Study on the cohesive edge crack in a square plate with the cohesive element method
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The size of the fully developed process zone (FDPZ) is needed for the arrangement of displacement sensors in fracture experiments and choosing element size in numerical models using the cohesive element method (CEM). However, the FDPZ size is generally not known beforehand. Analytical solutions for the exact FDPZ size only exist for highly idealised bodies, e.g. semi-infinite plates. With respect to fracture testing, the CEM is also a potential tool to extrapolate laboratory test results to full-scale while considering the size effect. A numerical CEM-based model is built to compute the FDPZ size for an edge crack in a finite square plate of different lengths spanning several magnitudes. It is validated against existing analytical solutions. After successful validation, the FDPZ size of finite plates is calculated with the same numerical scheme. The (FDPZ) size for finite plates is influenced by the cracked plate size and physical crack length. Maximum cohesive zone sizes are given for rectangular and linear softening. Further, for this setup, the CEM-based numerical model captures the size effect and can be used to extrapolate small-scale test results to full-scale.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Numerical methods in engineering · Fatigue and fracture mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (56)
Show source-provided references
1. Bažant ZP (2002) Concrete fracture models: testing and practice. Eng Fract Mech 69(2):165–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00084-410.1016/S0013-7944(01)00084-4 ↗
2. Bažant ZP (2005) Scaling of structural strength, 2nd edn. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford
3. Bažant ZP (2008) Fracture analysis and size effects in failure of sea ice. In: Santare MH, Chajes MJ (eds) The mechanics of solids. University of Delaware Press, Newark, pp 151–170
4. Bažant ZP, Planas J (1998) Fracture and size effect in concrete and other quasibrittle materials. New directions in civil engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton
5. Bažant ZP, Yavari A (2005) Is the cause of size effect on structural strength fractal or energetic-statistical? Eng Fract Mech 72(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.03.00410.1016/j.engfracmech.2004.03.004 ↗
6. Blal N, Daridon L, Monerie Y, Pagano S (2013) Micromechanical-based criteria for the calibration of cohesive zone parameters. J Comput Appl Math 246:206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2012.10.03110.1016/j.cam.2012.10.031 ↗
7. Bueckner HF (1970) Novel principle for the computation of stress intensity factors. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Mathematik Mechanik 50(9):529–546
8. Dávila C, Camanho P (2001) Decohesion elements using two and three-parameter mixed mode criteria. In: American Helicopter Society Conference
9. Dempsey J, Adamson R, Mulmule S (1999a) Scale effects on the in-situ tensile strength and fracture of ice: Part II: First-year sea ice at Resolute, N.W.T. Int J Fract 95(1–4):347–36610.1023/A:1018650303385 ↗
10. de Borst R (2003) Numerical aspects of cohesive-zone models. Eng Fract Mech 70(14):1743–1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00122-X10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00122-X ↗
11. Dempsey J, De Franco S, Adamson R, Mulmule S (1999b) Scale effects on the in-situ tensile strength and fracture of ice. Part I: large grained freshwater ice at Spray Lakes Reservoir, Alberta. In: Bažant Z, Rajapakse Y (eds) Fracture scaling. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 325–34510.1007/978-94-011-4659-3_18 ↗
12. Dempsey JP, Mu Z (2014) Weight function for an edge-cracked rectangular plate. Eng Fract Mech 132:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.10.02310.1016/j.engfracmech.2014.10.023 ↗
13. Dempsey JP, Mu Z, Cole DM (2004) In-situ fracture of first-year sea ice in mcmurco sound. In: IAHR (ed) Proceedings of the 17th IAHR Symposium on Ice, vol 2, pp 299–306
14. Elices M, Guinea GV, Gómez J, Planas J (2002) The cohesive zone model: advantages, limitations and challenges. Eng Fract Mech 69(2):137–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-210.1016/S0013-7944(01)00083-2 ↗
15. Erhart T (2011) An overview of user defined interfaces in ls-dyna. In: Proceedings of the 8th European LS-Dyna Conference
16. Falk M, Needleman A, Rice J (2001) A critical evaluation of cohesive zone models of dynamic fracture. J Phys IV 11(PR5):43–50. https://doi.org/10.1051/jp4:200150610.1051/jp4:2001506 ↗
17. Feng D, Pang SD, Zhang J (2016) Parameter sensitivity in numerical modelling of ice-structure interaction with cohesive element method. In: Proceedings of the ASME 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering 2016, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2016-5468710.1115/OMAE2016-54687 ↗
18. Foulk JW (2010) An examination of stability in cohesive zone modeling. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 199(9–12):465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2009.08.02510.1016/j.cma.2009.08.025 ↗
19. Ha K, Baek H, Park K (2015) Convergence of fracture process zone size in cohesive zone modeling. Appl Math Modell 39(19):5828–5836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2015.03.03010.1016/j.apm.2015.03.030 ↗
20. Ha K, Choi H, Shin M, Park K (2018) On the size effect of interfacial fracture between concrete and fiber reinforced polymer. Cement Concrete Compos. 93:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.07.00310.1016/j.cemconcomp.2018.07.003 ↗
21. Hillerborg A, Modéer M, Petersson PE (1976) Analysis of crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture mechanics and finite elements. Cement Concrete Res 6(6):773–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-710.1016/0008-8846(76)90007-7 ↗
22. Kellner L, Lu W (2020) Data from the paper: Study on the cohesive edge crack in a square plate with the cohesive element method. https://doi.org/10.15480/336.288110.15480/336.2881 ↗
23. Konuk I, Yu S (2010) A cohesive element framework for dynamic ice-structure interaction problems: Part III-case studies. In: Proceedings of the ASME 29th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering 2010, ASME, New York, pp 801–809, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-2057710.1115/OMAE2010-20577 ↗
24. Konuk I, Gürtner A, Yu S (2009a) A cohesive element framework for dynamic ice-structure interaction problems-part I: review and formulation. In: Proceedings of the 28th International conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, ASME, New York, pp 33–41, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2009-7926210.1115/OMAE2009-79262 ↗
25. Konuk I, Gürtner A, Yu S (2009b) A cohesive element framework for dynamic ice-structure interaction problems-part II: implementation. In: Proceedings of the 28th International conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, ASME, New York, pp 185–193, https://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2009-8025010.1115/OMAE2009-80250 ↗
26. Kuutti J, Kolari K, Marjavaara P (2013) Simulation of ice crushing experiments with cohesive surface methodology. Cold Reg Sci Technol 92:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.00810.1016/j.coldregions.2013.03.008 ↗
27. Li YN, Bažant ZP (1994) Eigenvalue analysis of size effect for cohesive crack model. Int J Fract 66(3):213–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0004258510.1007/BF00042585 ↗
28. Li YN, Liang RY (1993) The theory of the boundary eigenvalue problem in the cohesive crack model and its application. J Mech Phys Solids 41(2):331–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(93)90011-410.1016/0022-5096(93)90011-4 ↗
29. Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2019) LS-Dyna Theory Manual: 07/24/19 (r:11261) LS-DYNA Dev
30. Lu W, Lubbad R, Løset S, Høyland K (2012) Cohesive zone method based simulations of ice wedge bending: a comparative study of element erosion, cem, dem and xfem. In: Lu P, Li Z (eds) 21st IAHR International Symposium on Ice
31. Lu W, Lubbad R, Løset S (2014) Simulating ice-sloping structure interactions with the cohesive element method. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng 136(3):031501. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.402695910.1115/1.4026959 ↗
32. Lu W, Løset S, Shestov A, Lubbad R (2015a) Design of a field test for measuring the fracture toughness of sea ice. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions (POAC)
33. Lu W, Lubbad R, Løset S (2015b) In-plane fracture of an ice floe: a theoretical study on the splitting failure mode. Cold Reg Sci Technol 110:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.11.00710.1016/j.coldregions.2014.11.007 ↗
34. Lu W, Shestov A, Løset S, Salganik E, Høyland KV (2019) Medium-scale consolidation of artificial ice ridge-part II: fracture properties investigation by a splitting test. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions
35. Miller O, Freund LB, Needleman A (1999) Modeling and simulation of dynamic fragmentation in brittle materials. Int J Fract 96(2):101–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101866631744810.1023/A:1018666317448 ↗
36. Moës N, Belytschko T (2002) Extended finite element method for cohesive crack growth. Eng Fract Mech 69(7):813–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X ↗
37. Molinari JF, Gazonas G, Raghupathy R, Rusinek A, Zhou F (2007) The cohesive element approach to dynamic fragmentation: the question of energy convergence. Int J Numer Methods Eng 69(3):484–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.177710.1002/nme.1777 ↗
38. Morel S, Dourado N (2011) Size effect in quasibrittle failure: analytical model and numerical simulations using cohesive zone model. Int J Solids Struct 48(10):1403–1412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.01.01410.1016/j.ijsolstr.2011.01.014 ↗
39. Pandolfi A, Guduru PR, Ortiz M, Rosakis AJ (2000) Three dimensional cohesive-element analysis and experiments of dynamic fracture in c300 steel. Int J Solids Struct 37(27):3733–3760. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(99)00155-910.1016/S0020-7683(99)00155-9 ↗
40. Park K, Paulino GH, Celes W, Espinha R (2012) Adaptive mesh refinement and coarsening for cohesive zone modeling of dynamic fracture. Int J Numer Methods Eng 92(1):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.316310.1002/nme.3163 ↗
41. Paulino GH, Celes W, Espinha R, Zhang Z (2008) A general topology-based framework for adaptive insertion of cohesive elements in finite element meshes. Eng Comput 24(1):59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-007-0069-710.1007/s00366-007-0069-7 ↗
42. Remmers JJC, de Borst R, Needleman A (2003) A cohesive segments method for the simulation of crack growth. Comput Mech 31(1–2):69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-002-0394-z10.1007/s00466-002-0394-z ↗
43. Rice JR (1972) Some remarks on elastic crack-tip stress fields. Int J Solids Struct 8(6):751–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(72)90040-610.1016/0020-7683(72)90040-6 ↗
44. Rimoli JJ, Rojas JJ (2015) Meshing strategies for the alleviation of mesh-induced effects in cohesive element models. Int J Fract 193(1):29–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10704-015-0013-610.1007/s10704-015-0013-6 ↗
45. Sandia National Laboratory (2003) Tahoe user guide: Input version 3.4.1
46. Schulson E, Duval P (2009) Creep and fracture of ice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511581397 ↗
47. Seagraves A, Radovitzky R (2010) Advances in cohesive zone modeling of dynamic fracture. In: Shukla A, Ravichandran G, Rajapakse YD (eds) Dynamic failure of materials and structures. Springer, Boston, pp 349–40510.1007/978-1-4419-0446-1_12 ↗
48. Turon A, Dávila C, Camanho P, Costa J (2007) An engineering solution for mesh size effects in the simulation of delamination using cohesive zone models. Eng Fract Mech 74(10):1665–1682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.02510.1016/j.engfracmech.2006.08.025 ↗
49. Tvergaard V, Hutchinson JW (1992) The relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters in elastic-plastic solids. J Mech Phys Solids 40(6):1377–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(92)90020-310.1016/0022-5096(92)90020-3 ↗
50. Unger JF, Eckardt S, Könke C (2007) Modelling of cohesive crack growth in concrete structures with the extended finite element method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(41–44):4087–4100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2007.03.02310.1016/j.cma.2007.03.023 ↗
51. Wang F, Li Z, Zou ZJ, Song M, Liu Y, Wang Y (2019a) Study of continuous icebreaking process with cohesive element method. Brodogradnja 70(3):93–114. https://doi.org/10.21278/brod7030610.21278/brod70306 ↗
52. Wang S, Dempsey JP (2011) A cohesive edge crack. Eng Fract Mech 78(7):1353–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.02.01810.1016/j.engfracmech.2011.02.018 ↗
53. Wang S, Gharamti IE, Dempsey JP (2019) Cohesive cracking in negative geometries. Eng Fract Mech 221:106681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.10668110.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106681 ↗
54. Wu XR, Carlsson AJ (1991) Weight functions and stress intensity factor solutions, 1st edn. Pergamon Press, Oxford
55. Xu XP, Needleman A (1994) Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. J Mech Phys Solids 42(9):1397–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-510.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-5 ↗
56. Zi G, Belytschko T (2003) New crack-tip elements for xfem and applications to cohesive cracks. Int J Numer Methods Eng 57(15):2221–2240. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.84910.1002/nme.849 ↗