GLOBAL AND LOCAL PARTITIONING OF 1

ENERGY RELEASE RATES IN FEM

SIMULATION OF FRMM TEST USING
COHESIVE ZONE

GLOBALNA I LOKALNA PODJELA

ENERGIJE LOMA U FEM SIMULACIJAMA
FRMM POKUSA PRIMJENOM
KOHEZIVNE ZONE
JOSIP KAČMARČIK, ALEKSANDAR KARAČ
MAŠINSKI FAKULTET, UNIVERZITET U ZENICI

10TH SCIENTIFIC/RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM WITH INTERNATIONAL

PARTICIPATION „METALLIC AND NONMETALLIC MATERIALS“
BUGOJNO, B&H, 21-22. APRIL 2014
 2
FRMM TEST CONFIGURATION AND
FEM MODEL

 CPE4 plane strain elements

 COH2D4 cohesive elements
 Beams material: E=50GPa,
ν= 0.38
 3
Cohezive zone model

2 2
tn , t s  tn   t s 
 o    o  1  Stifness
 tn   t s 
tno tn2  ts2  t o K nn  K ss  1015 Pa
tso
 Interlaminar strength
K nn K ss
GIC tno  tso  45 MPa
GIIC
GII  Critical fracture energy
GI G C

GIC  GIIC  G C  200 J/m 2

n s
 
 GI   GII 
 C    C  1  ef   n2   s2
 GI   GII 
GI  GII  G C
FRACTURE ENERGY PARTITIONING 4
Local approach
Tracking energy going into cohesive element

Integration point
 nm
 i   i 1
  d n
n 1
GI 
0
GIP  
i 0 2
 ni 1   ni 
 tm n 1
 i   i 1
GII    d s GIIP  
i 0 2
 si 1   si 
0

Cohesive element

GIP1  GIP 2
GI 
2
G  GIIP 2
GII  IIP1
2
FRACTURE ENERGY PARTITIONING 5
Global approach
Integration of energy over cohesive zone

 s
l
GI    dx
0
x
 t
l
GII   dx
0
x

n 1
 i   i 1
GI  
i 1 2
 ni   ni1 
n 1
 
GII   i i 1  si   si1
i 1 2
 
 6
1. SET OF SIMULATIONS: viscous regularisation
vs. automatic stabilisation

Viscosity Increments Crack Damage

Configuration Stabilisation Convergence
parameter (automatic) (mm) (mm)

A1 0 NO / / /
A2 10-1 YES 23 2 4
NO
A3 10-3 YES 1394 40.5 43
A4 10-5 YES 15728 41 43.5
A5 0 NO / / /
A6 10-1 YES 23 2 4
YES
A7 10-3 YES 151 0.5 2.5
A8 10-5 NO / / /
 7
1. SET OF SIMULATIONS:
reaction moment monitoring

-600 -600

Configuration: Configuration:
A7
A7
-500 A2
A2
-400

Moment (Nm)
A6
Moment (Nm)

A6
A3
A3
-400 A4
A4

-200
-300

0 -200
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s) Angle(rad/100) Crack (mm)
 2. SET OF SIMULATIONS: 8
viscosity, mesh size and
energy integration method

Initial Number of
Viscosity Increments Crack Damage
Configuration Mesh Convergence damage elements in
parameter (automatic) (mm) (mm)
zone damage zone

B1 10-3 YES 1394 2.5 40.5 43 5

240
B2 x 10-4 YES 6414 2.5 41 43.5 5
12
B3 10-5 YES 15728 2.5 41 43.5 5

B4 10-3 YES 993 2 41.2 43.2 10

600
B5 x 10-4 YES 6837 2.2 42.6 44.6 11
30
B6 10-5 YES 36087 2.2 42.8 44.8 11
 9
2. SET OF SIMULATIONS:
reaction moment monitoring

-250 -250
Configuration
-249 B4 B1 B2
-245 B3 B5 B6
-248

Moment (Nm)
-240 Configuration
Moment (Nm)

B4 B1 B2 -247
-235 B3 B5 B6
-246

-230
-245

-225 -244
12 14 16 18 20 0 10 20 30 40
Time (s) - Angle (rad/100) Crack (mm)
 10
2. SET OF SIMULATIONS:
total fracture energy

Local approach Global approach

207 204
206 203
202 Configuration
205 B4 B5 B6
201
204 B1 B2 B3
200
203 set failure energy
G (J/m2)

G (J/m2)
Configuration
199
202 B1 B4 B2
198
201 B3 B5 B6
197
200 196
set failure energy
199 195
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Crack (mm) Crack (mm)
 11
2. SET OF SIMULATIONS:
fracture mode-mixity

Local approach Global approach

0,591
0,615 0,5711
Configuration
0,61 B4 0,589
Configuration
0,605 B5 0,587
0,5707 B1 B2 B3
B6
0,6 B4 B6 B5
GI/G

B1 0,585

GI/G
0,595 B2 Configuration
B3 0,5703 0,583
B3 B2 B1
0,59 0,576
0,585 Configuration
0,5755
0,5699 B4 B6 B5
0,58
0,575
0,575
0,5745
0,57 0,5695
0 1 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0,574
Crack (mm) Crack (mm) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Crack (mm)
 12
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

 Monitoring of reaction moment – simulation evaluation

method
 Cohesive element viscosity – recommended convergence
improvement technique
 Recommended viscosity value of 10-4
 Local partitioning approach provides better insight into
change in mode-mixity with crack propagation and shows less
mesh dependence
 Recommended mesh size – 10 cohesive elements in damage
zone