A smeared crack modeling framework accommodating multi-directional fracture at finite strains
Source abstract
Abstract
A generic smeared crack modeling framework predicated on the deformation gradient decomposition (DGD) approach is proposed for use in dynamic fracture problems at finite strains, accommodating failure along multiple mutually orthogonal fracture planes embedded within an independently defined bulk material model. Within this constitutive framework, the traction equilibrium conditions imposed at each failure surface are used to determine the associated crack displacements stored as internal state variables. In general, the enforcement of interfacial equilibrium entails the implicit solution of a non-linear system of equations within the constitutive update procedure. However, if inertial effects arising due to the relative motion of the fractured material are incorporated within the model, the traction equilibrium conditions are shown to give rise to corresponding dynamic equations of motion governing the time-evolution of the crack opening displacements. For dynamic problems, an explicit time-integration procedure is devised to efficiently update the material state, subject to a set of internal frictionless contact constraints to prevent material inversion. The efficacy of the proposed modeling framework is investigated through several benchmark dynamic fracture problems run within the explicit finite element code DYNA3D.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Numerical methods in engineering · Elasticity and Material Modeling · Rock Mechanics and Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. Ambroziak A, Kłosowski P (2007) Survey of modern trends in analysis of continuum damage mechanics. Task Q 10(437–454):01
2. Armero F, Linder C (2008) New finite elements with embedded strong discontinuities in the finite deformation range. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 197(33):3138–317010.1016/j.cma.2008.02.021 ↗
3. Armero FJC, Linder C (2009) Numerical simulation of dynamic fracture using finite elements with embedded discontinuities. Int J Fract 160:119–14110.1007/s10704-009-9413-9 ↗
4. Armero F, Oller S (2000) A general framework for continuum damage models. I. infinitesimal plastic damage models in stress space. Int J Solids Struct 37(48):7409–743610.1016/S0020-7683(00)00205-5 ↗
5. Bergan AC, Leone FA (2016) A continuum damage mechanics model to predict kink-band propagation using deformation gradient tensor decomposition. In: 31st American Society for composites technical conference
6. Borden MJ, Verhoosel CV, Scott MA, Hughes TJR, Landis CM (2012) A phase-field description of dynamic brittle fracture. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 217–220:77–9510.1016/j.cma.2012.01.008 ↗
7. Camacho GT, Ortiz M (1996) Computational modelling of impact damage in brittle materials. Int J Solids Struct 33(20):2899–293810.1016/0020-7683(95)00255-3 ↗
8. Cervera M, Chiumenti M (2006) Smeared crack approach: back to the original track. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 30(12):1173–119910.1002/nag.518 ↗
9. Chin EB, Bishop JE, Garimella RV, Sukumar N (2018) Finite deformation cohesive polygonal finite elements for modeling pervasive fracture. Int J Fract 214(2):139–16510.1007/s10704-018-0325-4 ↗
10. Dias da Costa D, Alfaiate J, Sluys LJ, Júlio E (2009) A discrete strong discontinuity approach. Eng Fract Mech 76(9):1176–120110.1016/j.engfracmech.2009.01.011 ↗
11. Francfort GA, Marigo J-J (1998) Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem. J Mech Phys Solids 46(8):1319–134210.1016/S0022-5096(98)00034-9 ↗
12. Gálvez F, Rodriguez J, Sánchez V (1997) Tensile strength measurements of ceramic materials at high rates of strain. Le J Phys IV 7(C3):C3-151
13. Hofacker M, Miehe C (2013) A phase field model of dynamic fracture: robust field updates for the analysis of complex crack patterns. Int J Numer Methods Eng 93(3):276–30110.1002/nme.4387 ↗
14. Kalthoff JF, Winkler S (1987) Failure mode transition at high rates of shear loading. In: Chiem CY, Kunze HD, Meyer LW (eds) International conference on impact loading and dynamic behavior of materials, vol 1, pp 185–195
15. Kim J, Armero F (2017) Three-dimensional finite elements with embedded strong discontinuities for the analysis of solids at failure in the finite deformation range. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 317:890–92610.1016/j.cma.2016.12.038 ↗
16. Lee EH (1969) Elastic-plastic deformation at finite strains. J Appl Mech 36(1):1–610.1115/1.3564580 ↗
17. Leone FA (2015) Deformation gradient tensor decomposition for representing matrix cracks in fiber-reinforced materials. Compos A 76(334–341):0910.1016/j.compositesa.2015.06.014 ↗
18. Lu X, Ridha M, Tan VBC, Tay TE (2019) Adaptive discrete-smeared crack (a-disc) model for multi-scale progressive damage in composites. Compos A 125:10551310.1016/j.compositesa.2019.105513 ↗
19. Lubliner J (1972) On the thermodynamic foundations of non-linear solid mechanics. Int J Non-Linear Mech 7(3):237–25410.1016/0020-7462(72)90048-0 ↗
20. Lubliner J (1973) On the structure of the rate equations of materials with internal variables. Acta Mech 17(1):109–11910.1007/BF01260883 ↗
21. Mazars J, Pijaudier-Cabot G (1996) From damage to fracture mechanics and conversely: a combined approach. Int J Solids Struct 33(20):3327–334210.1016/0020-7683(96)00015-7 ↗
22. Moës N, Belytschko T (2002) Extended finite element method for cohesive crack growth. Eng Fract Mech 69(7):813–83310.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X ↗
23. Oliver J, Cervera M, Manzoli O (1999) Strong discontinuities and continuum plasticity models: the strong discontinuity approach. Int J Plast 15(3):319–35110.1016/S0749-6419(98)00073-4 ↗
24. Ortiz M, Pandolfi A (1999) Finite-deformation irreversible cohesive elements for three-dimensional crack-propagation analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng 44(9):1267–128210.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(19990330)44:9<1267::AID-NME486>3.0.CO;2-7 ↗
25. Papoulia KD, Sam C-H, Vavasis SA (2003) Time continuity in cohesive finite element modeling. Int J Numer Methods Eng 58(5):679–70110.1002/nme.778 ↗
26. Park K, Paulino GH (2011) Cohesive zone models: a critical review of traction-separation relationships across fracture surfaces. Appl Mech Rev. doi 10(1115/1):4023110
27. Pence TJ, Gou K (2015) On compressible versions of the incompressible Neo-Hookean material. Math Mech Solids 20(2):157–18210.1177/1081286514544258 ↗
28. Rashid YR (1968) Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed concrete pressure vessels. Nucl Eng Des 7(4):334–34410.1016/0029-5493(68)90066-6 ↗
29. Ravi-Chandar K, Knauss WG (1982) Dynamic crack-tip stresses under stress wave loading—a comparison of theory and experiment. Int J Fract 20:209–22210.1007/BF01140336 ↗
30. Ravi-Chandar K, Knauss WG (1984) An experimental investigation into dynamic fracture: I. Crack initiation and arrest. Int J Fract 25:247–26210.1007/BF00963460 ↗
31. Rice JR et al (1968) Mathematical analysis in the mechanics of fracture. Fracture 2:191–311
32. Rodriguez J, Navarro C, Sanchez-Galvez V (1994) Splitting tests: an alternative to determine the dynamic tensile strength of ceramic materials. Le J Phys IV 4(C8):C8-101
33. Rots J (1988) Computational modeling of concrete fracture. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft
34. Rots JG, Blaauwendraad J (1989) Crack models for concrete, discrete or smeared? fixed, multi-directional or rotating? HERON 34(1):1989
35. Rots JG, Nauta P, Kuster GMA, Blaauwendraad J (1985) Smeared crack approach and fracture localization in concrete. Stevin-Laboratory of the Department of Civil Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Heron
36. Ruiz G, Ortiz M, Pandolfi A (2000) Three-dimensional finite-element simulation of the dynamic Brazilian tests on concrete cylinders. Int J Numer Methods Eng 48(7):963–99410.1002/(SICI)1097-0207(20000710)48:7<963::AID-NME908>3.0.CO;2-X ↗
37. Simo JC, Hughes TJR (2000) Computational inelasticity, vol 7. Springer, New York
38. Xu X-P, Needleman A (1994) Numerical simulations of fast crack growth in brittle solids. J Mech Phys Solids 42(9):1397–143410.1016/0022-5096(94)90003-5 ↗
39. Yu C (2001) Three-dimensional cohesive modeling of impact damage of composites. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
40. Yu RC, Ruiz G, Pandolfi A (2004) Numerical investigation on the dynamic behavior of advanced ceramics. Eng Fract Mech 71(4):897–91110.1016/S0013-7944(03)00016-X ↗
41. Zhou Z, Li X, Zou Y, Jiang Y, Li G (2014) Dynamic Brazilian tests of granite under coupled static and dynamic loads. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47(2):495–50510.1007/s00603-013-0441-4 ↗
42. Zywicz E, Giffin B, DeGroot AJ, Zoller M (2021) DYNA3D: a nonlinear, explicit, three-dimensional finite element code for solid and structural mechanics user manual–version 21. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore