-

FEA Project

Finite Element Analysis to determine Stress

Intensity Factor for Single Edge Notch Beam
Specimen under different Cases

Under the Guidance of

PROF. VIKAS VINAYAK CHAUDHARI

By:
ADARSHA PURANIK (2018H1410082G)
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering

Table of content
Content Page no.
1. Introduction 3
2. Theoretical solution of Single-Edge-Notch- 3
Bend (SENB) Specimen

3. FEA on Single-Edge-Notch-Bend (SENB) 4

Specimen

4. ANSYS Results: 6
5. Comparison of Theoretical and FEA KI: 7
6. Different cases for SENB specimen: 8
7. Comparison and Conclusions: 12

2
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering

1. Introduction:
Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) is a parameter to characterize a crack which is widely
used for Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM).Single Edge Notch Bend (SENB) is most
commonly used test specimen to determine Stress Intensity Factor (K I). This project initially
aims at finding out the optimal mess size and boundary condition in ANSYS Workbench
model by comparing SIF obtained from ANSYS (Finite Element Analysis) with the
Theoretical value. Then the ANSYS analysis is extended to compare the effect of different
load and notch location in SENB on SIF.

2. Theoretical solution of Single-Edge-Notch-Bend (SENB)

Specimen:

Figure1: Standard Single-Edge-Notch-Bend (SENB) Specimen

2.1. Theoretical calculation for the case in Figure 1:

Depth=50mm
Thickness=30mm (B≥W/2 to ensure plane strain)
Length, S =4W=200mm
Crack length, a=25mm
Applied force=2000N

a 25
   0.5
W 50
3 2 [1.99   (1   )(2.15  3.93  2.7 2 ]
1

f ( )   2.6625
2(1  2 )(1   ) 2
3

3
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
PS 2000*200
KI  3 f ( )  3 *2.6625  3.1752 MPa  m
BW 2
30*50 2
Therefore,
Theoretical KI =3.1752 MPa−√ m

3. FEA on Single-Edge-Notch-Bend (SENB) Specimen:

3.1. Geometry:
Following model was created using CREO which is analyzed in ANSYS Workbench.(Fig. 2)

Figure 2:Model of SENB specimen with Length(200mm) along X-axis,Thiskness(30mm)

along Z-axis and Depth(50mm) along Y–axis in CREO

3.2. Boundary Condition:

With respect to ANSYS coordinate system following constraints are applied(Figure 3)
At to ends:Displacement constraint
X direction=0
Y direction=0
Z direction=Free

4
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
At the center: Force in Y direction = -2000N

Figure 3: Tags A,B & C represnts Boundary conditions applied

3.3. Meshing:
Pre-Mesh Crack is defined at crack tip (V-notch tip) with respect to the local
coordinate system which has X-axis along the direction of crack growth.(Figure 4)

Figure 4: Pre-Mesh Crack for fracture analysis

After number of trails, Mesh of following specification is found to optimal (Figure 5) to get
SIF value closer to Theoritical value.
1. Mesh Type : Tetrahedron
2. Minimum Element size= 2.8284mm
3. Refinement at crack front=2 (mesh size is reduced by half)

5
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering

Figure 5: Meshed model

4. ANSYS Results:
4.1. Deformation in Y direction:

Figure 6: Deformation of specimen in direction of carck opeing

6
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
4.2. Stress Intensity Factor:

Figure 7: Distribution for SIF along crack front in thickness direction

Since the blue patch is at extrem ends, near the surface, and corresponds to small region of
crack front, it is neglected.And values from green patch is concidered.
FEA KI =Average values along crack tip(from green to red patch)
= (Kmin+Kmax)/2
= (2.9848+3.4195)/2
FEA KI =3.20215 MPa−√ m

5. Comparison of Theoretical and FEA KI:

With the optimal mesh size (considering computation time) as mentioned above following
comparison can be drawn:
Theoretical KI FEA KI %Error
3.1752 MPa−√ m 3.20215 MPa−√ m 0.8487

Hence it can be concluded the considered mesh size is optimal and considered Boundary
conditions are correct as error between Theoretical SIF and FEA SIF values (when values
near the surface is neglected) is less.

7
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering

6. Different cases for SENB specimen:

Now the analysis is extended further by taking different location of load and crack (notch).
All other following parameters are kept same as those are proved to be optimal.
 Fixed boundary condition
 Magnitude and direction of force
 Mesh type and mesh size
 Geometry of specimen

6.1. Case 1: Crack and load at the center of SENB specimen

This case is same as discussed and analyzed earlier with same boundary condition.
Result:

Figure 8: Distribution for SIF along crack front in thickness direction for Case 1.

FEA KI =Average values along crack tip(from green to red patch)

= (Kmin+Kmax)/2
= (2.9848+3.4195)/2
FEA KI =3.20215 MPa−√ m

8
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering

6.2. Case 2: Crack is at the center and load is moved to a location 3/4th length
Boundary Condition:

Figure 9: Boundary condition for Case 2. Tag A and C is support end.

Result:

Figure 10: Distribution for SIF along crack front in thickness direction for Case 2
Since the blue patch is at extrem ends, near the surface, and corresponds to small region of
crack front, it is neglected.And values from green patch is concidered.
FEA KI =Average values along crack tip(from green to red patch)

9
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
= (Kmin+Kmax)/2
= (1.5898+1.8265)/2
FEA KI =1.708 MPa−√ m

6.3. Case 3: Load is at the center and Crack is at location 3/4th length
Boundary condition:

Figure 11: Boundary condition for Case 3.Tag A & B are end support.
Result:

Figure 12: Distribution for SIF along crack front in thickness direction for Case 3.
Since the blue patch is at extrem ends, near the surface, and corresponds to small region of
crack front, it is neglected.And values from green patch is concidered.
FEA KI =Average values along crack tip(from green to red patch)

10
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
= (Kmin+Kmax)/2
= (1.5767+1.8241)/2
FEA KI =1.7 MPa−√ m

6.4. Case 4: Load and Crack is at location 3/4th length (on same side)
Boundary Condition:

Figure 13: Bounday condition for Case 4.Tag A & B are end support.
Results:

Figure 14: Distribution for SIF along crack front in thickness direction for Case 4.
Since the blue patch is at extrem ends, near the surface, and corresponds to small region of
crack front, it is neglected.And values from green patch is concidered.

11
 Department of
Mechanical
Engineering
FEA KI =Average values along crack tip(from green to red patch)
= (Kmin+Kmax)/2
= (2.1918+2.27505)/2
FEA KI =2.2334 MPa−√ m

7. Comparison and Conclusions:

Continuing from the optimal mesh size and verified Boundary condition Stress Intensity
Factor is determined for different cases. SIF values obtained from all 4 cases, where all
parameters accept the location of load and crack are same, is tabulated below.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
KI = KI = KI = KI =
3.12975 MPa−√ m 1.708 MPa−√ m 1.7 MPa−√ m 2.2334 MPa−√ m

From the comparison table following conclusions con be drawn

1. Stress Intensity Factor(SIF) is maximum when load and crack both are at the
center of SENB (Case 1). Hence when load and crack both are at the center (Case
1) it becomes critical case of SENB specimen.
2. SIF is almost same for case 2 and case 3. This means that the seveiorness of a
crack is same even if the load and crack location are interchanged at 3/4 th and
center respectively.
3. From Case 4 result is can be concluded that for any location for crack in SENB,
SIF will be maximum when the load is concentrated along the crack plane.

12