A comparative study on 2D crack modelling using the extended finite element method/2D plysio modeliavimas iplestiniu baigtiniu elementu metodu.
Rouzegar, S.J. ; Mirzaei, M.
1. Introduction
In general, the current crack modelling methods can be classified
into two broad categories of geometrical and non-geometrical
presentations. In the first category, the presence of a crack in the
model is explicit and the geometry and mesh are changed during the crack
growth [1, 2]. In the second category, the crack does not appear in the
model as a physical object but its presence affects the governing
equations. These effects are either on the stress-strain constitutive
equations or on the strain-displacement kinematic equations. The latter
approach is implemented in the Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) by
adding extra functions (enrichment functions) to the approximation space
of the elements around the crack. This process gives additional degrees
of freedom to the enriched nodes. This method, which was established
based on the Partition of Unity Method (PUM) and applied to fracture
mechanics problems by Belytschko and Black [3], was improved by Dolbow
for crack growth modelling without re-meshing [4]. The method was later
applied to other problems such as 3D fracture [5], dynamic problems [6],
cohesive crack modelling [7], fracture mechanics of functionally graded
materials (FGM) [8], and crack modelling in orthotopic materials [9]. A
very recent review of the usage of the XFEM in computational fracture
mechanics is reported in ref. [10].
Applications of the XFEM to plates and shells have been reported by
Dolbow et al [11] for Mindlin-Reissner plates and by Areias et al [12,
13] for shells. Nevertheless, the focus of the current study is on the
XFEM formulation based on the Kirchhoff plate theory [14], which is the
simplest approach to the out-of-plane fracture problems. This approach
can give accurate results for thin plates without the complications due
to shear locking. In sequel a new set of Tip functions are extracted
from analytical solutions of Kirchhoff plates [15, 16]. Accordingly,
different enrichment schemes are implemented for constant strain
triangle (CST) and quadrilateral (Q4) elements and the stress intensity
factors (SIF) for several benchmark problems are calculated using the
J-Integral and the Interaction Integral methods.
2. Basic formulations
The following sections present the basic aspects of the
formulations and the enrichment schemes implemented in this study.
2.1 Plane XFEM formulation
Consider the domain [OMEGA][subset][[Real part].sup.2] bounded by
[GAMMA] as shown in Fig. 1. The prescribed displacements and tractions
are imposed on [[GAMMA].sub.u] and [[GAMMA].sub.t] respectively. The
crack surface, [[GAMMA].sub.d] is assumed to be traction-free. The
equilibrium equations and boundary conditions are:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1)
in which, n is the outward unit normal, [sigma] is the Cauchy
stress tensor, and b is the body force density. In the classical finite
element method, the solution space [v.sup.h] is constructed from low
order polynomials [[phi].sup.i] as:
[v.sup.h] [equivalent to] span[{[[phi].sub.i]}.sup.N.sub.i=1] (2)
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
However, in fracture mechanics problems where local behaviours (or
rough solutions) exist, these polynomials usually do not give satisfying
results unless either very fine meshes are used or the order of
polynomials is increased. The aim of the XFEM is to avoid these
difficulties by incorporation of simple analytical expressions into the
solution space of the classical FEM. These expressions, obtained from
the analytical solutions of a 2D elastic cracked domain under biaxial
loading, are [3].
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (3)
where r and [theta] are the local polar coordinates at the crack
tip. It should be noted that the first function is discontinuous across
the crack faces whereas the remaining functions are continuous. In 1999,
Dolbow added the Heaviside discontinuous (H) function to the above terms
to also model the discontinuity along the crack wake. The H function is
defined as [4]:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (4)
where x is a sample point, [x.sup.*] (which lies on the crack) is
the closest point projection of x, and [e.sub.n] is the unit outward
normal to the crack at [x.sup.*] In the XFEM terminology, the procedure
of increasing the degrees of freedom of the nodes around the crack is
called enrichment and is done locally, i.e., only selected nodes are
enriched. The enriched displacement approximation can be written as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (5)
where I is the set of all nodes, J is the set of nodes whose
support is entirely split by the crack, and K is the set of nodes that
contain the crack tip in their support. Also [u.sub.i] are the nodal
displacements, [a.sub.j] and [b.sup.ak] are the degrees of freedom
related to H and Tip functions.
2.2. Enrichment schemes for 2D problems
In a general enrichment procedure three distinct areas are
distinguished, i.e., the area composed of elements all nodes of which
are enriched [[OMEGA].sup.enr], the area where none of the nodes is
enriched [[OMEGA].sup.std], and the area which only some of the nodes
are enriched (called the blending area, [[OMEGA].sup.blend]. Since the
blending elements are only "partially enriched", the enriched
nodes in these elements do not form a partition of unity [17]. These
elements play an important role in the approximation properties and must
be handled with cautious. Accordingly, five types of elements are
distinguishable as depicted in Fig. 2. The elements of type 1 form
[[OMEGA].sup.std] , the elements of type 2 and 3 form [[OMEGA].sup.enr],
and the elements of type 4 and 5 form [[OMEGA].sup.blend]. Because of
the presence of the enrichment functions (especially the crack Tip
functions) in the basis function of the approximation space, there are
some deficiencies in the formulations of the elements of type 3 and
elements of [[OMEGA].sup.blend] (especially the elements of type 4).
There are also additional issues regarding the computation of
energy on contours cutting these elements (these contours are often used
for determination of the J-Integral or the Interaction Integral). Hence,
it can be expected that if only the H function is used for the
enrichment and the Tip functions are not considered, two problematic
element types (type 3 and 4) will be omitted and the modelling procedure
would be more efficient (see Fig. 3).
In sequel the effects of the elimination of the Tip functions from
the enrichment scheme will be studied in more detail.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
2.3. XFEM formulation for Kirchhoff plate
The state of deformation of Kirchhoff plates can be presented by
normal displacement w and the following fourth-order differential
equation [18]:
D([[partial derivative].sup.4]w/[partial derivative][x.sup.4] + 2
[[[partial derivative].sup.4]w/[partial derivative][x.sup.2][partial
derivative][y.sup.2]] + [[partial derivative].sup.4]w/[partial
derivative][y.sup.4]) - p = 0, (6)
in which p is the lateral load intensity and D (bending stiffness)
is computed from:
D = E [h.sup.3]/12(1 -[v.sup.2]), (7)
in the above, v is the Poisson's ratio, h is the plate
thickness, and E is the Young's modulus. In this study we used
4-node rectangular elements for which each node has three degrees of
freedom. Fig. 4 shows a typical element along with the related
parameters. Accordingly, the discretized form of normal displacement w
can be presented as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (8)
in which, I is the set of element nodes, [w.sub.i] are the nodal
values of normal displacement, [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE
IN ASCII] are the nodal values of rotation about x and y axis
respectively, and [N.sub.il] are the shape functions derived by Melosh
[19].
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
In dealing with cracked plates, we use the near crack tip stress
and displacement fields for a crack in an infinite Kirchhoff plate
provided by Williams [15], and the stress intensity factor definitions
of Sih et al. [16] for the deflection fields to write:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (9)
where [K.sub.1] and [K.sub.2] are symmetric (bending) and
anti-symmetric (twisting) stress intensity factors. On the other hand,
the enriched displacement approximation can be written as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (10)
where I, J and K are the sets defined in Eq. (5). The Tip functions
[G.sub.m](r, [theta]) can be extracted from the analytical solution by
writing Eq. (9) in the following form:
w = [C.sub.1][r.sup.3/2]
sin([theta]/2)+[C.sub.2][r.sup.3/2]cos([theta]/2)+
+[C.sub.3][r.sup.3/2]sin(3[theta]/2)+[C.sub.4][r.sup.3/2]cos(3[theta]/2), (11)
where [C.sub.i] are the constants which are independent of r and
[theta]. Since in the vicinity of crack tip the normal displacement w is
a composition of these four expressions, the Tip functions can be chosen
as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (12)
Note that the first and the third functions are discontinuous along
the crack, which means that their values have a jump at the Gaussian
points above and below the crack.
2.4. Stress intensity factor (SIF) computation
In this study, the SIFs for the XFEM simulations were calculated
using the J-Integral and the Interaction Integral methods. The basic
formulations can be found in Appendix A. The results were compared with
the following analytical solutions. The analytic solution for a
finite-width plate with a central crack under remote tensile stress
[sigma] is [20]:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (13)
in which, [beta] is the plate width and a is half the crack length.
The SIF expressions for an oblique through crack in an infinite plate
under uni-axial loading are [20]:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (14)
where [beta] is the angle between the normal to crack plane with
the stress axis.
The SIF expressions for an infinite plate with a central through
crack of the length 2a under pure bending moment (M) are [16]:
[K.sub.1] = [6M.sub.[omicron]]/[h.sup.2][square root of a],
[K.sub.2 = 0. (15)
3. Results and discussion
In this section some typical benchmark plane and plate problems are
solved by the developed XFEM codes and the obtained result are compared
with the existing analytic solutions.
As illustrated in Figs. 5, a and d, a usual practice in XFEM is to
enrich the nodes of the crack tip element by the Tip functions and the
nodes of the crack wake elements by the H function. However, if only the
H function is used for enrichment, two different schemes can be proposed
for the enrichment of the tip element nodes. In the first scheme (H1
scheme), all the nodes are enriched by the H function (Figs. 5, b and
e). In the second scheme (H2 scheme) the nodes of the front edge are
excluded from the enrichment (Figs. 5, c and f).
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
3.1. Rectangular plate with a straight through crack under remote
tension
Fig. 6 shows a rectangular plate containing a through-thickness
crack under uniform tension. This problem is solved using CST and Q4
elements according to the prescribed schemes and the results are
compared with analytical solutions.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
The normalized stress intensity factor values for different number
of elements are listed in Tables and 2. It is clear that the results of
both HT and H2 schemes are in excellent agreement with the analytical
solution, while the results of the H1 scheme are slightly higher.
Although both the Interaction Integral and the J-Integral methods are
efficient in evaluating SIFs, the results of the former method agree
better with the analytical values.
3.2 Rectangular plate with an oblique through crack under remote
tension
Fig. 7 shows a rectangular plate containing an oblique
through-thickness crack under uniform tension. The stress intensity
factors for Modes I and II are evaluated by Eq. (14) and the CST-XFEM
code using different enrichment schemes. It should be noted that
although Eq. (14) presents the same values for both crack tips and does
not consider the effects of finite sizes, in practice the SIFs for the
two crack tips are different and their values for a finite width plate
are higher than those for an infinite plate. The normalized stress
intensity factor values obtained by the Interaction Integral and the
J-Integral methods are listed in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
It is clear that the results of HT and H2 schemes are in better
agreement with the analytic results and the JIntegral results are lower
than the Interaction Integral results. Considering the effects of finite
width on Eq. (14), it seems that the results of the Interaction Integral
method are more precise than the J-Integral method. Moreover, we found
noticeable variations of the KI and KII values on different contours
using the J-Integral method. Thus, the SIFs listed in Table 4 are the
average values. Although the Interaction Integral values on different
contours were not exactly the same, the variation was quite limited and
a specific value could be considered for a range of contours.
3.3. Rectangular plate with a through crack under pure bending
Fig. 8 illustrates a pure bending problem with the stress intensity
factors expressed by Eq. (15).
[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]
This benchmark problem is simulated with a finite length
rectangular plate. The plate dimensions are 86x70 mm and h = 1 mm, the
applied moment ([M.sub.o]) is 10 N mm/mm, and the problem is solved for
different crack lengths.
The SIFs are computed based on the integrals obtained for circular
domains with different radii (ranging from a quarter length of crack to
half length of crack) and the average values are listed in Table 5.
Although [K.sub.1] values for different contours were not exactly the
same, the difference between minimum and maximum values did not exceed
10% of the mean value. It is clear that the best results are obtained
with the HT scheme and the H1 and H2 scheme provide higher and lower
values with respect to the analytical results respectively.
4. Conclusion
Although the implementation of Tip functions in the node enrichment
procedure around crack tip is a usual practice in XFEM, it naturally
involves creation of abnormal elements and also leads to additional
complications in the basic FEM formulation. In this study we compared
the sole usage of the H function with a combined usage of both the H and
the Tip functions in the enrichment process. It was shown that for the
proposed enrichment schemes the elimination of the Tip functions has no
noticeable effect on the accuracy of the computed stress intensity
factors for the plane problems. It was also shown that for both CST and
Q4 elements, the performance of the H2 scheme (with limited enrichment)
was better than the H1 scheme.
We also studied the XFEM modelling of cracked plates under out of
plane bending using the new Tip functions extracted from analytical
solutions of Kirchhoff plates. It was found that, in contrast to the
plane problems, the combined usage of the H and Tip functions in the
enrichment procedure (HT Scheme) provided excellent results, while the
results of H1 and H2 schemes were less satisfactory.
The performance of the J-Integral and the Interaction Integral
methods in evaluating the stress intensity factors for plane XFEM
problems was also studied. Although both methods provided very accurate
results, the Interaction Integral results were in general more precise.
Moreover, while the Interaction Integral values remained stable along
different computation contours, in some cases the J-Integral showed
unfavourable fluctuations with changing the contour radius.
Appendix A
The J-Integral method is widely used for numerical determination of
SIFs. For a plane problem, this contour integral is defined by:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A1)
in which [T.sub.i] and [u.sub.i] are defined on the contour [GAMMA]
(as the traction and displacement components respectively), and W is the
strain energy density inside the contour.
Numerical computation of the above contour integral is rather
difficult, so it is usually changed into a domain form:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A2)
where q is a sufficiently smooth weighting function which takes a
value of unity on an open set containing the crack tip and vanishes on
an outer prescribed contour.
In the mixed mode conditions, Eqs. (A1) and (A2) do not allow
[K.sub.I] and [K.sub.II] to be calculated separately. In this case,
invariant integrals can be used as below [21]:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (A3)
where k is an index for local crack tip axis (x, y). The stress
intensity factors can be obtained from above integrals by the following
relationships:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A4)
Another efficient method for numerical computation of SIF
(especially in mixed mode problems) is the Interaction Integral method
[4]. In this method two states of a cracked body are considered. The
state1 ([sigma].sup.(1).sub.ij],
[[epsilon].sup.(1).sub.ij][u.sup.(1).sub.i]) corresponds to the present
state and the state2 ([sigma].sup.(2).sub.ij],
[[epsilon].sup.(2).sub.ij], [u.sup.(2).sub.i]) is an auxiliary state
which will be chosen as the asymptotic fields for Mode I or Mode II. For
a plane problem, the Interaction Integral is defined as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (A5)
where [W.sup.(1,2)] is the interaction strain energy:
[W.sup.(1,2)] = [[sigma].sup.(1).sub.ij] [[epsilon].sup.(2).sub.ij]
= [[sigma].sup.(2).sub.ij] [[epsilon].sup.(1).sub.ij] (A6)
The relationship between the Interaction Integral and SIF is:
[I.sup.(1,2)] = 2/[E.sup.*] ([K.sup.(1).sub.I] [K.sup.(2).sub.I] +
[K.sup.(1).sub.II] [K.sup.(2).sub.II]) (A7)
where [E.sup.*] is defined in terms of E (Young"s modulus) and
[gamma](poisson's ratio) as: [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT
REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (A8)
Making a judicious choice of state 2 as the pure Mode I asymptotic
field with [K.sub.I.sup.(2)] = 1, [K.sub.II.sup.(2)] =0 gives the Mode I
stress intensity factor for state 1 in terms of the Interaction
Integral:
[K.sup.(1).sub.I = 2/[E.sup.*] [I.sup.(1.modeI]). (A9)
The Mode II stress intensity factor can be determined in a similar
fashion
Similarly, for plate bending problems, the J-Integral is defined
as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], (A10)
where [alpha], [beta] = 1,2 and [M.sub.[alpha][beta]] and
[Q.sub.[beta]] are the moment and the shear force components and W is
the strain energy density defined as:
W = 1/2[M.sub.[alpha][beta]][[theta].sub.[alpha][beta]]]. (A11)
Choosing k = 1 in (A11), the first mode (bending mode) can be
written as:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (Al2)
Using the divergence theory, this integral can be converted to a
domain integral which is convenient for numerical computations. The
relationship between the SIF and the J-Integral is [22]:
[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(A13)
References
[1.] Jakusovas, A.; Daunys, M. 2009. Investigation of low cycle
fatigue crack opening by finite element method, Mechanika 3(77): 13-17.
[2.] Shariati, M.; Sedighi, M.; Saemi, J.; Eipakchi, H.R.;
Allahbakhsh, H.R. 2010. Numerical and experimental investigation on
ultimate strength of cracked cylindrical shells subjected to combined
loading, Mechanika 4(84): 12-19.
[3.] Belytschko, T.; Black, T. 1998. Elastic crack growth in finite
elements with minimal remeshing, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering 45(5): 601-620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.598.
[4.] Dolbow, J. 1999. An extended finite element with discontinuous
enrichment, PhD thesis, Northwestern University.
[5.] Sukumar, N.; Moes, N.; Moran, B.; Belytschko, T. 2000.
Extended finite element method for three-dimensional crack modelling,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 48(11):
1549-1570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.955.
[6.] Belytschko, T.; Chen, H.; Xu, J.; Zi, G. 2003. Dynamic crack
propagation based on loss of hyperbolicity and a new discontinuous
enrichment, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering
58(12): 1873-1905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.941.
[7.] Moes, N.; Belytschko, T. 2002. Extended finite element method
for cohesive crack growth, Engineering Fracture Mechanics 69(7):
813-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0013-7944(01)00128-X.
[8.] Dolbow, J.; Gosz, M. 2002. On the computation of mixed-mode
stress intensity factors in functionally graded materials, International
Journal of Solids and Structures 39(9): 2557-2574.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(02)00114-2.
[9.] Asadpoure, A.; Mohammadi, S.; Vafai, A. 2006. Crack analysis
in orthotropic media using the extended finite element method,
Thin-Walled Structures 44(9): 1031-1038.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2006.07.007.
[10.] Abdelaziz, Y.; Nabbou, A.; Hamouine, A. 2009. A
state-of-the-art review of the X-FEM for computational fracture
mechanics, Applied Mathematical Modelling 33(12): 4269-4282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.apm.2009.02.010.
[11.] Dolbow, J.; Moes, N.; Belytschko, T. 2000. Modelling fracture
in Mindlin-Reissner plates with the extended finite element method,
International Journal of Solids and Structures 37(48-50): 7161-7183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7683(00)00194-3.
[12.] Areias, P.M.A.; Belytschko, T. 2005. Non-linear analysis of
shells with arbitrary evolving cracks using XFEM, International Journal
of Numerical Methods in Engineering 62(3): 384-415.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nme.1192.
[13.] Areias, P.M.A.; Song, J.H.; Belytschko, T. 2006. Analysis of
fracture in thin shells by overlapping paired elements, Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 195(41-43): 5343-5360.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cma.2005.10.024.
[14.] Kirchhoff, G. 1850. AUber das gleichgewicht und die bewegung
einer elastischen scheibe, J fAur Reine und angewandte Mathematik
1859(40): 51-88. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1515/crll.1850.40.51.
[15.] Williams, M. 1961. The bending stress distribution at the
base of a stationary crack, Journal of Applied Mechanics 28: 78-82.
[16.] Sih, G.; Paris, P.; Erdogan, F. 1962. Crack-tip
stress-intensity factors for plane Extension and plate bending problems,
Journal of Applied Mechanics 29: 306-312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.3640546.
[17.] Chessa, J. 2003. The extended finite element method for free
surface and two phase flow problems, PhD thesis, Northwestern
University.
[18.] Zienkiewicz, O.C.; Taylor, R.L. 2000. The Finite Element
Method volume 2: The Basis, Butterwotrth Heinemann.
[19.] Melosh, R.J. 1963. Structural analysis of solids, ASCE
Structural Journal 89(4): 205-223.
[20.] Anderson, T.L. 1995. Fracture Mechanism Fundamentals and
Applications.-Boca Raton, Ana Arbor: CRC Press. 793p.
[21.] Araujo, T.D.; Bittencourt, T.N.; Roehl, D.; Martha, L.F.
2000. Numerical estimation of fracture parameters in elastic and
elastic-plastic analysis, In: "European Congress on Computational
Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering", Barcelona, pp. 11-14.
[22.] Hui, C. Y.; Zehnder, A. 1993. A theory for the fracture of
thin plates subjected to bending and twisting moments, International
Journal of Fracture 61: 211-229.
S.J. Rouzegar, Shiraz University of Technology, Modares Boulevard,
Shiraz 71555-313, Iran, Email:rouzegar@sutech.ac.ir
M. Mirzaei, Tarbiat Modares University, Jalal Ale Ahmad Highway,
Tehran 14115-111, Iran, E-mail: mmirzaei@modares.ac.ir
cross ref http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.mech.19.4.5043
Table 1
Normalized analytic and numeric SIF values for a rectangular
plate with a straight through crack under remote tension
(CST- XFEM code)
No. of Interaction Integral
Analytical elements
SIF solution in mesh HT H1 H2
Scheme Scheme Scheme
[K.sub.I]/ 1.075 3000 1.076 1.100 1.042
[sigma] 4000 1.088 1.127 1.068
[square root 6000 1.092 1.136 1.075
of [pi]]
[alpha]
J-Integral
SIF HT HI H2
Scheme Scheme Scheme
[K.sub.I]/ 1.067 1.137 0.993
[sigma] 1.081 1.162 1.046
[square root 1.096 1.179 1.060
of [pi]]
[alpha]
Table 2
Normalized analytic and numeric SIF values for a rectangular
plate with a straight through crack under remote tension
(Q4- XFEM code)
SIF Analytical No. of Interaction Integral
solution elements
in mesh HT HI H2
Scheme Scheme Scheme
[K.sub.I/[sigma] 1.075 1500 1.100 1.140 1.079
[square root of 2000 1.095 1.136 1.083
[pi] [alpha] 3000 1.094 1.127 1.084
SIF J-Integral
HT H1 H2
Scheme Scheme Scheme
[K.sub.I/[sigma] 1.104 1.029 0.957
[square root of 1.104 1.029 0.967
[pi] [alpha] 1.103 1.052 1.002
Table 3
Normalized analytic and numeric SIF values for a rectangular
plate with an oblique through crack under remote tension
using the Interaction Integral method. (CST- XFEM code)
SIFs. Analytical No. of HT Scheme
solution elements
in mesh Tip1 Tip2
[K.sub.I]/[sigma] 0.883 3000 0.917 0.931
[square root of 4000 0.914 0.933
[pi] [alpha] 6000 0.914 0.930
[K.sub.II]/[sigma] 0.321 3000 0.440 0.410
[square root of 4000 0.438 0.411
[pi] [alpha] 6000 0.436 0.408
SIFs. H1 Scheme H2 Scheme
Tip1 Tip2 Tip1 Tip2
[K.sub.I]/[sigma] 0.935 0.953 0.900 0.915
[square root of 0.940 0.953 0.905 0.924
[pi] [alpha] 0.946 0.969 0.905 0.924
[K.sub.II]/[sigma] 0.462 0.433 0.430 0.408
[square root of 0.452 0.430 0.440 0.407
[pi] [alpha] 0.455 0.424 0.432 0.414
Table 4
Normalized analytic and numeric SIF values for a rectangular
plate with an oblique through crack under remote tension
using the J-Integral method. (CST- XFEM code)
SIFs. Analytical No. of HT Scheme
solution elements
in mesh Tip1 Tip2
[K.sub.I]/[sigma] 0.883 3000 0.848 0.881
[square root of 4000 0.861 0.879
[pi] [alpha]] 6000 0.844 0.872
[K.sub.II]/[sigma] 0.321 3000 0.495 0.462
[square root of 4000 0.491 0.463
[pi] [alpha]] 6000 0.509 0.466
SIFs. H1 Scheme H2 Scheme
Tip1 Tip2 Tip1 Tip2
[K.sub.I]/[sigma] 0.901 0.976 0.805 0.828
[square root of 0.898 0.968 0.821 0.849
[pi] [alpha]] 0.937 0.980 0.820 0.851
[K.sub.II]/[sigma] 0.515 0.464 0.489 0.458
[square root of 0.518 0.464 0.504 0.422
[pi] [alpha]] 0.516 0.474 0.500 0.458
Table 5
Symmetric bending SIF and its normalized values for
rectangular plate with through crack under pure bending
Crack Eq. (15), HT Scheme, [K.sub.1] (HT
Length, Mpa [square Mpa [square Scheme)/[K.sub.1]
mm root of mm] root of mm] (Eq. (15))
12 146.97 143 0.973
16 169.71 165.5 0.975
20 189.74 186 0.98
24 207.85 206 0.991
28 224.5 223 0.993
Crack H1 Scheme, [K.sub.1] (H1 H2 Scheme,
Length, Mpa [square Scheme)/[K.sub.1] Mpa [square
mm root of mm] (Eq. (15)) root of mm]
12 156 1.061 136.5
16 181 1.067 158.5
20 204 1.075 180.5
24 226 1.087 198
28 245 1.091 216
Crack [K.sub.1] (H2
Length, Scheme)/[K.sub.1]
mm (Eq. (15))
12 0.929
16 0.934
20 0.951
24 0.953
28 0.962