes the form
da m
= C ( ∆K ) (5.5)
dN
where da/dN is the crack growth rate, C is the Paris model constant, m is the exponent
The simplest approach to integrating the Paris model for fatigue crack growth is
the use of the forward Euler method. Here the stress intensity factor range at the current
iteration is the only information needed to find the increment of growth between the
current and future iterations. For fixed number of cycles, the magnitude of crack growth
∆ai = ∆N C ( ∆Ki )
m
(5.6)
where i is the current increment. The corresponding number of elapsed cycles can be
approximated as
∆a
∆N i = m
(5.7)
C ( ∆K i )
for a fixed increment of crack growth. As the forward Euler method only uses the slope
at the current point and linearly interpolates to the next crack size it can lead to large
The next approach to approximating the solution of the Paris model is the use of
68
∆ai = ∆N C ( ∆Ki +1/2 )
m
(5.8)
where i +1/2 is the midpoint between the current and next increment. Similarly, ∆N i is
given as
∆a
∆N i = m
. (5.9)
C ( ∆K i +1/2 )
Here the slope at the midpoint of the current cycle is use to extrapolate ahead to i +1.
This leads to a second-order accuracy in estimating the crack size at the next increment
as a more accurate approximation of the slope over the entire interval of the chosen
i +1/2 for each iteration being considered, effectively doubling the number of function
evaluations needed for the given simulation. For some situations a function evaluation
at i +1/2 may not have physical meaning such as non-integer values of N . The
Another approach is to use the 4th order Runge-Kutta method where the growth
increment is given as
∆N
C ( ∆K i ) + 4 ( ∆Ki +1/2 ) + ( ∆Ki +1 )
m m m
∆a = (5.10)
6
∆a
C ( ∆K i ) + 4 ( ∆Ki +1/2 ) + ( ∆Ki +1 ) .
m m m
∆N = (5.11)
6
Here the slope at four points over the interval are combined using weight functions so
that a more accurate representation of the average slope over a given interval may be
considered. The 4th order Runge-Kutta requires three function evaluations over a
69
particular interval and as with the midpoint method may require evaluations of ∆K at
non-integer values of N .
The solution of Eq. (5.5) with respect to modeling crack growth with finite element
simulations can take two main approaches. First, a fixed crack growth increment ∆a
can be considered. Once the simulations have completed, the history between ∆a and
∆K can be used to find the corresponding ∆N for each iteration. Second, a fixed
function of either the crack length a or the number of elapsed cycles N . The kriging
approximation is then used for a higher-order integration to the Paris model, such as the
midpoint method given by Eqs. (5.8)-(5.9) or 4th-order Runge-Kutta method given Eq.
simulations using interpolation between data points. Equally spaced data points
between ai and the final crack length are fitted using kriging. This surrogate is then
used to interpolate between data points and evaluate the corresponding ∆N for each
∆a . For a fixed ∆N , kriging is used to fit the data up to the current cycle and
extrapolate approximate values of ∆K for the use of the midpoint and 4th order Runge-
Kutta methods. Three initial data points are provided before the use of kriging begins.
70
To get the second and third data points, the forward Euler method can be used as its
Example Problems
First two numerical results based purely upon accepted theoretical values are
used. This allow for an estimate of the amount of error that can be expected by the use
of kriging to provide data points instead of performing a simulation. The effect on the
choice of ∆a or ∆N is considered for each model. Results are presented for each case
as the final approximate value normalized by the exact final value of crack size or cycle
number. A value of one denotes perfect agreement with the exact solution. Finally two
results are provided for mixed-mode crack growth modeled using the XFEM where the
The chosen geometry is a cylindrical pressure vessel with radius of 3.25 m, width
of 0.2 m, and thickness of 0.0025 m. The panel is subjected to a pressure of 0.06 MPa
and contains an initial half crack of length 0.01 m. The material is assumed to be AL
7071 which has Young’s modulus E of 71.7 GPa, Poisson’s ratio ν of 0.33, a critical
stress intensity factor of about 30 MPa m , Paris model constant C of 1.5E-10 and
exponent m of 3.8. Data is simulated to 1200 cycles, at which point ∆K eq has exceeded
K IC . The results are presented for each case as a function of the ratio between the
exact final and predicted final crack size or cycle number such that a value of one
For the case of a center crack in an infinite plate under uniaxial tension the Mode I
71
KI = σ π a (5.12)
where σ is the nominal tensile stress, and a is the half crack length. By substituting Eq.
(5.12)into Eq. (5.5) for Paris Law, rearranging terms, and performing the following
integration
2 −m 2−m
aN da a N 2 − ai 2
N =∫ = (5.13)
C 2 − m σ π
m
ai
(
C σ πa ) 2
( )
m
where ai is the initial crack size. Solving for a N yields an expression for crack size in
2
m m 2−m
a N = ai + NC 1 − σ π a
2
( ) .
(5.14)
This allows for the midpoint and 4th order Runge-Kutta methods to be applied without
error as a N and K I can be directly evaluated and used in the Paris model.
For a fixed ∆a , the results are given in Table 5-1. Recall that the common ∆a
used in the literature [21] is ai/10. For that crack growth increment, the Euler
approximation has over 5 percent error. Through the use of the midpoint or Runge-Kutta
method that error is reduced to less than 1 percent. Larger crack growth increments for
the Euler method lead to very large errors, which can be drastically reduced though the
use of a higher-order method. Note also that the use of kriging to fit data and provide
estimates for the necessary function evaluations for the higher-order method results is
no loss of accuracy.
72
Table 5-1. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆a for a center crack in an infinite plate.
Napprox/Nexact
∆a Euler Midpoint Runge-Kutta KRG + MP KRG + RK
ai/160 1.0035 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
ai/80 1.0070 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
ai/40 1.0141 0.9999 1.0000 0.9999 1.0000
ai/20 1.0285 0.9998 1.0000 0.9998 1.0000
ai/10 1.0579 0.9991 1.0000 0.9991 1.0000
ai/5 1.1194 0.9964 1.0000 0.9964 1.0000
ai/2 1.3244 0.9786 1.0005 0.9787 1.0005
ai 1.7216 0.9271 1.0052 0.9367 1.0052
For a fixed ∆N , the results are given in Table 5-2. The first observation is that the
insensitive to the chosen crack growth increment. As before, the kriging assisted
midpoint approximation is very accurate and comparable to using the exact formula.
The kriging assisted Runge-Kutta formulation tends to infinity with the default kriging
settings. It was found that extrapolating for ∆Ki +1 leads to very poor predictions of the
crack growth path where the final crack path approaches infinity.
Table 5-2. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆N for a center crack in an infinite plate.
aapprox/aexact
∆N Euler Midpoint Runge-Kutta KRG + MP KRG + RK
1 0.9980 1.0013 1.0013 1.0000 ∞
5 0.9903 1.0013 1.0013 1.0000 ∞
10 0.9809 1.0013 1.0013 1.0000 ∞
25 0.9545 1.0012 1.0013 0.9990 ∞
50 0.9155 1.0009 1.0013 0.9998 ∞
100 0.8519 0.9999 1.0013 0.9906 ∞
73
Edge Crack in a Finite Plate Under Tension
For the case of an edge crack in a finite plate under uniaxial tension the Mode I
a a
2
a
3
a
4
where a is the crack length and W is the plate width. As there is no analytical
expression for a N as there is for the case of a center crack in an infinite plate the crack
length after 1200 cycles was approximated using forward Euler with 105 steps, which
leads to a difference of less than 0.01 percent from forward Euler with 104 steps.
For a fixed ∆a , the results are given in Table 5-3. Here the corresponding Euler
Table 5-3. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆a for an edge crack in a finite plate.
Napprox/Nexact
∆a Euler Midpoint Runge-Kutta KRG + MP KRG + RK
ai/160 1.0045 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
ai/80 1.0091 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
ai/40 1.0183 0.9999 1.0000 0.9999 1.0000
ai/20 1.0370 0.9997 1.0000 0.9997 1.0000
ai/10 1.0754 0.9987 1.0000 0.9987 1.0000
ai/5 1.1558 0.9949 1.0000 0.9949 1.0000
ai/2 1.4255 0.9703 1.0006 0.9743 1.0033
ai 1.9515 0.8994 1.0073 1.0088 1.0801
For a fixed elapsed number of cycles in each simulation, the exact results for
midpoint and 4th order Runge-Kutta are not available as there is no explicit value for
a N . As with the case of a center crack in an infinite plate, the kriging 4th order Runge-
74
Kutta results are very poor and are not shown. From Table 5-4 it is apparent that once
again, the kriging assisted midpoint method allows for larger step sized compared to the
forward Euler method. In this case, for a step size of 100, the errors for the Euler and
kriging assisted midpoint methods are 17 and 3 percent. The similar trend of the kriging
assisted midpoint method being less accurate for larger ∆N continues, and that
approximation is still better than Euler alone. The increased errors in the approximation
compared to the case of a center crack in an infinite plate can most likely be explained
by the increased nonlinearity caused by the edge and finite effects present in this
geometry.
Table 5-4. Accuracy of integration for chosen ∆N for an edge crack in a finite plate.
aapprox/aexact
∆N Euler Midpoint Runge-Kutta KRG + MP KRG + RK
1 0.9971 N/A N/A 1.0001 ∞
5 0.9858 N/A N/A 0.9995 ∞
10 0.9756 N/A N/A 0.9990 ∞
25 0.9381 N/A N/A 0.9976 ∞
50 0.8922 N/A N/A 0.9924 ∞
100 0.8264 N/A N/A 0.9721 ∞
Kriging has been used to enable the use of more accurate numerical integration
schemes in the integration of the partial differential equations governing fatigue crack
growth. Through two numerical examples, a center crack in an infinite plate and an
edge crack in a finite plate, it was shown that the use of kriging and the midpoint
method lead to large increases in the allowable step size without loss of accuracy.
Further work need to be completed to study the underlying cause of the errors for
the kriging assisted Runge-Kutta errors. With some calibration of the kriging parameters
75
a better solution to the fatigue crack growth model may be achieved. Based on the
superior to the midpoint rule and it is possible that the kriging model can be adjusted to
increase this accuracy. It may also end up being the case that the interpolation needed
to the next simulation point may be too far for the kriging model to produce an accurate
approximation.
Kriging also provides an estimate of the uncertainty between data points. The use
of the uncertainty in kriging to allow for a variable step size based on a statistical model
will also be explored. At the beginning of fatigue crack growth, larger steps may be
taken as the curve is largely flat, but as the critical crack length is approached smaller
steps should be taken to account for the nonlinear crack growth behavior. This
approach should allow for a better allocation of resources for the numerical simulation of
case the path of crack growth will be curved. Thus, the allowable step size based on the
approximation of the solution of the fatigue crack growth law may be limited by the need
to have a converged crack path. This is an important interaction which will need to be
considered for practical use of the kriging assisted methods for use in a finite element
environment.
76
CHAPTER 6
REANALYSIS OF THE EXTENDED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Introduction
When crack growth is modeled in the quasi-static framework with the XFEM, there
are small changes to the global stiffness matrix associated in the crack growth between
subsequent iterations. Reanalysis methods [145] have been developed primarily for use
in the fields of design and optimization to efficiently solve problems where small
perturbations to an existing finite element domain are made as part of the solution
elements, the addition of new elements, or a combination of both to the finite element
mesh. Instead of reconstructing the global finite element stiffness matrix from scratch,
only the changed portion is considered. These strategies can result in substantial
computational savings for the repeated analysis of a structure, in this case the modeling
the exact solution and methods which achieve an approximate solution. For the
approximate solution there are methods based on the direct modification to the inverse
of a matrix [146] and methods which directly modify a factorized version of the matrix
[147]. Exact methods are usually applied to situations with relatively little change to the
formula [148] or the more general binomial inverse theorem [149] for direct updating of
the matrix inverse and the direct updating of a Cholesky factorization [24] through the
use of row modifications [150]. The approximate methods are based on iterative solvers
[151-153] and are usually used when a large number of changes to the original matrix
77
are occurring. For optimization applications the approximate applications are typically
(PCG) approach is used prior to starting the reanalysis [152]. Here the Cholesky
factorization for the initial XFEM stiffness matrix is modified in subsequent iterations to
Cholesky Factorization
solving the system of equations can result in a more efficient solution procedure than
directly solving the system of equations. The Cholesky factorization [24] is a special
case of LU decomposition for a matrix which is square, symmetric, and positive definite.
avoids the need to take square roots during the factorization. As calculated the global
stiffness matrix is positive semi-definite until boundary conditions are applied, thus
boundary conditions are applied before the LDL decomposition algorithm is applied to
The LDL decomposition algorithm can be introduced through the use of some
matrix A which is square, symmetric, and positive definite which will be factorized as
A T T
11 A21 A21
T
A = A21 A22 A32 = LDLT (6.1)
A31 A32 A33
where L is the lower triangular matrix and D is the diagonal matrix given as
1 0 0 D 0
11 0
L = L21 1 0 , D = 0 D22 0 (6.2)
L 0 0 D33
31 L32 1
78
where the components of L and D are given by
1 j −1
A −
Lij = ij ∑ ik jk k ,
L L D for i > j (6.3)
Dj k =1
and
i −1
Di = Aii − ∑ L2ik Dk . (6.4)
k =1
The XFEM allows for discontinuities to be arbitrarily inserted into a finite element
mesh though the use of enrichment functions and additional nodal degrees of freedom.
For a domain which contains voids, inclusions and homogeneous cracks the
4
u h ( x ) = V ( x ) ∑ N I ( x ) u I + υ ( x ) iI + H I ( x ) a I + ∑ Φ JI ( x ) bIJ (6.5)
I J =1
where N I (x ) are the classical finite element shape functions, V (x ) is the void
enrichment function [81, 99], υ (x ) is the modified absolute value enrichment function
[97], H (x ) is the shifted Heaviside enrichment function [21], ΦJI (x ) is the Jth crack tip
enrichment function [54], uI are the classical degrees of freedom, iI are the additional
degrees of freedom associated with the modified absolute value enrichment, aI are the
additional degrees of freedom associated with the Heaviside enrichment, and bI are the
additional degrees of freedom associated with the crack tip enrichment functions.
Through the use of the Bubnov-Galerkin method [44] the global stiffness matrix is
79
K T
Kiu T
Kau T
Kbu
uu
T T
K Kii Kai Kbi
K = iu . (6.6)
K T
Kai Kaa Kba
au
K Kbi Kba Kbb
bu
Note that in general the stiffness matrix for a particular element will only contain
components of the classical stiffness matrix Kuu as the enrichment functions are
defined in a small portion of the finite element mesh. The structure of the global stiffness
matrix given in Eq. (6.6) is achieved through appropriate choice of numbering for nodes.
Notice from Eq. (6.6) that as a result of crack growth in a quasi-static approach,
which is commonly used to simulate fatigue crack growth, that only the region of the
global stiffness matrix associated with the Heaviside and crack tip enrichment functions,
denoted with subscripts a and b in Eq. (6.6), will change after the initial iteration. The
change to that region of the stiffness matrix is also small compared to the full stiffness
matrix. A method is introduced here to take advantage of the large constant portion of
the finite element stiffness matrix to allow for repeated simulations of crack growth in a
First the non-changing portion of the global stiffness matrix is separated from the
region where changes are occurring such that for the initial iteration
A T
A21
A = 11
(6.7)
A21 A22
where the components of A are given in terms of the components of Eq. (6.6) as
K T
Kiu T
Kau
uu
Kbu
T
A11 = Kiu Kii Kai , T
A21 = Kbi A22 = Kbb . (6.8)
Kau Kai Kaa Kba
80
For subsequent iterations the A matrix takes a modified form from Eq. (6.7) as
A T
aba T
A21
11
T
A = aba abb acb (6.9)
A21 acb A22
where the a matrices correspond to new Heaviside components of the stiffness matrix
which will become a part of A11 for future iterations. Note that for this approach only the
new Heaviside and crack tip nodes need be computed at a given iteration after the first.
Then the new Heaviside stiffness matrix components are retained for future use while
the dynamic crack tip stiffness matrix components are discarded and recalculated at the
next iteration. In this case the number of elements requiring calculation of stiffness
average element size and ∆a is the amount of crack growth from the prior iteration.
Aside from the assembly of the global stiffness matrix the corresponding
factorization of the global stiffness matrix can be modified based on direct calculation of
the new portions of the factorization. The LDL Cholesky factorization for Eq. (6.7) is
A T
A21
= L11 0 D11 0 LT11 LT21
A = 11 . (6.10)
A21 A22 L21 L22 0 D22 0 LT22
In this form only L21 and L22 need to be calculated at each iteration. For the case
presented in Eq. (6.9), the new Heaviside terms can simply be included in L21 and L22
and then any factorized terms associated with the Heaviside enrichment function may
81
Implementation of this algorithm for the modification of the Cholesky factorization
presents several challenges within the MATLAB environment. The solution of L21 and
L22 required sparse matrix division to occur within MATLAB. Within the MATLAB
environment the sparse matrices are converted to dense matrices, then the division is
performed and the solution is converted back to a sparse matrix [154]. Furthermore, as
a fill-reducing ordering such as AMD [155-158] or METIS [159, 160] is not considered,
thus the L21 and L22 factorizations are basically dense matrices in order for the proper
portion of the finite element stiffness matrix along with the sparse to dense to spare
intensive option available. Thus, only the assembly savings have been realized at this
time.
While the main objective of this work is to use the reanalysis algorithm to allow for
growth through an increased number of simulations in a fixed amount of time there are
other instances where this approach could be beneficial. The other logical set of
problems which could take advantage of this algorithm are optimization algorithms
Example Problems
Three example problems for the use of the proposed reanalysis algorithm are
presented. The main objectives of these problems are to explore the effect that the
proposed reanalysis algorithm has on the computational cost of crack growth in a quasi-
static framework. First, the effect of the proposed algorithm with respect to the general
82
trend of total computational time is explored. Then the effects of the mesh density and
crack growth increment on the computational time are presented. Second, a simple
optimization problem is considered to identify the angle of maximum energy release rate
for a crack emanating from a plate with a hole under several combinations of tensile and
shear loading. Note that the results presented here are only for the savings in the
In order to assess the proposed reanalysis algorithm a simple test case of pure
Mode I crack growth for an edge crack in a finite plate is considered. The effect of the
repeated assemblies of the stiffness matrix with respect to time is considered. Then the
effect of the mesh density for a constant change in the number of degrees of freedom
that are changing is investigated. Finally, the more realistic case of a fixed increment of
crack growth on various meshes is considered. The plate with edge crack geometry is
given in Figure 6-1. The material properties were assumed to be Young’s modulus of
10E6 and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The dimensions of the plate were 4 m x 4 m with an
assumed edge crack of length 0.5 m. The applied stress was 1 Pa. A structured mesh
of square quadrilateral elements was used for the analysis and plane strain conditions
were assumed.
83
σ
σ
Figure 6-1. Edge crack in a finite plate for assessment of the reanalysis algorithm.
For the edge crack specimen, 30 crack growth iterations were simulated, where in
each iteration the amount of crack growth was assumed to be constant and ∆a was
chosen as 0.1 m. The average element size for this simulation was 1/80. This
corresponds to initially about 200,000 classical degrees of freedom and about 150
enriched degrees of freedom. After the 30 iterations, there are about 1000 enriched
degrees of freedom. For the simulation without the reanalysis algorithm the total
stiffness matrix assembly time for the 30 iterations was 588 seconds while for the same
simulation with the reanalysis algorithm the total stiffness matrix assembly time for the
differences are shown in Figure 6-2. The major conclusions from this analysis are that
the reanalysis algorithm has a very low cost after the initial iteration for the assembly of
the stiffness matrix relative to the method without reanalysis. Also, the trend for the
84
assembly without reanalysis is linearly increasing as a result of the additional degrees of
freedom being introduced into the linear system of equations. Note that the reanalysis
30
No Reanalysis
Reanalysis
25
20
Assembly Time [s]
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Iteration
Figure 6-2. Comparison of the assembly time for the stiffness matrix with and without
the reanalysis algorithm.
sensitive the reanalysis algorithm is with respect to the mesh density. Two cases were
considered, one with a crack growth increment equal to the average element size. This
mesh density. Then a second case is considered where a fixed increment of crack
growth is selected and the mesh density is changed. Two iterations were considered to
mimic the first two data points for the curves presented in Figure 6-2. The results are
presented in Figure 6-3. As expected the assembly without the reanalysis algorithm is a
85
25 25
Initial Iteration (No Reanalysis) Initial Iteration (No Reanalysis)
Future Iterations (Reanalysis) Future Iterations (Reanalysis)
20 20
Assembly Time [s]
10 10
5 5
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Elements Per Unit Length Number of Elements Per Unit Length
A B
Figure 6-3. Comparison of the sensitivity of the assembly time of the reanalysis
algorithm. A) Fixed ∆DOF , B) Fixed ∆a .
angle of crack initiation θopt which corresponds in the maximum energy release rate. As
the crack geometry is changing at each simulation used in the optimization algorithm, all
enriched stiffness matrix components corresponding to the Heaviside and crack tip
enrichments are discarded at the end of each simulation. Compared to the quasi-static
example, there is a larger cost associated with the reanalysis algorithm simply based on
the fact that more enriched elements must be accounted for at each simulation.
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The example of an 8 m x 8 m plate with a hole with 1 m radius
subjected to a combination of tension and shear loading as shown in Figure 6-4 is used
for this analysis. A structured mesh of square quadrilateral elements was used for the
analysis and plane strain conditions with average element size 1/20 was assumed. The
86
K I2 K2
min − G (θ ) = + II
Eeff Eeff (6.11)
π 3π
s. t. ≤θ≤
2 2
where G is the energy release rate, K I and K II are the Mode I and II stress intensity
factors, θL and θU are the lower and upper bounds on the angle and Eeff is given as
E plane stress
Eeff = E . (6.12)
1 − ν 2 plane strain
A comparison of the total simulation time for the case with and without reanalysis is
presented in Table 6-1. For this problem the results of the comparison in total time see
an average savings of about 25% for the reanalysis method when only the assembly of
θ
r
Figure 6-4. Plate with a hole for crack initiation assessment of reanalysis algorithm.
87
Table 6-1. Crack initiation angle and time comparisons with and without reanalysis.
σ [Pa] τ [Pa] θopt [rad] Fun Evals No Reanalysis [s] Reanalysis [s]
0 1 3.14 28 392 301
1 0 2.41 28 394 302
1 1 2.58 31 434 305
1 5 2.90 32 448 293
1 10 2.90 31 434 297
5 1 2.44 31 433 336
10 1 2.41 27 378 293
Summary
In this chapter the framework for a reanalysis algorithm for modeling quasi-static
crack growth with the XFEM is introduced with an extension to optimization problems
which involve discontinuities. The proposed method takes advantage of the small
amount of change to the global stiffness matrix as a result of crack growth in the XFEM
framework. This results in savings in terms of both the assembly of the modified
stiffness matrix and theoretically the solution of the resulting modified system of linear
global XFEM stiffness matrix. Due to limitations in MATLAB and a large amount of fill-in
with respect to the factorization of the dynamic nodes the performance is not currently
satisfactory. Even without realizing the full saving which are possible a large savings
has been shown both in terms of the assembly time for the global stiffness matrix and
the total simulations time for both quasi-static and optimization problems.
In the future work an approach will be created to address the major bottlenecks
associated with the current reanalysis implementation. First, all possible enriched
degrees of freedom will be considered in the global stiffness matrix. Inactive nodes will
88
simply have corresponding rows and columns which are identity. A permutation to
recover the fill-reducing ordering will be introduced using either AMD or METIS. Instead
of directly recalculating large portions of the LDL Cholesky factorization, rows and
columns will be modified according to row add and row delete functions available in
CHOLMOD [147, 150, 161-163]. Furthermore, the direct update of the solution to the
prior iterations system of linear equations based on the modifications to the factorization
will be explored as a measure to further reduce the computational time of the reanalysis
algorithm. Finally, the use of the parallel computing toolbox within MATLAB will be
introduced to allow for further savings with respect to the assembly of the stiffness
89
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK
Summary
Fatigue is the process by which materials fail due to repeated loading well below
the levels that they would fail under static loading conditions. It is not uncommon for 104
– 108 cycles to be needed for failure to occur. This presents a challenge for
computational simulation as this number of cycles is not feasible for modeling in a finite
element environment. With classical finite element methods the mesh corresponds to
the domain of interest, which means that the mesh must be recreated locally around the
crack tip each time crack growth occurs. Fatigue crack growth has been one of the
leading causes of aircraft accidents throughout history and still causes incidents today.
Better computational tools for the modeling of fatigue crack growth will help to reduce
the risk of accidents from the initiation and propagation of a fatigue crack. The goal of
this work is to create strategies such that fatigue crack growth can be numerically
The extended finite element method is introduced in Chapter 3. Through the use of
the partition of unity finite element method discontinuous functions are introduced into
were presented for homogeneous and bi-material cracks, inclusions, and voids. The
and additional terms associated with the enrichment function. The incorporation of
without remeshing, which can be a challenge in the traditional finite element framework.
As the discontinuities no longer correspond to the finite element mesh, the level set
90
method for open sections is used to track the location of cracks and the level set
method for closed sections is used to track the location of inclusions and voids.
Two cases are considered for the modeling of fatigue crack growth in Chapter 4.
The first choice is to fix the increment of crack growth ∆a at each simulation iteration.
The other option is to select a fixed number of elapsed cycles ∆N per simulation. The
mixed-mode stress intensity factors are calculated using the domain form of the
interaction integrals. The direction of crack growth at a given simulation is given by the
maximum circumferential stress criteria. When modeling crack growth the solution is
very sensitive to the convergence of not only the displacement as with conventional
finite element simulations, but also the stress intensity factors, rate of crack growth, and
A challenge with respect to modeling crack growth is the lack of information about
the stress intensity factors for a specific geometry subjected to loading and boundary
conditions. Other than for very simple geometries there are not analytical solutions for a
cracked body. Instead a numerical technique such as the finite element method and J-
integral must be used to calculate the stress intensity factors. As no information about
the future crack growth is known the forward Euler is the only option to predict the future
crack growth. This requires very small time steps. Kriging was used to fit the data and to
extrapolate into the future in order to allow for higher-order numerical methods to be
used in the approximation of the fatigue crack growth model. This allows for large step
sizes to be taken without a loss of accuracy in the prediction of the fatigue crack growth.
In Chapter 6 a reanalysis algorithm for the extended finite element method which
is applicable to modeling quasi-static crack growth and can be modified for optimization
91
problems involving cracks represented independent of the finite element mesh. The
algorithm takes advantage of the small change to the global finite element stiffness
matrix associated with crack growth from one growth iteration to another. For the first
iteration, the global stiffness matrix is calculated. For subsequent iterations all crack tip
enrichment components of the global stiffness matrix are cleared and then the modified
portion consisting of new Heaviside and the crack tip enrichment is calculated and
added to the global stiffness matrix. Due to restrictions in MATLAB involving algebra of
factorization. Instead the full matrix is factorized at each iteration with the use of the
backslash command within MATLAB. Initial saving from only the change in assembly
time shows a marked decrease in the computational resources necessary for repeated
simulations.
The goal of this work is to make fatigue crack growth simulation more affordable.
First, the XFEM is used to model crack growth without the need to remesh as the crack
grows. The use of kriging was introduced to enable the use of higher-order
fatigue crack growth which reduces the number of simulations needed to model fatigue
crack growth without a loss in accuracy. Finally, a reanalysis algorithm was introduced
which allows for modification of the global stiffness matrix based on crack growth
between two iterations in a quasi-static simulation to save computational time for fatigue
crack growth.
Future Work
The use of kriging with higher-order numerical algorithms for solving differential
equations will be expanded. Only constant step sizes were considered so far as a part
92
of this method. The use of the uncertainty structure [140-142] for kriging will be
incorporated into the results in order to allow for a variable step size to be used. This
should allow for a more structured allocation of the available computational resources
and lead to similar results to the test cases presented with the need for less simulations.
Mixed-mode crack growth will also be used to study the competition between the
allowable step size for convergence of the crack path and the allowable step size for
The reanalysis algorithm will be expanded such that the computational savings
from the direct modification to the initial factorized matrix will be realized. A fully
populated stiffness matrix will be considered where all active and inactive enriched
degrees of freedom are preallocated. Inactive nodes will have only identity along the
[147, 150, 161-164] will be used for the initial factorization of the global stiffness matrix,
The fill-reducing ordering will be acquired from METIS [159, 160]. In addition the use of
the parallel computing toolbox in MATLAB will be explored for the parallelization of
MXFEM. This will allow for significantly reduced computational time for the simulation of
Finally, a new fatigue crack growth model [14, 25] will be introduced allowing for a
variable amplitude load history to be considered. The Paris model is limited in assuming
a constant cyclic load history. The chosen model will consider the effects of overloading
and underloading in the load history. An overload acts to retard future crack growth by
extra plasticity forming at the crack tip, while the opposite behavior is caused by an
93
underload. Modeling the direct cycle-by-cycle load history through the use of the
reanalysis algorithm will be compared to more common methods such as the rain-flow
computational time for modeling quasi-static crack problems a real life application will
be explored which would have previously been unwieldy. The Air Force Research
Laboratory (AFRL) will supply acceleration data from flight histories. A finite element
model of an airplane will be used to apply these accelerations to the airplane model and
extract a localized variable load history. The variable load history will then be applied to
a XFEM analysis of the localized panel. The analysis will be quasi-static and the fatigue
crack growth model allowing for a variable loading history to be considered will be used
to propagate the crack. Through the use of flight data and the computational analysis a
more accurate approximation of the life of the cracked aircraft panel can be realized
94
APPENDIX A
MXFEM BENCHMARK PROBLEMS
Crack Enrichments
2a
2W
The theoretical stress intensity factor for a center crack in a finite plate [15] is
πλ λ 3λ 4
2
K It = sec 1 − + σ π a (A.1)
2 40 50
where λ = a W , σ is the applied stress, and a is the half crack length. The material
properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus of 10 MPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The full domain was a plate with height 10 m and width 6 m with a
center crack of length 2 m. The applied stress was 1 Pa. Square plane strain
quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh were used. Both a full and half model
95
were considered based on the symmetry in the problem. A comparison of the
convergence as a function of the average element size h is given in Table A-1 where
K IXFEM
K In = (A.2)
K It
where K It is given by Eq. (A.1) and K IXFEM is the value calculated by the XFEM analysis
Table A-1. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for a full and half model
for a center crack in a finite plate.
h K In Full, Right Tip K In Full, Left Tip K In Half, Right Tip
1/5 0.954 0.952 0.962
1/10 0.977 0.977 0.967
1/20 0.989 0.989 0.980
1/40 0.996 0.996 0.990
1/80 0.999 0.999 0.996
96
Edge Crack in a Finite Plate
The theoretical stress intensity factor for an edge crack in a finite plate [15] is
where λ = a W , σ is the applied stress, and a is the crack length. The material
properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus of 10 MPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The full domain was a plate with height 6 m and width 3 m with a
center crack of length 1 m. The applied stress was 1 Pa. Square plane strain
quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh were used. Both a full and half model
convergence as a function of the average element size h is given in Table A-2 where
97
Table A-2. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for an edge crack in a
finite plate.
h K In
1/5 0.884
1/10 0.991
1/20 1.001
1/40 1.002
1/80 1.002
Figure A-3. Representative geometry for an inclined edge crack in a finite plate.
The material properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus
of 10 MPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The full domain was a plate with height 2 m and
width 1 m with an edge crack from (0,1) to (0.4,1.4). The applied stress was 1 Pa.
98
Square plane strain quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh were used. Both a
full and half model were considered based on the symmetry in the problem. A
Table A-3 where the normalized stress intensity factors are given by Eq. (A.2). The
Table A-3. Convergence of normalized stress intensity factors for an inclined edge
crack in a finite plate.
h K In K IIn
1/10 0.958 1.028
1/20 0.980 1.022
1/40 0.987 1.018
1/80 0.990 1.016
Material 1
2a
Material 2
σ
Figure A-4. Representative geometry for a bi-material center crack in an infinite plate.
99
− iε
K t = K1 + iK 2 = (σ + iτ )(1 + 2iε ) 2π ( 2a ) (A.4)
Inclusion Enrichment
a
2H
2W
For an inclusion in a plate, there are no known theoretical values for the
displacement or stress state that are known. So the inclusion enrichment is calibrated
based on results from the commercial finite element code ANSYS [167].
The material properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus
of 50 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 for the plate and Young’s modulus of 70 GPa and
Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 for the inclusion. The full domain was a plate with height 10 m and
100
width 6 m with a center inclusion of radius 0.5 m. Through symmetry only the top right
hand quarter of the plate was modeled. The applied stress was 1 Pa. Square plane
strain quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh with average element size h of 1/30
m were used for comparison against ANSYS. The stress contours for the two cases are
Figure A-6. Comparison of the σ xx contours for a hard inclusion in a finite plate. A)
ANSYS, B) MXFEM.
Figure A-7. Comparison of the σ xx contours for a hard inclusion in a finite plate. A)
ANSYS, B) MXFEM.
101
0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1
Figure A-8. Comparison of the σ xx contours for a hard inclusion in a finite plate. A)
ANSYS, B) MXFEM.
Void Enrichment
102
The stress fields in terms of polar coordinates from the center of the void in an
a21 3a
4
σ xx = −
r2 2 ( cos 2θ − cos 4θ ) −
2r
4
cos 4θ
a2 3 3a
4
σ yy = 1 − 2 ( cos 2θ + cos 4θ ) + 4
cos 4θ (A.5)
r 2 2r
a2 1 3a
4
σ xy = − 2 ( sin 2θ + sin 4θ ) 2 r 4 sin 4θ
+
r2
where r and θ are polar coordinates from the center of the circle and a is the hole
radius. The material properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s
modulus of 10 MPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The full domain was a plate with height
10 m and width 10 m with a center hole of radius 0.4 m. The applied stress was 1 Pa.
Square plane strain quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh with average element
size h of 1/20 m was used. The stress contours based on the theoretical values from
Eq. (A.5) are compared to the XFEM stress contours in Figure A-10, Figure A-11, and
Figure A-12. The σ xx and σ yy agree very well with the theoretical values, while the
shear stress shows poorer agreement directly around the hole. Away from the hole the
103
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
104
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Other
angle of crack initiation which results in the maximum energy release rate. The example
in Figure A-13 is used as the benchmark for the optimization implementation. Square
plane strain quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh with an average element size
of h equal to 1/20 m was used. For this problem the location of maximum stress
corresponds to the angle of crack initiation for a 0.15 m crack which will result in the
maximum energy release rate. For a plate under uniaxial tension this angle is 0 or π
105
K I2 K II2
min − G (θ ) = +
Eeff Eeff (B.6)
s. t. θL ≤ θ ≤ θU
where G is the energy release rate, K I and K II are the Mode I and II stress intensity
factors, θL and θU are the lower and upper bounds on the angle and Eeff is given as
E plane stress
Eeff = E . (B.7)
1 − ν 2 plane strain
θ
r
σ
Figure A-13. Representative geometry for a crack initiating at an angle θ for a plate
with a hole.
The results are presented in Table A-4 for two sets of bounds - π 2 ≤ θ ≤ π 2 and
106
with the function tolerance set to 1E-9 and the angle tolerance set to 1E-6. The
n G XFEM
G = (B.8)
Gt
radians and G XFEM is the energy release rate from the optimization with the XFEM. For
this example the theoretical maximum energy release rate is given as G t = 3.5166E-7
J/m2.
Table A-4. Comparison of the theoretical and MXFEM value for maximum energy
release angle as a function of average element size.
-π 2 ≤ θ ≤ π 2 π 2 ≤ θ ≤ 3π 2
h θopt Gn θopt Gn
1/20 -1.715E-5 1.001 3.142 1.000
Bordas [51] presented the case of edge crack growth under mixed-mode loading
in a plate with either a hard or soft inclusion. The material properties used in the
analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus of 1 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 for
material 1 and Young’s modulus of 10 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 for material 2. For
the case of a hard inclusion, material 2 is for the inclusion and material 1 is for the plate.
For the case of a soft inclusion, material 1 is for the inclusion and material 2 is for the
plate. The full domain was a plate with height 8 m and width 4 m with an edge crack of
length 0.5 m centered on the left edge. The circular inclusion of radius 1 is placed at the
horizontal midpoint and the vertical quarter point. There were 34 iterations of growth
107
where at each iteration the amount of growth was equal to ∆a = 0.1 m and in the
direction given by the maximum circumferential stress predicted by a unit tensile load.
Square plain strain quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh with average element
size h of 1/20 m were used. It is important to note that no boundary conditions were
given by Bordas so here it is assumed that edge crack boundary conditions are to be
used. This may explain the slight differences between the results of Bordas and those
Bordas
MXFEM
Figure A-14. Comparison of crack paths to those predicted by Bordas for a soft (left)
and a hard (right) inclusion.
The implementation of the Paris model [120] for fatigue crack growth was verified
within the XFEM framework. The Paris model predicts that crack growth occurs
108
da m
= C ( ∆K ) (A.9)
dN
where da dN is the crack growth rate, C is the Paris model constant, m is the Paris
model exponent, and ∆K is the stress intensity factor range under cyclic loading. Here
∆K = ∆σ π a (A.10)
where ∆σ is the applied stress range and a is the half crack length.
The material properties used in the analysis were chosen to be Young’s modulus
of 71.7 GPa, Poisson’s ratio of 0.33, Paris model constant of 1.5E-10, and Paris model
exponent of 3.8. The full domain was a plate with height 0.4 m and width 0.6 m with a
center crack of length 0.02 m. The applied stress was 78.6 MPa. Square plane strain
quadrilateral elements with a structured mesh with average element size h of 1/500 m
was used. Through symmetry, only the right half of the geometry was modeled. Fatigue
crack growth was measure to 2450 cycles with step sizes of ∆N equal to 50 at each
Figure A-15.
109
50
Paris Model
45 XFEM
40
30
25
20
15
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Number of Cycles
Figure A-15. Comparison between Paris model and XFEM simulation for fatigue crack
growth for a center crack in an infinite plate.
110
APPENDIX B
AUXILIARY DISPLACEMENT AND STRESS STATES
Homogeneous Crack
The auxiliary displacement and stress states given by Westergaard [130] and
Williams [131] for a homogenous crack that are used in the extraction of the stress
intensity factors though interaction integrals [18, 19, 128] are given as:
1 r θ θ
u1 =
2µ 2π K I cos 2 (κ − cos θ ) + K II sin 2 (κ + 2 + cos θ ) (B.1)
1 r θ θ
u2 =
2µ 2π K I sin 2 (κ − sin θ ) + K II cos 2 (κ − 2 + cos θ ) (B.2)
2 r θ
u3 = K III sin (B.3)
µ 2π 2
1 θ θ 3θ θ θ 3θ
σ 11 = K I cos 2 1 − sin 2 sin 2 − K II sin 2 + cos cos (B.4)
2π r 2 2 2
1 θ θ 3θ θ θ 3θ
σ 22 = K I cos 2 1 + sin 2 sin 2 + K II sin 2 cos 2 cos 2 (B.5)
2π r
σ 33 = ν (σ 11 + σ 22 ) (B.6)
1 θ
σ 23 = K III cos (B.7)
2π r 2
−1 θ
σ 31 = sin (B.8)
2π r 2
1 θ θ 3θ θ θ 3θ
σ 12 = K I sin 2 cos 2 cos 2 + K II cos 2 1 − sin 2 sin 2 (B.9)
2π r
where r and θ is the distance from the crack tip in polar coordinates, µ is the shear
111
3 −ν i
plane stress
κi = 1 +ν i (B.10)
3 − 4ν plane strain
i
Bi-material Crack
[66] for a bi-material crack that are used in the extraction of the stress intensity factors
1 r
f i ( r ,θ , ε , κ1 ) upper-half plane
4 µ1 cosh (πε ) 2π
ui = (B.11)
1 r
4 µ cosh (πε ) 2π i (
f r,θ , ε , κ 2 ) lower-half plane
2
where ε is the bi-material constant given by Eq. (3.18). For the extraction of K I , the
θ θ
C = β ' γ cos − βγ ' sin (B.16)
2 2
θ θ
D = βγ cos + β ' γ 'sin (B.17)
2 2
112
e −(π −θ )ε upper-half plane
δ = (
π −θ )ε
(B.18)
e lower-half plane
θ
ϕ = ε log r + (B.19)
2
and β , β ' , γ , and γ ' in Eqs. (B.16) and (B.17) are given by
1
γ = κδ − (B.22)
δ
1
γ ' = κδ + (B.23)
δ
where κ is the Kosolov constant in the given half plane. The strains are given in terms
1
ε ij =
2
( ui , j + u j ,i ) . (B.24)
r f
u1,1 = A Bf1,1 + ,1 1 (B.25)
4π B
r f
u1,2 = A Bf1,2 + ,2 1 (B.26)
4π B
r f
u2,1 = A Bf 2,1 + ,1 2 (B.27)
4π B
r f
u2,2 = A Bf 2,2 + ,2 2 . (B.28)
4π B
113
In Eqs. (B.25) - (B.28), A , B , and the derivatives of f1 , f 2 , and r are given as:
1
4 µ cosh (πε ) upper half-plane
1
A= (B.29)
1
lower half-plane
4 µ2 cosh (πε )
r
B= (B.30)
2π
For the extraction of K I the derivatives of f1 and f 2 with respect to r and θ are
and for the extraction of K II the derivatives of f1 and f 2 with respect to r and θ are
εD
C,r = (B.39)
r
F
C,θ = − +εE (B.40)
2
ε T2
T1,r = (B.41)
r
114
T2
T1,θ = ε T1 + + T3 (B.42)
2
ε T1
T2,r = − (B.43)
r
T1
T2,θ = ε T2 − + T4 (B.44)
2
θ θ
E = β ' γ ' cos − βγ sin (B.45)
2 2
θ θ
F = βγ ' cos + β ' γ sin (B.46)
2 2
The auxiliary stress states used in the interaction integrals are calculated using Hooke’s
law.
115
LIST OF REFERENCES
15. Mukamai Y. Stress Intensity Factors Handbook. Pergamon Press: New York, NY,
1987.
116
16. Anderson TL. Fracture Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, 2004.
17. Rice JR. A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain
concentration by notches and cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1968;
35(2):379-386.
19. Yau J, Wang S, Corten H. A mixed-mode crack analysis of isotropic solids using
conservation laws of elasticity. Journal of Applied Mechancis 1980; 47(2):335-341.
20. Sih GC. Strain-energy-density factor applied to mixed mode crack problems.
International Journal of Fracture 1974; 10(3):305-321.
21. Moёs N, Dolbow JE, Belytschko T. A finite element method for crack growth
without remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
1999; 46(1):131-150.
22. Maligno AR, Rajaratnam S, Leen SB, Williams EJ. A three-dimensional (3D)
numerical study of fatigue crack growth using remeshing techniques. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 2010; 77(1):94-111.
23. Pais M, Kim NH, Davis TA. Reanalysis of the extended finite element method for
crack initiation and propagation. 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Orlando, FL, 2010.
24. Chapra S, Canale R. Numerical Methods for Engineers. McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY, 2002.
25. Lu Z, Liu Y. Small time scale fatigue crack growth analysis under variable
amplitude loading. 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Orlando, FL, 2010.
26. Edke MS, Chang KH. Shape optimization for 2-D mixed-mode fracture using
extended FEM (XFEM) and level set method (LSM). Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization; In Press:0-0.
27. Babuska I, Melenk JM. The partition of unity method. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 1998; 40(4):727-758.
117
30. Sussman M, Smereka P, Osher S. A level set approach for computing solutions to
incompressible two-phase flow. Journal of Computational Physics 1994;
114(1):146-159.
31. Osher S, Fedkiw R. Level Set Methods and Dynamic Implicit Surfaces. Springer-
Verlag: New York, NY, 2002.
32. Osher S, Paragios N. Geometric Level Set Methods in Imaging, Vision, and
Graphics. Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, 1993.
33. Adalsteinsson D, Sethian J. A level set approach to a unified model for etching,
deposition, and lithography I: Algorithms and two-dimensional simulations. Journal
of Computational Physics 1995; 120(1):128-144.
34. Adalsteinsson D, Sethian J. A level set approach to a unified model for etching,
deposition, and lithography II: Three-dimensional simulations. Journal of
Computational Physics 1995; 122(1):348-366.
35. Adalsteinsson D, Sethian J. A level set approach to a unified model for etching,
deposition, and lithography III: Redeposition, reemission, surface diffusion, and
complex simulations. Journal of Computational Physics 1997; 138(1):193-223.
36. Wang S, Wang M. Radial basis functions and level set method for structural
topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2006; 65(12):2060-2090.
37. Wang S, Lim K, Khoo B, Wang M. An extended level set method for shape and
topology optimization. Journal of Computational Physics 2007; 221(1):395-421.
39. Stolarska M, Chopp DL, Moёs N, Belytschko T. Modelling crack growth by level
sets in the extended finite element method. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2001; 51(8):943-960.
42. Sukumar N, Chopp DL, Moran B. Extended finite element method and fast
marching method for three-dimensional fatigue crack propagation. Engineering
Fracture Mechanics 2003; 70(1):29-48.
118
43. Belytschko T, Moёs N, Usui S, Parimi C. Arbitrary discontinuities in finite elements.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2001; 50(4):993-1013.
44. Reddy JN. An Introduction to the Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill: New York,
NY, 2005.
46. Karihaloo BL, Xiao QZ. Modelling of stationary and growing cracks in FE
framework without remeshing: a state-of-the-art review. Computers and Structures
2003; 81(3):119-129.
49. Aquino W, Brigham JC, Earles CJ, Sukumar N. Generalized finite element method
using proper orthogonal decomposition. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2009; 79(7):887-906.
50. Fries T-P, Byfut A, Alizada A, Cheng KW, Schröder A. Hanging nodes and XFEM.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering; In Press:0-0.
53. Belytschko T, Black T. Elastic crack growth in finite elements with minimal
remeshing. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1999;
45(5):601-620.
119
55. Sukumar N, Prѐvost JH. Modeling quasi-static crack growth with the extended
finite element method, Part I: Computer implementation. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 2003; 40(26):7513-7537.
56. Huang R, Sukumar N, Prѐvost JH. Modeling quasi-static crack growth with the
extended finite element method, Part II: Numerical applications. International
Journal of Solids and Structures 2003; 40(26):7539-7552.
58. Sukumar N, Moёs N, Moran B, Belytschko T. Extended finite element method for
three-dimensional crack modelling. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2000; 48(11):1549-1570.
60. Nagashima T, Miura N. Elastic-plastic fracture analysis for surface cracks using X-
FEM. 8th International Conference on Computational Plasticity, Barcelona, Spain,
2005.
62. Prabel B, Marie S, Combescure A. Using the X-FEM method to model the dynamic
propagation and arrest of cleavage cracks in ferritic steel. Engineering Fracture
Mechanics 2008; 75(10):2985-3009.
63. Rozycki P, Moёs N, Bѐchet E, Dubois C. X-FEM explicit dynamics for constant
strain elements to alleviate mesh constraints on internal or external boundaries.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2008; 197(30-32):349-
363.
65. Zamani A, Eslami MR. Implementation of the extended finite element method for
dynamic thermoeleastic fracture initiation. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 2010; 47(10):1392-1404.
66. Sukumar N, Huang ZY, Prѐvost JH, Suo Z. Partition of unity enrichment for
bimaterial interface cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2004; 59(8):1075-1102.
120
67. Dundurs J. Edge-bonded dissimilar orthogonal elastic wedges. Journal of Applied
Mechancis 1969; 36(1):650-652.
70. Laborde P, Pommier J, Renard YS, M. High-order extended finite element method
for cracked domains. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2005; 64(3):354-381.
71. Stazi FL, Budyn E, Chessa J, Belytschko T. An extended finite element method
with higher-order elements for curved cracks. Computational Mechanics 2003;
31(2-3):38-48.
72. Ventura G, Gracie R, Belytschko T. Fast integration and weight function blending
in the extended finite element method. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 2008; 77(1):1-29.
74. Chanine E, Laborde P, Renard Y. Crack tip enrichment in the XFEM using a cutoff
function. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2008;
75(6):629-646.
78. Moёs N, Belytschko T. Extended finite element method for cohesive crack growth.
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2002; 69(7):813-833.
79. Unger JF, Eckardt S, Könke C. Modelling of cohesive crack growth in concrete
structures with the extended finite element method. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 2007; 196(41-44):4087-4100.
121
80. Zi G, Belytschko T. New crack-tip elements for XFEM and applications to cohesive
cracks. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2003;
57(15):2221-2240.
81. Daux C, Moёs N, Dolbow JE, Sukumar N, Belytschko T. Arbitrary branched and
intersecting cracks with the extended finite element method. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2000; 48(12):1741-1760.
82. Dolbow JE, Moёs N, Belytschko T. An extended finite element method for
modeling crack growth with frictional contact. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 2001; 190(51-52):6825-6846.
84. Huang R, Prѐvost JH, Huang ZY, Suo Z. Channel-cracking of thin films with the
extended finite element method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2003;
70(18):2513-2526.
90. Bachene M, Tiberkak R, Rechak S. Vibration analysis of cracked plates using the
extended finite element method. Archive of Applied Mechanics 2009; 79(3):249-
262.
122
91. Rabinovich D, Givoli D, Vigdergauz S. XFEM-based crack detection scheme using
a genetic algorithm. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2007; 71(9):1051-1080.
94. Edke MS, Chang KH. Shape design sensitivity analysis (DSA) for structural
fracture using extended FEM (XFEM). International Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics 2008; 49(3):365-372.
95. Edke MS, Chang KH. Shape sensitivity analysis for 2-D mixed mode fractures
using extended FEM (XFEM) and level set method (LSM). Journal of Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization In Progress.
99. Sukumar N, Chopp DL, Moёs N, Belytschko T. Modeling holes and inclusions by
level sets in the extended finite-element method. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering 2001; 190(46-47):6183-6200.
100. Zilian A, Fries T-P. A localized mixed-hybrid method for imposing interfacial
constraints in the extended finite element method (XFEM). International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2009; 79(6):733-752.
101. Pais M, Kim NH. Modeling failure in composite materials with the extended finite
element and level set method. 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Palm Springs, CA, 2009.
102. Dolbow JE, Merle R. Solving thermal and phase change problems with the
extended finite element method. Computational Mechanics 2002; 28(5):339-350.
123
103. Ji H, Dolbow JE. On strategies for enforcing interfacial constraints and evaluating
jump conditions with the extended finite element method. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2004; 61(14):2508-2535.
104. Chessa J, Smolinski P, Belytschko T. The extended finite element method (XFEM)
for Stefan problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
2002; 53(8):1959-1977.
105. Hettich T, Hund A, Ramm E. Modeling of failure in composites by X-FEM and level
sets within a multiscale framework. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 2008; 197(5):414-424.
106. Hettich T, Ramm E. Interface material failure modeled by the extended finite-
element method and level sets. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 2006; 195(37-40):4753-4767.
107. Mousavi SE, Sukumar N. Generalized gaussian quadrature rules for disconinuities
and crack singularities in the extended finite element method. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering; In Press:0-0.
108. Mousavi SE, Sukumar N. Generalized Duffy transformation for integrating vertex
singularities. Computational Mechanics 2010; 45(2-3):127-140.
111. Park K, Pereira JP, Duarte C, Paulino GH. Integration of singular enrichment
functions in the generalized/extended finite element method for three-dimensional
problems. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 2008;
78(10):1220-1257.
114. Dassault Systemes. Abaqus 6.9 Overview - June 2009, 2009, available at
http://www.simulia.com/download/Webinars/Abaqus69_overview/Abaqus69Overvi
ew-new.html.
124
115. Giner E, Sukumar N, Tarancon J, Fuenmayor J. An Abaqus implementation of the
extended finite element method. Engineering Fracture Mechanics 2009; 76(3):347-
368.
116. Hansbo A, Hansbo P. A finite element method for the simulation of strong and
weak discontinuities in solid mechanics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering 2004; 193(33-35):3524-3540.
117. Song J-H, Areias PMA, Belytschko T. A method for dynamic crack and shear band
propagation with phantom nodes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2006; 67(6):868-893.
118. Rabczuk T, Zi G, Gerstenberger A, Wall WA. A new crack tip element for the
phantom-node method with arbitrary cohesive cracks. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 2008; 75(5):577-599.
120. Paris P, Gomez M, Anderson W. A rational analytic theory of fatigue. The Trend in
Engineering 1961; 13:9-14.
127. Edke MS, Chang KH. Shape optimization for 2-D mixed-mode fracture using
extended FEM (XFEM) and level set method (LSM). Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization In Preparation.
125
128. Nikishkov GP, Atluri SN. Calculation of fracture mechanics parameters for an
arbitrary three-dimensional crack by the 'equivalent domain integral method'.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1987; 24(9):1801-
1821.
130. Westergaard I. Bearing pressures and cracks. Journal of Applied Mechanics 1939;
6(1):49-53.
131. Williams M. On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack. Journal of
Applied Mechanics 1957; 24(1):109-114.
132. Duarte C, Hamzeh OH, Liszka TJ, Tworzydlo WW. A generalized finite element
method for the simulation of three-dimensional dynamic crack propagation.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 2001; 190(15-17):2227-
2262.
133. Liu XY, Xiao QZ, Karihaloo BL. XFEM for direct evaluation of mixed mode SIFs in
homogenous and bi-materials. International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering 2004; 59(8):1103-1118.
134. Bilby BA, Cardew GE. The crack with a kinked tip. International Journal of Fracture
1975; 11(4):708-712.
135. Erdogan F, Sih GC. On the crack extension in plates under plane loading and
transverse shear. Journal of Basic Engineering 1963; 85:519-525.
136. Nuismer RJ. An energy release rate criterion for mixed mode fracture.
International Journal of Fracture 1975; 11(2):708-712.
137. Richard HA, Fulland M, Sander M. Theoretical crack path prediction. Fatigue and
Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures 2005; 28(1-2):3-12.
139. Myers R. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Duxbury Thomson
Learning: Pacific Grove, CA, 2000.
126
142. Stein M. Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging. Springer: New
York, NY, 1999.
145. Abu Kassim AM, Topping BHV. Static renalysis: A review. Journal of Structural
Engineering 1987; 113(5):1029-1045.
146. Hager WW. Updating the inverse of a matrix. SIAM Review 1989; 31(2):221-239.
147. Davis TA, Hager WW. Modifying a sparse Cholesky factorization. SIAM Journal on
Matrix Analysis and Applications 1999; 20(3):606-627.
148. Higham N. Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms. Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics: Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
149. Bernstein D. Matrix Mathematics: Theory, Facts, and Formulas with Application to
Linear Systems Theory. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2005.
150. Davis TA, Hager WW. Row modifications of a sparse Cholesky factorization. SIAM
Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 2005; 26(3):621-639.
155. Amestoy P, Davis TA, Duff IS. Algorithm 837: AMD, An approximate minimum
degree ordering algorithm. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 2004;
30(3):381-388.
156. Davis TA. AMD: Approximate minimum degree ordering, 2010, available at
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/research/sparse/amd/.
157. Amestoy M, Davis TA, Duff IS. An approximate minimum degree ordering
algorithm. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications 1996; 17(4):886-905.
127
158. Davis TA. Direct Methods for Sparse Linear Systems. Society of Industrial and
Applied Mathematics: Philadelphia, PA, 2006.
160. Karypis G, Kumar V. A fast and highly quality multilevel scheme for partitioning
irregular graphs. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 1999; 20(1):359-392.
161. Chen Y, Davis TA, Hager WW, Rajamanickam S. Algorithm 887: CHOLMOD,
supernodal sparse Cholesky factorization and update/downdate. ACM
Transactions on Mathematical Software 2009; 35(3):1-14.
163. Davis TA, Hager WW. Dynamic supernodes in sparse cholesky update/downdate
and triangular solves. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 2009; 35(4):1-
23.
165. Collins J. Failure of Materials in Mechanical Design. Wiley: New York, NY, 1993.
166. Sutradhar A, Paulino GH, Gray LJ. Symmetric Galerkin Boundary Element
Method. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Berlin, 2008.
168. Szabo B, Babuska I. Finite Element Analysis. Wiley: New York, NY, 1991.
128
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Matthew Jon Pais graduated from the University of Missouri in 2003 Magna Cum
the University of Florida in 2007 after receiving the Alumni Fellowship. His research
surrogates.
129