Mtech Thesis

THREE DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT
ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF CRACKED BODIES
Report submitted
In the partial fulfilment of requirement for the degree of
Master of Technology
by
Suman Basak
i
Table of contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................... v
Nomenclature .............................................................................................................vii
List of figures ............................................................................................................... ix
List of tables................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Stress intensity factor and its importance ............................................................. 2
1.2 Different types of cracks................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Importance of study surface cracks ................................................................... 3
1.3 Motivation ............................................................................................................ 4
1.4 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Literature on determination of SIF along semi-circular, semi-elliptical surface
crack and quarter elliptical corner crack .................................................................... 7
2.2 Literature on Nodal force method to determine SIF ............................................ 7
2.3 Literature on displacement extrapolation method to determine SIF .................... 8
2.4 Literature on Interaction integral method and J-integral method to determine SIF
.................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Summary of literature review ............................................................................. 10
Chapter 3 Theoretical Background .......................................................................... 11
3.1 Fracture Mechanics ............................................................................................ 11
3.1.1 Modes of fracture ........................................................................................ 12
3.1.2 Types of a crack .......................................................................................... 13
3.1.2.1 Corner crack ......................................................................................... 12
3.1.2.2 Surface crack ........................................................................................ 14
3.1.2.3 Embedded crack ................................................................................... 12
ii
3.2 Different numerical techniques to find stress intensity factor (SIF) .................. 15
3.2.1 Displacement extrapolation method ............................................................ 16
3.2.2 Nodal force method ..................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 J-integral method ......................................................................................... 18
3.2.4 Interaction integral method .......................................................................... 18
3.2.5 Weight function method .............................................................................. 19
3.2.6 Virtual crack closure technique ................................................................... 19
3.3 Finite element idealization of 3D crack ............................................................. 21
3.3.1 Isoparametric elements ................................................................................ 21
3.3.3 Singularity elements .................................................................................... 22
3.4 Extrusion method ............................................................................................... 22
Chapter 4 Results and discussions............................................................................ 25
4.1 Example 1: Determination of SIF of semi-circular surface crack in a semi-infinite
plate under pure tension ........................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 Convergence study ...................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Stress intensity factors at  = 90 ............................................................... 28
4.2 Example 2: Determination of SIF of semi-elliptical surface crack in a semi-
infinite plate under pure tension using unstructured mesh ....................................... 32
4.3 Example 3: Determination of SIF of quarter-elliptical corner crack in a semi-
infinite plate under pure tension using unstructured mesh ....................................... 32
4.4 Example 4: Determination of SIF of semi-elliptical surface crack in a semi-
infinite plate under pure tension using structured mesh ........................................... 41
4.5 Example 5: Determination of SIF of quarter-elliptical corner crack in a semi-
infinite plate under pure tension using structured mesh ........................................... 47
4.6 Example 6: Determination of SIF of elliptical embedded crack in a semi-infinite
plate under pure tension using structured mesh ....................................................... 53
4.7 Example 7: Determination of SIF of penny-shaped embedded crack in a semi-
infinite plate under pure tension ............................................................................... 58
4.8 Determination of stress intensity factors in actual gas turbine disk segment Model
.................................................................................................................................. 59
iii
Chapter 5 Conclusion and future scope of work .................................................... 65
5.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 65
5.2 Future scope of work .......................................................................................... 68
References ................................................................................................................... 69
iv
Abstract
Surface cracks are one of the most common flaws involved in failures of almost all
engineering components. Although, fracture mechanics has progressed in last century
but the progress on understanding the behaviour of surface crack is very limited.
Therefore, an effort has been made to understand the behaviour of surface crack under
mode-I loading. Stress intensity factor (SIF) of surface cracks is an important fracture
parameter in linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and it tells whether the fracture
occurs or not. The first solutions of SIF of three dimensional (3D) cracks, including
surface cracks were provided by Raju and Newman (1979) based on the finite element
(FE) analysis. Later different numerical techniques are developed using FE analysis in
order to find SIF. However some methods are giving good results and some are
deviating from Raju and Newman (1979) solution depending upon types of crack and
boundary conditions. In order to investigate this issue further, different numerical
techniques such as displacement extrapolation technique, interaction integral, J-integral
and nodal force method are studied and implemented for accurate estimation of SIFs of
surface cracks and embedded cracks using 3D FE analysis. The results of these
numerical techniques are compared with Raju and Newman (1979) solutions and
assessed to recommend the best techniques to estimate accurately the SIFs for different
type of cracks and boundary conditions. The present investigation also aims at
providing the accuracy of the solutions provided by Raju and Newman (1979) for 3D
cracks. Apart from various benchmark problems solved, a practical problem viz., a
turbine disk with a corner crack emanating from the bolt hole has been analysed.
v
vi
Nomenclature
Symbols
a crack length in 2D and crack depth in semi-elliptical crack

b half-width of 3D plate
c crack length in semi-elliptical crack
E Young’s modulus of elasticity
G shear modulus
h half-height of 3D plate
J J-integral
K Stress intensity factor
K I , K II , K III mode-I, mode-II and mode-III SIFs, respectively
t plate thickness
u , v, w displacement along x , y and z direction, respectively
 Poisson’s ratio
 polar angle of ellipse measured with respect to major axis
 polar coordinate of a point from crack tip
state of stress due to mode-I, mode-II and mode-III loading,
 ijI ,  ijII ,  ijIII
respectively
x, y , z normal stresses along x , y and z direction, respectively
Abbreviations
2D two dimensional
3D three dimensional
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
EPFM elastic plastic fracture mechanics
FE finite elements
FEM finite element method
LEFM linear elastic fracture mechanics
SIF stress intensity factor
SSY small scale yielding
vii
viii
List of figures
Fig. 1.1 (a) Part-through semi-elliptical surface crack in a finite plate showing various
parameters, (b) Corner crack 3
Fig. 4.1 Standard representation of surface crack in semi-infinite plate 26
Fig. 4.2 (a) Semi- infinite plate with semi-circular surface crack, (b) enlarged view of
crack, (c) enlarged view of mesh around cracks, (d) enlarged curved cylinder around
crack and (e) mesh around crack tip 27
Fig. 4.3 Degenerated brick element into wedge shape 28
Fig. 4.4 Different meshes used for convergence analysis (a) full body mesh (b) Mesh 1
(c) Mesh 2 and (d) Mesh 3 around crack 29
Fig. 4.5 Variations of stress intensity factor for different numerical techniques 31
Fig. 4.6 Percentage (%) deviation of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Raju and
Newman (1979) method 32

Fig. 4.7 Variations of stress intensity factor at a / c = 0.3 34
Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.3 36



Fig. 4.13 Full model of corner crack in semi-infinite plate and half model with boundary
conditions 38
Fig. 4.14 (a) Quarter elliptical corner crack in an semi-infinite plate (Half body), (b)
enlarged view of mesh around crack front, (c) mesh around crack, (d) extruded curved
cylinder (Half body) and (e) mesh around crack tip 39
Fig. 4.15 Full model of semi-elliptical surface crack in semi-infinite plate and one-
fourth model with boundary conditions 41
Fig. 4.16 Components of structured mesh generation for surface and embedded crack
42
ix



Fig. 4.23 Standard representation of corner crack in finite plate 48
Fig. 4.27 Percentage (%) deviation of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng (1996)
solution at a / c = 0.3 52
Fig. 4.30 Full model of elliptical embedded crack in semi-infinite plate and one-eighth
model with boundary conditions 54


Fig. 4.35 Geometry and boundary conditions of the turbine disk segment 60
x
List of tables
Table 4.1 Convergence analysis for a / c = 1 , a / t = 0.5 and  = 90 30
Table 4.2 SIFs of semi-circular crack in semi-infinite plate by different numerical
techniques implemented for a / c = 1 and different a / t ratio for unstructured mesh 30
Table 4.3 Error percentage (%) of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Raju and
Newman (1979) solution for a / c = 1 31

Table 4.4 The SIFs of semi-elliptical surface crack in semi-infinite plate by different
numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio for unstructured mesh 33
Newman (1979) solution 35

Table 4.6 SIFs of quarter-elliptical corner crack in semi-infinite plate by different
numerical techniques implemented for a / c = 0.5 and a / t = 0.5 40
Table 4.7 Error percentage (%) of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng (1996)
solution for a / c = 0.5 and a / t = 0.5 40

numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio for structured mesh 43
Newman (1979) solution for structured mesh 45

numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio 48
Table 4.11 Error percentage (%) of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng (1996)
solution 51
numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio 55
Newman (1984) solution 56

Table 4.14 SIFs of penny shaped embedded crack in semi-infinite plate by different
numerical techniques implemented for a / c = 1.0 and a / t = 0.5 58
Newman (1984) solution for a / c = 1.0 and a / t = 0.5 59

Table 4.16 Material properties for turbine disk problem 60
xi
Table 4.17 Stress intensity factors data from DRDO technical report, Murthy (2018)
61
Table 4.18 Stress intensity factors using interaction integral method in actual disc
segment model ( K is in MPa m ) 61
Table 4.19 Stress intensity factors using J-integral method in actual disc segment model
( K is in MPa m ) 62
Table 4.20 Stress intensity factors using displacement extrapolation method in actual
disc segment model ( K is in MPa m ) 62
xii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1
Fracture is a mechanical phenomenon in which structural components break in
into two or more number of pieces due to application of external forces. Since beginning
of the industrial revolution, history of mankind has experienced many catastrophic
failures such as brittle failures of Liberty ships, Comet jetliner tragedy, fuselage damage
on Aloha Airlines 243 and many more. Failures have occurred for many reasons,
including uncertainties in the loading or environment, defects in the materials,
inadequacies in design, and deficiencies in construction or maintenance. Initially it was
assumed that component would not fail until and unless it reaches yield stress point.
But in practical cases it was seen that component sometime fails at much lower stress
value then yield stress. Later it was found that component also fails due to presence of
one or more initial cracks. Conventional theories of solid mechanics consider a
continuous and perfect material body without any initial defect or flaw. Thus failure
strength is previously determined by simple tensile test. But in reality materials are not
free from flaws. Therefore, finding the strength of material with intrinsic defects is not
simple. Scientist and engineers thus needed a strong theory which could consider the
internal defects of material to determine its strength under operation. In the middle of
20th century a new science came into existence to study and research about the different
phenomenon related to fracture. This branch of solid mechanics is known as fracture
mechanics.
The fracture process commonly begins either with a void or interstitial defect,
or with a surface defect e.g., scratches, dents, holes etc. Surface cracks, corner cracks
are most common flaws which are involved in catastrophic failure of many mechanical
components like aircrafts, pressure vessels and gears, ships. Therefore, proper
understanding of fracture behaviour and crack growth of these cracks is utmost
important for the safety purpose.
A fracture parameter known as stress intensity factor (SIF) denoted by K is

primarily used to characterize a crack. The most important milestones in the field of
fracture mechanics is work of Griffith (1921) who working on shafts of varying surface
finish investigated the fracture of brittle cracked components and formulated an energy
1
based criterion known as strain energy release rate G . The theory of Griffith (1921)
performed very well for the brittle materials with very small amount of surface energy.
But ductile materials absorb much larger amount of energy for crack growth due to high
plastic deformation near the crack tip. Theory of Griffith (1921) was insufficient to
explain this phenomenon in ductile material. Irwin (1957) later extended the energy
based theory of Griffith to ductile materials and coined a term known as SIF ( K ) for
characterizing a crack.
1.1 Stress intensity factor and its importance

SIF is very important fracture parameter to characterize the crack in linear
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). The state of stress near the crack tip can be
completely determined by the SIF. SIF is a measure of the rate at which the state of
stresses near the crack tip reaches singularity. The accurate determination of K (SIF)
leads to the accurate calculation of state of stresses, strains and displacement field ahead
of the crack tip. The determination of the SIF value can be used to compute fracture
load and predict the remaining working life of a component governed by Paris' law
(Paris and Sih, 1965). Accurate knowledge of SIF is thus very much important in the
study of fracture of components. It can also be used to measure the rate of crack growth
which can be used for scheduling of repairing and maintenance work of engineering
components.
On obtaining the influence of important fracture parameters like stress intensity

factor, design recommendation could be made to ensure safety of structural and
mechanical components. Efforts have been made by researchers and scientists to
formulate analytical expressions of SIF for many simple configurations. In summary,
accurate determination of SIF of various types of cracks is the beginning step for
fracture analysis of engineering components.
1.2 Different types of cracks

Crack is a fine slit with zero radius of curvature at the tip. It looks like a fine
curve on the body when looked with naked eyes. Cracks can be categorized according
to their position and shape of their crack front in a body. Three major types of cracks
are through the thickness cracks, surface cracks and fully embedded cracks.
2
Through the thickness crack are exposed to two opposite surfaces. Hence it is
easily visible from outside.
Surface crack is a part through crack. It can be of any shape such as semi-ellipse,
semi-circular as shown in Fig. 1.1(a). However, in reality, crack front of the surface
crack is an arbitrarily oriented curve in three dimensional spaces. Surface cracks can be
seen over the surfaces of engineering components in the form of scratches also. Corner
cracks are special cases of surface cracks. A corner crack under tensile load is exposed
to two free surfaces as shown in Fig.1.1(b).
(a) (b)
Fig. 1.1 (a) Part-through semi-elliptical surface crack in a finite plate showing
various parameters, (b) Corner crack
Embedded cracks are usually modeled as an ellipse in the literature of fracture

mechanics. Unlike through-the-thickness crack these cracks are not exposed outside
and completely lie inside of the body. These types of cracks are more dangerous than
other cracks because these cracks are not visible from outside.
1.2.1 Importance of study on surface cracks

In 1983, the National Bureau of Standards (now the National Institute for Science
and Technology) and Battelle Memorial Institute estimated the costs for failure due to
fracture to be $119 billion per year in 1982. Money is important, but the cost of many
failures in human life and injury is infinitely more so. In addition, of the various types
of cracks discussed above, surface cracks are more dominant in engineering component
than any other type crack present. They contribute towards the fracture of 90%
engineering components. The surface cracks generally assume a semi-elliptical shape
and grows until it penetrate through the thickness. Since, most of the mechanical and
structural components are subjected to fluctuating loads, surface cracks will propagate
through the thickness separating the component into two parts. Therefore, accurate SIF
3
for such cracks are necessary for reliable prediction of remaining life and their fatigue
crack growth rate.
1.3 Motivation
Raju and Newman (1979) were first to analyse these complex 3D crack
geometries and provided SIFs using finite element analysis. They employed a simple
stack based point substitution post-processing technique to determine the SIFs along
the crack fronts. Later many post-processing techniques have been developed in line
with finite element methods to determine the SIFs of surface and embedded crack. As
there are no experimental results of SIFs of these cracks are not available and there is
no comparative study of all these developed techniques are available, therefore it is
difficult to assess which of these developed techniques are efficient in extraction of
SIFs. Moreover, it is also not clear how accurate the SIFs proposed by Raju and
Newman (1979) solutions. Therefore, the purpose of the present work is to fill up the
gaps by comparing the efficiency of various proposed techniques and to acknowledge
the accuracy of the original Raju and Newman (1979) solutions.
1.4 Objectives
The objectives of the present work investigation are:
1. 3D finite element analysis of surface cracks, corner cracks and fully embedded
cracks using unstructured and structured meshes.
2. Implementations of different numerical techniques such as Raju and Newman
(1979) Method, Displacement extrapolation method, Nodal force method, J-
integral method and Interaction integral method for accurate estimation of SIFs
of surface crack and embedded crack using 3D finite element analysis.
3. Determination of stress intensity factor (SIF) and comparison of SIF among
different numerical techniques implemented.
4. Assessment of implemented numerical techniques to recommend the best
techniques to estimate the SIFs for different type of cracks and boundary
conditions.
5. Assessment of accuracy of SIF values given by Raju and Newman (1979).
4
Chapter2: Literature Review
Chapter 2
Literature Review Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1
Stress intensity factor (SIF) is important fracture parameter to understand stress

state of crack tip. Since the surface crack has an arbitrary curved crack front, the value
of SIF changes from point to point along the crack front. Various numerical techniques
have been employed by scientists and researchers to calculate the mode-I SIF of surface
crack, corner crack and embedded crack. Many analytical, numerical and experimental
techniques are available to approximately determine the SIFs in different types of
cracked plate. With the help of 3D finite element analysis, many numerical techniques
have been implemented. This chapter will discuss briefly about researchers and their
work about the different numerical techniques implemented to find SIF.
2.1 Literature on determination of SIF along semi-circular,

semi-elliptical surface crack and quarter elliptical corner
crack
The first comprehensive exclusive study on the surface crack was carried by
Irwin (1962). He (1962) studied the stress field parameter K and crack extension force
G for an elliptical crack subjected to mode-I loading using Green and Sneddon (1950)
approach and extended the analysis on elliptical crack to the semi-elliptical cracks. This
was the first time when study on surface crack was given much attention despite surface
cracks to be the most common flaws that can be found in any structure. However, Irwin
(1962) work was limited only to the determination of analytical expression for SIF for
the surface cracks.
The research in the field of surface crack remains dormant due to complex 3D
geometry of crack front and only very approximate analytical expressions were
developed. After the advent of computers and finite elements methods the research in
the field of surface cracks geared up. Barsoum (1976) developed special singular
elements which made possible the correct modeling of crack tip singular stresses and
displacements field.
5
Analytical methods were used by Smith and Alavi (1971), Thresher and Smith
(1971), Liao and Atluri (1989) and Erdol and Erdogan (1978) to formulate the SIF of
the semi-infinite plate with semi-circular and semi-elliptical surface cracks. These
expressions were only for very simplified geometry. Most of the analytical expressions
are valid only to the semi-infinite plates.
Newman and Raju (1979) were first to calculate SIFs with three-dimensional
finite element analysis for shallow and deep semi-elliptical surface cracks in finite
elastic isotropic plates subjected to tension or bending loads. A wide range of
configuration parameters was investigated. The ratio of crack depth to plate thickness
ranged from 0.2 to 2.0 and ratio of crack depth to length ranged from 0.2 to 2.0. The
effects of plate width on stress intensity variations along with the crack front were also
investigated. This is the first comprehensive available work on numerical computations
of SIFs of surface and embedded cracks.
In another work Newman and Raju (1983) developed the empirical expressions
for the dimensionless stress intensity factor for variety of three dimensional crack
configurations such as semi elliptical surface cracks, quarter elliptical corner crack,
semi elliptical surface crack emanating from hole and a quarter–elliptical corner crack
emanating from circular hole in a finite thickness of plate. The investigation is done for
wide range of values of a / t from 0.2 to 0.8 and a / c from 0.2 to 2. As it is noted that
the values calculated from the derived stress intensity factor equations are giving +/-
10% error with the actual finite element analysis results and the error is minimum when
𝑎/𝑡 ratio less than 65%.
Zheng et al. (1996) derived the weight functions for the two surface points of
quarter elliptical corner crack in finite plate. The weight function has been validated for
several linear and non-linear crack face stress field against finite element data. The
agreement with reference data was good over the crack aspect ratio ( 0.2  a / c  0.8 )
and crack depth to thickness ratio ( 0.1  a / t  0.8 ).
Zhuang (2000) has done investigation of fatigue crack growth when corner
crack is emanating from tie bolt hole of the compressor disc using weight function and
sub model crack closure methods. In this study emphasis is placed on the effect of bi-
axial loading and bolt hole plastic zone on fatigue crack growth from bolt hole when
6
the disc is subjected to cyclic rotational speed. The crack growth rate predicted by bi-
axial load crack growth model gives the better agreement with the experimental data.
Q. Han et al. (2015) took case studies of three simple through thickness mode-
I fatigue cracks. Stresses, displacements and J-integrals around crack tips were
determined by finite element analysis using different types of elements and mesh
densities. Stress intensity factors were calculated by displacement extrapolation
method, stress extrapolation method, node displacement method and J-integral method
respectively based on finite element analysis results. The accuracy of these methods
and their requirements for element type and mesh density were evaluated by comparing
with theoretical solutions. They concluded J-integral method is the first suggested
method of SIF calculation based on finite element analysis. It can give very accurate
results and is also very convenient. Node displacement method can also give accurate
estimation of SIF with singular elements at the crack tip in finite element analysis.
Triangular singular elements were also suggested for better accuracy.
2.2 Literature on nodal force method to determine SIF

Newman and Raju (1979) calculated stress intensity factors with three-
dimensional, finite element analysis. Three dimensional singularity elements were used
at the crack front. A nodal force method which requires no prior assumption of either
plane stress or plane strain was used to evaluate the stress intensity factors along the
crack front. Completely embedded circular and elliptical cracks were analysed to verify
the accuracy of finite-element analysis. The stress intensity factors for these cracks were
generally about 0.4-1% below the exact solution. For semi-elliptical surface crack the
maximum stress intensity factor occurred at the deepest point. For surface cracks stress
intensity factors were larger for larger values of crack depth-to-plate thickness ratio.
2.3 Literature on displacement extrapolation method to

determine SIF
Guinea et al. (2000) computed stress intensity factors by implementing
displacement extrapolation technique with finite element analysis. This paper shows
the influence of element size, element shape, and mesh arrangement on numerical
values of K I obtained by the displacement extrapolation method, and gives some
guidelines to obtain K I values as good as the most accurate energy based estimations,
7
typically within a few percent difference of the exact value. Three different
displacement-based extrapolation techniques are analysed. It has been shown that the
displacement extrapolation technique can give very accurate predictions, even for
coarse meshes, if a good angular discretization is made around the crack tip.
Sari and Zergoug (2015) performed a computation comparison of SIF

evaluation in case of cracked thin plate with aluminium alloy 7075-T6 and 2024-T3
used in aeronautics structure under uniaxial loading. This evaluation is based on finite
element method with a virtual power principle through two techniques: the
extrapolation and G −  . The SIF obtained results from extrapolation and G − 
methods are compared to analytical solution in particular case.
Rege and Pavlou (2018) used the finite element method to compute the stress
intensity factors for tubular members or pipes containing circumferential through‐wall
cracks under tension and torsion. Shell elements are employed to compute the results
for thin shells by the means of the displacement extrapolation technique. The computed
results for tensile loading were found to agree very well with available results in the
literature which are also based on the shell theory. Comparisons with fully three‐
dimensional FEM results from the literature indicated that the through‐thickness
variation of the crack tip stresses is important.
2.4 Literature on interaction integral method and J-integral

method to determine SIF
Rice (1968) from the definition of potential energy along a contour, work
theorem defined an integral independent of the integration contour  around the crack
tip as
u
J=  (wdy − T x ds) (2.1)
Here,  is a curve which surrounds the tip, starting from the lower flat notch
surface and ending on the upper flat notch surface, the curve is traversed in the counter
clockwise sense, s is arc length, and T =  n is the traction vector on  according to
an outward unit vector 𝑛 normal to the curve.
Rao and Rahman (2003) presented interaction integrals for calculating SIFs for
a stationary crack in orthotropic functionally graded materials of arbitrary geometry.
8
The method involves the finite element discretization. Three numerical examples
including both mode-I and mixed-mode problems are presented to evaluate the
accuracy of SIFs calculated by the proposed interaction integrals. Comparisons have
been made between the SIFs predicted by the proposed interaction integrals and
available reference solutions in the literature, generated either analytically or by finite
element method using various other fracture integrals or analyses. An excellent
agreement is obtained between the results of the proposed interaction integrals and the
reference solutions.
Shariati et al. (2017) investigates the variations of mode I stress intensity factor
(KI) for inner penny-shaped and circumferential cracks in functionally graded solid and
hollow thick walled cylinders, respectively with the changes of crack geometry,
material gradation and loading conditions computed using the interaction integral
method. It was found increasing the crack radius increases the stress intensity factor
and increasing the rotational speed of the cylinder increases the stress intensity factor.
And it was found that the SIF increases with increasing the inner radius of hollow
cylinder. However, for small crack sizes, the effect of inner radius on SIF value is small.
2.5 Summary of literature review

Due to complex 3D nature of the surface crack and embedded crack very less
progress has been made to understand the true behaviour of cracked material. Raju and
Newman (1979) first investigated different 3D cracks using FEM and provided
empirical solutions for SIFs. And this solution is taken as standard while computing
stress intensity factors. After the advent of computers and finite elements methods the
research in the field of cracked body geared up. Many numerical techniques have been
developed and implemented to study fracture behaviour of cracked body. Researchers
and scientists later investigated complex 3D cracks and analysed them with 3D finite
element methods. Different numerical techniques like displacement extrapolation
method, nodal force method, interaction integral method, J-integral methods are
developed using finite element analysis in order to find accurate stress intensity factor.
Some methods are giving good agreements and some are deviating from Raju and
Newman (1979) solution depending upon types of crack and boundary condition. These
numerical techniques are now being implemented to accurately compute SIFs, which
9
is evident from the current literatures that have been studied. These techniques are now
being used to calculate SIFs for standard simple structure and complicated ones also.
10
Chapter 3: Theoretical Background
Chapter 3
Theoretical Background Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1
This chapter describes the theoretical background of fracture mechanics with

different modes of fractures, types of cracks. Formulation of displacement extrapolation
technique, J-integral method, Interaction integral method and nodal force method are
also explained in this chapter. Basic finite element idealizations with three different
types of element such as isoparametric element, square root element and singular
element are explained with relevant figures. The method of extrusion in modelling is
also described.
3.1 Fracture Mechanics

The study of fracture mechanics can be broadly categorized in two categories:
(a) linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and (b) elastic plastic fracture mechanics
(EPFM).
LEFM is based on the concept of small scale yielding (SSY) conditions. In SSY
condition, in comparison to crack length and other geometric parameters, the plastic
zone size ahead of the crack tip is very small and therefore constitutive relation of the
material can be assumed to follow Hooks' law. In LEFM linear elastic analysis of
material is done.
In EPFM, we consider that plastic zone size ahead of the crack tip is large
compared to crack size and other geometrical parameters. This condition is called large
scale yielding condition. Highly ductile material usually absorbs a large amount of
energy before getting completely fractured and also undergoes large amount of strains,
therefore for analysing ductile materials EPFM can be successfully implemented.
Four important fracture mechanics parameters i.e. strain energy release rate (G )
, stress intensity factor ( K ) , J-integral and crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) are
widely used in order to characterize a crack. Selection of an appropriate parameter
primarily depends on a number of factors such as the crack tip conditions i.e. plane
stress or plane strain and type of materials (ductile or brittle). Problems that are solved
11
using LEFM mainly deal with G and K parameters. For the present analysis we will
use LEFM with K as the primary analysis parameter.
3.1.1 Modes of fracture

Irwin in the year of 1957 first demonstrated that any fracture process can be
described in terms of three fundamental cases of failure:
(i) Mode-I (symmetrical opening mode)

(ii) Mode-II (sliding mode or in-plane shearing mode)
(iii) Mode-III (tearing mode or out of plane shearing)
These three fundamental modes of failures are also shown in Fig. 3.1. Fig. 3.1a shows
the loading and displacement feature of mode-I fracture and similarly, Fig. 3.1b and
Fig. 3.1c show the mode-II and mode-III failures, respectively.
(a) Mode-I (b) Mode-II (c) Mode-III
Fig. 3.1 Fundamental modes of failure
The mathematical expressions of the SIFs ahead of the crack tip for the three
fundamental failure modes can be written as
K I = lim  ijI (r , 0) 2 r fijI ( ) (3.1)

r →0
K II = lim  ijII (r , 0) 2 r fijII ( ) (3.2)

r →0
K III = lim  ijIII (r , 0) 2 r fijIII ( ) (3.3)

r →0
where r and  are polar coordinates of a point as shown in Fig.3.2 and f ij are universal
functions that depend upon  only.  ijI ,  ijII and  ijIII are stresses in mode-I, mode-II
and mode-III loading conditions respectively.
12
Fig. 3.2 Polar coordinate system at the crack tip
3.1.2 Types of a crack

Crack is a fine slit with zero radius of curvature at the tip. It looks like a fine curve
on the body when looked with naked eyes. Cracks can be categorized according to their
position and shape of their crack front in a body.
Different categories of cracks are listed below:
(i) Through the thickness crack
(a) Centre crack (Fig. 3.3a)
(b) Edge crack
(c) Corner crack (Fig. 3.3b)
(ii) Surface crack (Fig. 3.3c)
(a) Semi elliptical crack
(b) Semi-circular crack
(c) Curved crack tip
(iii) Embedded crack (Fig. 3.3d)
(a) Elliptical crack
(b) Penny shaped crack
(c) Arbitrary shaped crack
13
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 3.3 Schematic diagram of various types of cracks: (a) centre cracked plate,
(b) corner crack, (c) surface crack and (d) embedded crack
14
3.1.2.1 Corner crack

A corner crack under tensile load is exposed to two free surfaces. Crack happens to be at
the corner of the plate. It is usually modeled as quarter-elliptical crack in the literature of
fracture mechanics.
3.1.2.2 Surface crack

Surface crack is a part through crack. It can be of any shape such as semi-ellipse,
semi-circular. But in reality crack front of the surface crack is an arbitrarily oriented
curve in three dimensional spaces. Surface cracks can be seen over the surfaces of
engineering components in the form of scratches also.
3.1.2.3 Embedded crack

These types of cracks are fully embedded in a body. Embedded cracks are usually
modeled as an ellipse in the literature of fracture mechanics. These types of cracks are
more dangerous than other cracks because these cracks are not visible from outside, so
proper precaution could not be taken sometimes. Unlike through-the-thickness crack
these cracks are not exposed to a free surface of the body.
3.2 Different numerical techniques to find stress intensity

factor (SIF)
In this section, theoretical formulations are described for different numerical
techniques in order to find stress intensity factor. The concept of stress intensity factor
( K ) is a result of the bi-dimensional analysis of the stress field at the crack tip. This
analysis was carried out by Williams in 1957, taking into account Westergaard's work.
Using a coordinates system centred in the crack tip and according to William's analysis,
the near crack tip components of the stress field are proportional to K / r , where K
is the stress intensity factor. The crack opening may correspond to one of the three basic
cases, the opening mode, the sliding mode and the tearing mode, or to any of their
combination; thus, there are three basic stress intensity factor values denoted with the
subscripts I, II and III. For each mode, the stress field in the crack tip region may be
calculated using the expressions:
KI
lim  ijI = fijI ( ) (3.4)
r →0 2 r
15
K II
lim  ijII = fijII ( ) (3.5)
r →0 2 r
K III
lim  ijIII = fijIII ( ) (3.6)
r →0 2 r
where r and  are the polar coordinates in the system of axes having the origin at the
crack tip.
According to Williams' analysis, the components of the stress field can be

written as series expansions; from this expansion, the stress intensity factors can be
calculated from the stress field in the crack tip.
3.2.1 Displacement extrapolation method

The displacement extrapolation method was developed in order to obtain crack
tip singular stresses and stress intensity factors using only nodal displacements of
elements around the crack tip. The near crack tip displacement field may be expressed
as a series in function of the stress intensity factors, distance to the crack tip and the
angle with the propagation direction. For  = 180 (along the crack line) and using the
first term of this series, the displacements are given by:
K II r
ux = (1 +  ) (3.7)
2G 2
KI r
uy = (1 +  ) (3.8)
4G 2
2 K III r
uz = (3.9)
G 2
3 −
where  = 3 − 4 for plane stress and  = for plane strain. From these equations,
1 +
a relationship between displacements and the apparent stress intensity factor K is
obtained. Using a linear extrapolation to r = 0 , the stress intensity factor at the crack
tip can be estimated with a high accuracy. This technique can be more accurate using
the quarter node point or collapsed elements; however, for these situations
modifications are required in the equations above.
3.2.2 Nodal force method

The force method is an alternative to the displacement method, using nodal
reactions obtained in a finite element model. The first paper dealing with this method
16
was published in 1977 by Raju and Newman. It then disappeared from the literature,
until it was mentioned again by Smith and Raju (1998); recently, Morais (2007)
published an application of the method to isotropic center-cracked infinite plates and
orthotropic beam specimens showing good results.
Using the first term of Williams series expansion of the stress it is possible to
estimate the SIF value using extrapolation. The stress along the line defined by crack
tip direction (  = 0 ) can be calculated from equations 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12.
KI
 xx = (3.10)
2 r
KI
 yy = (3.11)
2 r
K II
 xy = (3.12)
2 r
Analysing the forces along a distance r , the following expressions for the forces
transmitted along this line in the x and y direction, are obtained:
xc
2 xc
Fy =   yy dy = K I (3.13)
0

xc
2 xc
Fx =   xy dy = K II (3.14)
0

The Fx and Fy values may be obtained as post-processing results of a FEM
model as a function of the coordinate xc . This coordinate is the distance from the crack
tip to the intermediate location between the node under consideration and the next node.
Therefore the mode I and mode II stress intensity factors as a function of distance r are
given by:
 n
K I' =
2 xc
F
i =1
y ,i (3.15)
 n
K II' =
2 xc
F
i =1
x ,i (3.16)
17
Calculating K 0 for several values of xc , a linear extrapolation to r = 0 can be
carried out, giving the value of K . Since stress values very close to the crack tip cannot
be accurately determined, it is usually found that K 0 values in that region do not follow
the K 0 versus. r trend of other points, and are neglected.
3.2.3 J-integral method

The J-integral is a contour integral characterizing the strain energy release rate
for an elastic non-linear material. The stress field is related to the strain energy density
as:
W
 ij = (3.17)
 ij
From the definition of potential energy along a contour, work theorem and the
previous equation, Rice (1968) defined an integral independent of the integration
contour 𝛤 around the crack tip as:
u
J=  (wdy − T x ds)

(3.18)
where w is strain energy density per unit volume, T is the traction vector
(T =  n) , u is the displacement vector and y is the direction perpendicular to the
crack line. For linear or non-linear elastic materials, the strain energy release rate is
equal to the strain energy release rate along a contour at crack tip vicinity ( J = G ) ; this
parameter is related to the stress intensity factor as G = K 2 / E in plane stress or

G = K 2 (1 − ) / E in plane strain.
3.2.4 Interaction integral method

Interaction integral is derived based on J-integral by using an extra auxiliary field.
Interaction is also called as M-integral and it can be expressed as
ui(2) (2) ui

(1)
q K I2 + K II2 1 + 2
M (1,2)
=  [{ (1)
+  ij w 1 j }
(1,2)
]ds = + ' K III (3.19)
x1 x1 x j
ij

E' E
where state (1) written in superscript represent stress and displacements at crack tip which
are obtained from FEM results. State (2) is an auxiliary field where all the required values
are taken from analytical expressions. By putting suitable K I , K II , K III values in above
18
Eq. (3.19), three modes of stress intensity factors can be separated. This is the most used
method in finite element method.
3.2.5 Weight function method

Weight function method is analytical method where FEM results are used to
estimate stress intensity factor. Expression for K is expressed as
a
K =   ( x)h( x, a)dx (3.20)
0
E ' ur ( x, a)
h ( x, a ) = (3.21)
Kr a
where,  ( x) is the stress which is normal to crack plane in a component without crack,
h( x, a ) is weight function, K r is reference stress intensity factor and ur ( x, a ) is
corresponding displacement function of a particular crack type and geometry. Weight

function is specific to particular crack type and geometry. Stress field  ( x) is normal
to crack plane which is obtained from FEM results of particular geometry. And
advantage is, if weight function is developed once for a particular geometry and crack
configuration, stress intensity factors can be calculated easily under different loading
conditions without introducing crack in geometry. K II and K III expressions can be
developed with similar formulation. Weight function of one geometry should not be
used for other geometry.
3.2.6 Virtual crack closure technique

The virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) is based on energy release rate
when the crack grows with an infinitesimal increment. It is based on the calculation of
the strain energy release rate, using the energy variation when an extension of crack
length is imposed:
U U a +a − U a
G=  (3.22)
a 2
This technique was proposed by Rybicki and Kanninen (1977). However, it

requires two finite elements analysis in order to calculate the strain energy release rate
for a specific crack length. A modified version is also there where only one model is
needed to calculate the energy release rate.
19
The modified VCCT is based on the same assumptions as VCCT in two steps,
but in addition it is assumed that the conditions at the crack tip are not significantly
altered when the crack extends by an increment a , from a crack length a + a to a
length a + 2a as shown in Fig. 3.4. This implies that the displacements of a region
close to the crack tip, when the tip is at specific node, are approximately the same as
the displacements at the same location when the tip is at the previous node.
Fig. 3.4 Modified virtual crack closure technique notation
The energy variation E necessary to close the crack along a distance a is:
1
E = ( X i ui + Zi wi ) (3.23)
2
where X i and Z i are the nodal forces at point i and ui and wi are the nodal
displacements. Therefore the information required for the calculation of the energy
variation is obtained from a single finite elements analysis.
After obtaining the energy variation, the energy release rate is calculated as:
E E
G= = (3.24)
A a.b
where A is the surface area created by a crack propagation of a ; in the case of plates
with a thickness b , this area is a.b . The calculation of strain energy release rates for
each mode is made using the displacements and nodal forces corresponding to the strain
energy of that mode.
Thus, for the case of Fig.3.4, the energy release rate is:
1 1
GI = − Zi wl = − Z i (wl − wl* ) (3.25)
2a 2a
20
1 1
GII = − X i ul = − X i (ul − ul* ) (3.26)
2a 2a
If the finite element model was built using other types of elements, the strain
energy release rate equation must be modified in order to take into account the effects
of the other reaction forces.
3.3 Finite element idealization of 3D crack

Finite element method has been used to model the plate with semi-elliptical
surface crack and quarter elliptical corner crack. Three types of elements viz. iso-
parametric elements, singularity elements and square-root elements are used to model
the semi-elliptical surface cracked plate. The properties and specification of different
types of elements used for the model are explained in this section.
3.3.1 Isoparametric elements

Isoparametric elements are the elements which have same shape functions for
its geometry extrapolations and displacement extrapolation. 20 noded isoparametric
hexahedron elements, which are named as SOLID186 in ANSYS are used to model the
plate (Fig. 3.5). These elements exhibit quadratic displacement behaviour. The element
is defined by 20 nodes having three degree of freedom per node with overall 60 degree
of freedom. MESH200 elements provided in ANSYS are also used. These MESH200
elements are mesh-only elements. These elements are required while extrusion
operation of planar mesh to create a three dimensional mesh. The 20 noded
isoparametric element with the help of MESH200 elements can be used to convert the
hexahedron element to tetrahedron element and singularity elements.
Fig. 3.5 Description of 20-noded SOLID186 elements (ANSYS 17.2-help)
21
3.3.2 Singularity elements

Since the displacement field near the crack field have square root distribution,
many layers of square root elements are used around the singularity elements (Fig. 3.6).
These element are also formulated from the isoparametric elements details of which
can be read from reference Zienkiewicz et al. (1977). Since the near field stresses and
strains of a crack generally have square root singularity r , to capture this effect the
singularity elements are used to model the crack front. This element was developed by
Tracey (1971). The use and formulation of these elements for the semi-elliptical surface
crack has been detailed by Raju and Newman (1977). In brief, to develop a singular
element from a 20 noded isoparamteric element the one face is collapsed at the crack
front side and mid side node of the other face are shifted to quarter points as shown in
by prism element in Fig. 3.6. The singularity elements are distributed around the crack
in circumferential direction.
Fig. 3.6 Position of square root and singularity elements at curved crack
3.4 Extrusion method

Singularity elements were used to model the first layer of crack front and 20
noded hexahedron elements were used to model the rest of the body. A method of
extrusion was employed to model the crack front. The steps involved in extrusion
method are explained below:
Step 1: First we have created a normal plane at the right endpoint of the semi- elliptical
crack front line.
22
Step 2: Then we defined that point as a concentration key-point and mid side nodes of
the first row of elements were shifted to the quarter points for crack tip singularity as
shown in Fig. 3.7.
Step 3: The normal plane was meshed with planar elements as shown in Fig. 3.7.
Step 4: Finally the planar elements were extruded along the crack front line to generate
3D prism elements.
Step 5: Rest of the plate is also modeled in the same way by making appropriate plane
with planar elements and extruding them in appropriate directions.
Fig. 3.7 Graphical representation of extrusion method of 3D mesh generation

around the crack front
23
24
Chapter 4: Results and discussion
Chapter 4
Results and discussion Equation Chapter (Next) Section 1
This chapter describes the 3D finite element analysis and associated results
obtained in terms of fracture parameters. Results from different numerical techniques
are shown in terms of fracture parameter like stress intensity factor. Comparisons of
results between implemented numerical techniques have been made. Further
assessments of the implemented numerical techniques are done in order to find the
suitable numerical technique. SIFs are calculated for corner crack of a bolt holes in a
disc using different numerical techniques. In this chapter numerical analysis of example
problems have been carried out using two types of mesh generation viz., (a)
unstructured meshes and (b) structured meshes. It should be noted that although
unstructured mesh generation in 3D problems is relatively less complicated, they have
a tendency to provide inaccurate results. On the other hand, structured mesh generation
is complex in case of 3D problems, but it provides accurate results. in all problems, 20
noded 3D quadratic (SOLID 186) element is used.
Further, four different and widely used post-processing techniques for

computation of the mode I SIFs along the crack front have been considered. These
techniques are:
(a) Displacement extrapolation method (Guinea et al. 2000; Sari and

Zergoug 2015)
(b) Interaction integral method (Rao and Rahman 2003)
(c) J-integral method (Q. Han et al. 2015)
(d) Nodal force method ( Newman and Raju 1979)
The SIF values obtained using above techniques have been compared with Raju
and Newman (1979 and 1984) solutions for both the structured and unstructured
meshes. ANSYS APDL codes have been developed for all the above four techniques.
25
4.1 Example 1: Determination of SIF of semi-circular surface

crack in a semi-infinite plate under pure tension
Standard representation semi-circular crack in a plate is shown in Fig. 4.1. In

present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite plate with the
semi-circular crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of elasticity E = 200 GPa,
width of plate, 2b = 150 mm, height of plate 2h = 300 , crack length = 2c , crack depth
= a , thickness of plate = t . By keeping b , h dimensions fixed, stress intensity factors
are calculated for a / t ratios from 0.3 to 0.7 and for a / c = 1 . SIFs are calculated at
depth direction point (  = 90 ). For the Mode I configuration, a tensile stress of 100
MPa is applied on top surface and bottom face is fixed (i.e. u = v = w = 0 ). Model, crack
configuration and boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.1. Fig 4.2 shows a typical
unstructured mesh and details near the crack tip employed in the problems of the present
investigation. For the finite element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic
element (SOLID 186 element) is used and it is having three degrees of freedom at each
node and the brick element is converted into wedge element at crack tip location as
shown in Fig. 4.3.
 y = 100 MPa
2h
2b t
Fig. 4.1 Standard representation of surface crack in semi-infinite plate
26
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(e)
Fig. 4.2 (a) Semi- infinite plate with semi-circular surface crack, (b) enlarged
view of crack, (c) enlarged view of mesh around cracks, (d) enlarged curved
cylinder around crack and (e) mesh around crack tip
27
Fig. 4.3 Degenerated brick element into wedge shape
4.1.1 Convergence study

In finite element modeling, a finer mesh typically results in a more accurate
solution. However, as a mesh is made finer, the computation time increases. By
performing mesh convergence study, we get a mesh that satisfactorily balances
accuracy and computing resources.
For conducting convergence study, following steps are required
1. Create a mesh using the fewest, reasonable number of elements and analyse the
model
2. Recreate the mesh with a denser element distribution, re-analyse it, and compare
the results to those of the previous mesh
3. Keep increasing the mesh density and re-analysing the model until the results
converge satisfactorily
This type of mesh convergence study can enable you to obtain an accurate solution
with a mesh that is sufficiently dense and not overly demanding of computing
resources.
Following steps are taken for conducting convergence study.
1. Calculate the stress intensity factor for mode-I by using Raju and Newman
(1979) solution. This SIF value is taken as standard.
2. Create a mesh by using fewer numbers of elements and calculate K I at crack
tip and compared with standard one. It has been found that there is difference
between standard and which we are getting by this meshing. Its means there is
need to refine the mesh and use more number of elements till we approach
nearer to standard one with reasonable accuracy.
28
The percentage relative error in SIF is calculated using the following

formula
Calculated value- Reference value

% Relative error = 100 (4.1)
ReferenceValue
Three different kinds of mesh around crack tip are taken for convergence study as
shown in Fig. 4.4.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 4.4 Different meshes used for convergence analysis (a) full body mesh (b)
Mesh 1 (c) Mesh 2 and (d) Mesh 3 around crack
Results of convergence analysis using displacement extrapolation technique are

illustrated in Table 4.1. Percentage relative error in SIF is calculated with respect to
Raju and Newman (1979) solution for a / c = 1 , a / t = 0.5 and  = 90 .
29
Table 4.1 Convergence analysis for a / c = 1 , a / t = 0.5 and  = 90
Number of
Mesh KI % Relative error
crack tip QPEs
1 16 345.28 2.71
2 24 339.79 1.07
3 32 337.27 0.32
It can be noticed from result of Table 4.1 that the solution is converging using
the present methodology. And we are taking 32 quarter point elements (QPEs) for
further analysis.
4.1.2 Stress intensity factors at  = 90

Newman and Raju (1979) provided Stress-intensity factor equations for surface
cracks in three dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and bending loads based
on finite element analysis. As stated earlier, the SIF using all four techniques have been
computed. SIF is computed at  = 90 as it is the point where maximum SIF occurs
along the crack front. Comparisons are made in Table 4.2 between the different
numerical techniques implemented.
Table 4.2 SIFs of semi-circular crack in semi-infinite plate by different

numerical techniques implemented for a / c = 1 and different a / t ratio for
unstructured mesh
Raju and
Displacement Interaction
Newman J-integral Nodal force
a/t extrapolation integral
(1979) method method
method method
solution
0.30 327.56 329.49 328.45 328.77 306.31

0.50 336.18 337.27 337.13 337.04 313.23
0.70 345.78 338.87 338.71 338.65 313.09
Raju and Newman (1979) solution for semi-circular crack front in semi-infinite
plate is taken as standard. As it is seen in table SIFs values are deviating from Raju and
30
Newman (1979) solution at higher a / t ratio. Fig. 4.5 shows the variations of SIF value
with respect to a / t ratios.
350
Raju-Newman (1979)
Stress Intensity Factor
340
Displacement
(MPa√mm)
extrapolation method
330
Interaction integral
method
320
J-integral method
310 Nodal force method
300
0.2 0.6 0.4 0.8
a/t
Fig. 4.5 Variations of stress intensity factor for different numerical techniques
Displacement extrapolation and contour integral methods (J-integral method,

interaction integral method) are giving close results in comparison to Raju and Newman
(1979) solutions. But nodal force method is somewhat deviating from Raju and
Newman (1979) solution. The error percentages of SIFs computed are examined by
different numerical techniques with respect to that by Raju and Newman (1979) using
Eq. (4.1).
The percentage error in SIF is calculated using the Eq. (4.1) and shown in Table
4.3.
Newman (1979) solution for a / c = 1
Displacement Interaction Nodal

a/t J-integral
extrapolation integral force
method
method method method
0.30 0.59 0.27 0.37 6.49
0.50 0.32 0.28 0.26 6.83
0.70 2.00 2.04 2.06 9.45
31
Plot of magnitude of percentage deviations in SIF values is shown with respect

to different a / t ratios in Fig. 4.6.
10
9
8 Displacement extrapolation
% Deviation of SIF
method
7
6 Interaction integral method
5
4 J-integral method
3
1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
Fig. 4.6 Percentage (%) deviation of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Raju
and Newman (1979) method
It can be seen that percentage error is almost within 2% for displacement

extrapolation method, interaction integral method and J-integral method. For nodal
force method error is somewhat larger from 6.5% to 9.5%. Therefore, it is concluded
that nodal force method is not giving comparable results with respect to other numerical
methods.
4.2 Example 2: Determination of SIF of semi-elliptical surface

crack in a semi-infinite plate under pure tension using
unstructured mesh
Standard representation semi-elliptical crack in a plate is shown in Fig. 4.1. In

present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite plate with the
semi-elliptical crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of elasticity E = 200 GPa,
width of plate 2b = 150 mm, height of plate 2h = 300 mm, crack length = 2c , crack
depth = a , thickness of plate = t . By keeping b and h dimensions fixed, stress
intensity factors are calculated for a / c ratios from 0.3 to 0.7 and for a / t ratios from
0.3 to 0.7. SIFs are calculated at depth direction point (  = 90 ). For the mode I
configuration, the tensile stress of 100 MPa is applied on top surface and bottom face
32
is fixed. Model, crack configuration and boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.1. For
the finite element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID 186)
is used and it is having three degrees of freedom at each node and the brick element is
converted into wedge element at crack tip location.
Modeling and meshing of semi-elliptical surface crack is similar to semi-
circular surface crack as shown in Fig. 4.2. Only difference is that a / c ratio is always
less than 1 for semi-elliptical surface crack. a / c ratio is varying from 0.30 to 0.70.

SIFs calculated at  = 90 using all four techniques on the unstructured mesh
are shown in Table 4.4 along with the reference solution Raju and Newman (1979).
Table 4.4 The SIFs of semi-elliptical surface crack in semi-infinite plate by

different numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio for
unstructured mesh
Raju and Displacement Interaction Nodal

a/t J-integral
Newman extrapolation integral force
method
(1979) method method method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 547.34 515.68 515.56 515.63 511.46
0.50 632.49 599.40 599.26 599.35 593.71
0.70 734.80 652.35 652.42 652.58 644.88
a / c = 0.5
0.30 463.53 462.49 462.20 462.09 430.94
0.50 505.19 491.87 491.50 491.45 458.10
0.70 552.57 523.57 523.17 523.11 486.04
a / c = 0.7
0.30 400.06 396.82 402.21 401.22 369.93
0.50 422.38 413.93 413.71 413.68 384.90
0.70 447.09 422.16 421.91 421.92 391.93
Raju and Newman (1979) solution for semi-elliptical crack-front in semi-

infinite plate is taken as standard. Displacement extrapolation method, interaction
integral method, J-integral method and nodal force method are implemented to find
33
mode-I stress intensity factors. As it is seen in Table 4.4 SIFs values are deviating from
Raju and Newman (1979) solution. Fig. 4.7 - 4.9 show the variations of SIF values with
respect to different a / t ratios for a / c = 0.3 , a / c = 0.5 and a / c = 0.7 respectively.
750
Stress Intensity Factor (MPa√mm)
Raju-Newman (1979)
a
700 = 0.3
c
Displacement
650 extrapolation method
600 method
J-integral method
550
Nodal force method
500
450
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
Fig. 4.7 Variations of stress intensity factor at a / c = 0.3
575
550
a Raju-Newman (1979)
= 0.5
525 c
Displacement
475 method
J-integral method
450
400
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
34
475

a
450 = 0.7
c Raju-Newman (1979)
425 Displacement
400 method
J-integral method
375
Nodal force method
350
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
The percentage error in SIF is calculated using the Eq. (4.1). Percentage errors
of computed mode-I SIF with respect to Raju and Newman (1979) solution are shown
in Table 4.5.
Newman (1979) solution

J-integral
a/t extrapolation integral force
method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 5.79 5.81 5.81 6.56
0.50 5.23 5.25 5.25 6.13
0.70 11.22 11.21 11.21 12.24
a / c = 0.5
0.30 0.22 0.29 0.29 7.03
0.50 2.64 2.71 2.71 9.32
0.70 5.25 5.32 5.32 12.04
a / c = 0.7
0.30 0.81 0.54 0.54 7.53
0.50 2.00 2.05 2.05 8.87
0.70 5.58 5.63 5.63 12.34
35
Plots of magnitude of percentage deviations in SIF values are shown in Figs.

4.10 – 4.12 with respect to different a / t ratios for a / c value 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7
respectively. It can be noticed from results in Table 4.5 that large errors is computed KI
are found at a / t = 0.7 for all a / c values.
14
a Displacement
12 = 0.3
c extrapolation method
% Deviation of SIF
10
8 method
6 J-integral method
4
Nodal force method
2
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
and Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.3
14
a Displacement
12 = 0.5 extrapolation method
c
% Deviation of SIF
10 Interaction integral
8 method
6 J-integral method
4
Nodal force method
2
0
0.5 0.2
0.6 0.3
0.7 0.8 0.4
a/t
36
14
a
12 = 0.7
c Displacement
% Deviation of SIF extrapolation method
10
8
method
6
J-integral method
4
0
0.2
0.5 0.3
0.6 0.4
0.7 0.8
a/t
4.3 Example 3: Determination of SIF of quarter-elliptical

corner crack in a semi-infinite plate under pure tension using
unstructured mesh
Standard representation of quarter elliptical corner crack in a plate is shown in

Fig. 4.13. In present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite
plate with the quarter elliptical corner crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of
elasticity E = 200 GPa, width of plate 2b = 100 mm, height of plate 2h = 100 mm,
crack length = 2c , crack depth = a , thickness of plate = t . Stress intensity factors are
calculated for a / t ratio 0.5 and a / c ratio 0.5. SIFs are calculated at depth direction
point ( = 90) . For the mode I configuration, the tensile stress of 100 MPa is applied
on top surface and bottom face is fixed. Model, crack configuration and boundary
conditions are shown in Fig. 4.13 and meshing is shown in Fig. 4.14. For the finite
element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID 186) is used
and it is having three degrees of freedom at each node and the brick element is converted
into wedge element at crack tip location.
37
 y = 100 MPa
u , v, w = 0  y = 100 MPa
Fig. 4.13 Full model of corner crack in semi-infinite plate and half model with
boundary conditions
38
(a)
(b)
(d)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 4.14 (a) Quarter elliptical corner crack in an semi-infinite plate (Half body),
(b) enlarged view of mesh around crack front, (c) mesh around crack, (d)
extruded curved cylinder (Half body) and (e) mesh around crack tip

Newman and Raju (1984) provided Stress-intensity factor equations for surface
on finite element analysis using weight function method. Zheng (1996) had derived the
weight functions for corner crack in three dimensional bodies individually in depth and
39
width directions of corner crack. In present investigation finite element analysis has
been done with the help of ANSYS APDL and the results have been correlated with the
above references and agreement between them is good.
Table 4.6 SIFs of quarter-elliptical corner crack in semi-infinite plate by

different numerical techniques implemented for a / c = 0.5 and a / t = 0.5
Zheng Raju and Displacement Interaction J- Nodal

a/t solution Newman extrapolation integral integral force
(1996) (1984) method method method method
0.50 229.88 254.76 214.80 217.09 220.83 154.28
As shown in Table 4.6 stress intensity factors are calculated at  = 90 for
different numerical techniques with the help of ANSYS APDL.
Displacement extrapolation method (KCALC command in ANSYS APDL) and

contour integral methods (J-integral method, Interaction integral method) are giving
close results in comparison to Zheng (1996) solutions. However, nodal force method is
so much deviating from Zheng (1996) solution. Now we examine the error percentages
of SIFs computed by different numerical techniques with respect to that by Raju and
Newman solution. The percentage error in SIF is calculated using the Eq. (4.1).
Table 4.7 Error percentage (%) of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng
(1996) solution for a / c = 0.5 and a / t = 0.5

J-integral
method
0.5 6.55942 5.56324 3.93551 32.8885
It is shown that percentage error is almost within 6.5% for displacement

extrapolation method, interaction integral method and J-integral method. For nodal
force method error is largely deviating from Zheng (1996) solution. Hence, it is
40
concluded that nodal force method is least likely to recommend as a numerical

technique.
4.4 Example 4: Determination of SIF of semi-elliptical surface

structured mesh
Standard representation of semi-elliptical crack in a plate is shown in Fig. 4.15.

In present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite plate with
the semi-elliptical crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of elasticity E = 200
GPa, width of plate 2b = 150 mm, height of plate 2h = 300 mm, crack length = 2c ,
crack depth = a , thickness of plate = t . By keeping b and h dimensions fixed, stress
intensity factors are calculated for a / c ratios from 0.3 to 0.7 and for a / t ratios from
0.3 to 0.7. SIFs are calculated at depth direction point (  = 90 ).For the mode I
configuration, the tensile stress of 100 MPa is applied on top surface and bottom face
is fixed. Model, crack configuration and boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.15.
For the finite element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID
186) is used and it is having three degrees of freedom at each node and the brick element
is converted into wedge element at crack tip location.
 y = 100 MPa
v=0
u=0
 y = 100 MPa
Fig. 4.15 Full model of semi-elliptical surface crack in semi-infinite plate and
one-fourth model with boundary conditions
41
Fig. 4.16 shows step by step structured mesh generation for semi-elliptical
surface crack. Quarter symmetry is considered for the purpose of ease computation.
The same problem is analysed using both structured and unstructured meshes. Fig. 4.16
also shows a typical structured mesh employed in all problems of the present
investigation.
Fig. 4.16 Components of structured mesh generation for surface and embedded
crack
42
Modeling and meshing of semi-elliptical surface crack is shown in Fig. 4.16.

a / c ratio is always less than 1 for semi-elliptical surface crack. a / c ratio is being
varied from 0.30 to 0.70.

SIFs calculated at  = 90 using all four techniques on the structured mesh are
shown in Table 4.8 along with the reference solution Raju and Newman (1979). In the
2nd phase mesh quality was improved by implementing structured mesh where 20 noded
brick elements were used throughout including outside portion of crack box area.

different numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio for
structured mesh
Raju and
a/t Newman J-integral
(1979) method
method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 547.34 542.72 542.18 542.17 515.30
0.50 632.49 630.48 629.84 629.84 595.87
0.70 734.80 706.68 705.96 706.02 660.10
a / c = 0.5
0.30 463.53 459.11 458.68 458.65 438.69
0.50 505.19 497.76 497.29 497.26 472.05
0.70 552.57 525.93 525.44 525.44 494.92
a / c = 0.7
0.30 400.06 397.64 397.32 397.25 377.83
0.50 422.38 417.29 416.96 416.89 395.71
0.70 447.09 429.61 429.26 429.21 405.04
Raju and Newman (1979) solution for semi-elliptical crack-front in semi-

infinite plate is taken as standard. Displacement extrapolation method, interaction
integral method, J-integral method and nodal force method are implemented to find
mode-I stress intensity factors. As it is seen in Table 4.4 and Table 4.8, results have
43
been significantly improved by applying structured mesh. It is shown that while

implementing the structured mesh results from the numerical methods comes closer to
the standard Raju and Newman (1979) solution. SIFs can be seen significantly
improved after applying structured brick element throughout.
. Fig. 4.17 – 4.19 show the variations of SIF values with respect to different
a / t ratios for a / c = 0.3 , a / c = 0.5 and a / c = 0.7 respectively for structured mesh.
775
a
725 = 0.3 Raju-Newman (1979)
c
675 Displacement
method
J-integral method
575
Nodal force method
525
475
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
575
550 Raju-Newman (1979)

a
525 = 0.5
c Displacement
475 method
J-integral method
450
Nodal force method
425
400
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
44
475

450 a Raju-Newman (1979)
= 0.7
c
(MPa√mm) 425 Displacement
method
375 J-integral method
350
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
of computed mode-I SIF using structured mesh with respect to Raju and Newman
(1979) solution are shown in Table 4.9.
Newman (1979) solution for structured mesh

a/t J-integral
method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 0.84 0.94 0.94 5.85

0.50 0.32 0.42 0.42 5.79
0.70 3.83 3.92 3.92 10.17
a / c = 0.5
0.30 0.95 1.05 1.05 5.36
0.50 1.47 1.56 1.56 6.56
0.70 4.82 4.91 4.91 10.43
a / c = 0.7
0.30 0.60 0.68 0.68 5.56
0.50 1.21 1.28 1.28 6.31
0.70 3.91 3.99 3.99 9.41
45
Plots of magnitude of percentage deviations in SIF values are shown with

respect to different a / t ratios. Fig. 4.20 - Fig. 4.22 show percentage deviations in SIF
for a / c value 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 respectively.
14
12 a Displacement
= 0.3 extrapolation method
% Deviation of SIF
10 c
8 method
6 J-integral method
4
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
14
12 a
= 0.5 Displacement
% Deviation of SIF
10 c extrapolation method
method
6
J-integral method
4
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
46
14
12
a Displacement
% Deviation of SIF = 0.7
10 c extrapolation method
method
6
J-integral method
4
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
It is seen that after implementing structured mesh accuracy in SIF calculations

significantly improved and results are closer to Raju and Newman (1979) solution.
4.5 Example 5: Determination of SIF of quarter-elliptical

corner crack in a semi-infinite plate under pure tension using
structured mesh
Standard representation of quarter elliptical corner crack in a plate is shown in

Fig. 4.23. In present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite
plate with the quarter elliptical corner crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of
elasticity E = 200 GPa, width of plate 2b = 100 mm, height of plate 2h = 100 mm,
crack length = 2c , crack depth = a , thickness of plate = t . Stress intensity factors are
calculated for a / t ratio 0.5 and a / c ratio 0.5. SIFs are calculated at depth direction
point ( = 90) . For the mode I configuration, the tensile stress of 100 MPa is applied
on top surface and bottom face is fixed. Model, crack configuration and boundary
conditions are shown in Fig. 4.23 and meshing is shown in Fig. 4.16. For the finite
element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID 186) is used
and it is having three degrees of freedom at each node and the brick element is converted
into wedge element at crack tip location.
47
 y = 100 MPa
𝑣=0
𝑢, 𝑣, 𝑤 = 0
 y = 100 MPa
Fig. 4.23 Standard representation of corner crack in finite plate

Newman and Raju (1984) and Zheng (1996) provided stress-intensity factor
equations for surface cracks in three dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and
bending loads based on finite element analysis and weight function method. Stress
intensity factors of convex crack in semi-infinite plate by different numerical
techniques implemented for different a / c and a / t ratios are shown in Table 4.10.

different numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio
Raju and Zheng Displacement Interaction J- Nodal

a/t Newman (1996) extrapolation integral integral force
(1984) solution method method method method
solution
a / c = 0.3
0.30 683.85 517.59 498.48 539.11 541.12 440.38
0.50 891.57 617.21 613.52 664.42 666.90 540.77
48
0.70 1185.70 757.64 796.28 859.93 863.06 698.24

a / c = 0.5
0.30 535.06 460.19 436.04 467.46 469.93 376.24
0.50 631.11 514.02 493.21 529.00 531.81 424.97
0.70 755.61 600.16 585.62 626.21 629.49 503.86

a / c = 0.7
0.30 453.20 415.18 393.36 418.20 420.86 334.37
0.50 509.08 449.86 426.41 453.43 456.32 362.11
0.70 578.53 512.90 483.36 512.69 515.93 410.59
Displacement extrapolation method (KCALC command in ANSYS APDL) and

contour integral methods (J-integral method, Interaction integral method) are giving
close results in comparison to Zheng (1996) solutions instead of Raju and Newman
(1984) solution. However, results from nodal force method are deviating .
Fig. 4.24 - 4.26 show the variations of SIF values with respect to different a / t
ratios for a / c = 0.3 , a / c = 0.3 and a / c = 0.7 respectively.
850
a
= 0.3 Zheng (1996) solution
775 c
Displacement
625 method
J-integral method
550
400
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/t
49
Stress Intensity Factor (MPa√mm) 650

a
600 = 0.5 Zheng (1996) solution
c
Displacement
500 method
J-integral method
450
Nodal force method
400
350
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/t
550
a
= 0.7 Zheng (1996) solution
500 c
Displacement
450
method
Nodal force method

350
300
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/t
of computed mode-I SIF with respect to Zheng (1996) solutions are shown in Table
4.11.
50
Table 4.11 Error percentage (%) of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng
(1996) solution
a/t J-integral Nodal force
extrapolation integral
method method
method method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 3.69 4.16 4.55 14.92
0.50 0.60 7.65 8.05 12.38
0.70 5.10 13.50 13.91 7.84

a / c = 0.5
0.30 5.25 1.58 2.12 18.24
0.50 4.05 2.91 3.46 17.32
0.70 2.42 4.34 4.89 16.05

a / c = 0.7
0.30 5.25 0.73 1.37 19.46
0.50 5.21 0.79 1.44 19.51
0.70 5.76 0.04 0.59 19.95
Plots of magnitude of percentage deviations in SIF values are shown with

respect to different a / t ratios. Fig. 4.27 - 4.29 show percentage deviations in SIF for
a / c value 0.3, 0.5 and 0.7 respectively.
51
20
18 a
= 0.3
c Displacement
16
% Deviation of SIF
14
12 method
10
J-integral method
8
4
2
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
Fig. 4.27 Percentage (%) deviation of computed SIF ( K I ) with respect to Zheng
(1996) solution at a / c = 0.3
20
18
Displacement
% Deviation of SIF
14
12 method
a
10 = 0.5
c J-integral method
8
6
Nodal force method
4
2
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
52
22
20
18 Displacement
16 a
% Deviation of SIF
= 0.7
14 c
12
method
10
8 J-integral method
6
2
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
It is noticed that for nodal force method, error is somewhat larger (7-20%)
compared to other methods. Hence, it is concluded that nodal force method is least
likely to recommend for computation of SIFs in corner cracks also. Other three methods
are giving promising accuracy.
4.6 Example 6: Determination of SIF of elliptical embedded

structured mesh
Standard representation of elliptical embedded crack in a plate is shown in Fig.

4.30. In present analysis, dimensions and material properties of the semi-infinite plate
with the elliptical crack are Poisson’s ratio  = 0.33 , modulus of elasticity E = 200
GPa, width of plate 2b = 100 mm, height of plate 2h = 100 mm, crack length = 2c ,
crack depth = a , thickness of plate = t . Stress intensity factors are calculated for a / t
ratio 0.5 and a / c ratio 0.5. SIFs are calculated at depth direction point ( = 90) . For
the mode I configuration, the tensile stress of 100 MPa is applied on top surface and
bottom face is fixed. Model, crack configuration and boundary conditions are shown in
Fig. 4.23 and meshing is shown in Fig. 4.16. For the finite element analysis 20 noded
53
three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID 186) is used and it is having three degrees
of freedom at each node and the brick element is converted into wedge element at crack
tip location.
 y = 100 MPa
v=0
u=0
w=0  y = −100 MPa
Fig. 4.30 Full model of elliptical embedded crack in semi-infinite plate and one-
eighth model with boundary conditions

Newman and Raju (1984) were first to provide stress-intensity factor equations
for embedded cracks in three dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and bending
loads based on finite element analysis. Stress intensity factors of elliptical embedded
crack in semi-infinite plate by different numerical techniques implemented for different
a / c and a / t ratios are shown in Table 4.12 using ANSYS APDL.
54

different numerical techniques implemented for different a / t ratio
Raju and
a/t Newman J-integral
(1984) method
solution
a / c = 0.3
0.30 462.41 452.75 452.31 452.29 431.42
0.50 500.77 481.84 481.36 481.34 459.24
0.70 589.26 552.73 552.15 552.12 527.07

a / c = 0.5
0.30 409.37 406.30 405.93 405.89 387.70
0.50 429.40 423.39 423.00 422.96 404.09
0.70 478.13 468.96 468.52 468.46 447.89
Raju and Newman (1984) solution for elliptical crack-front in semi-infinite

plate is taken as reference. Displacement extrapolation method, interaction integral
method, J-integral method and nodal force method are implemented to find mode-I
stress intensity factors. As it is seen in Table 4.12 SIFs values are deviating from Raju
and Newman (1984) solution. Fig. 4.31 and Fig 4.32 show the variations of SIF values
with respect to different a / t ratios for a / c = 0.3 and a / c = 0.5 respectively.
600
Raju-Newman (1984)
a
550 = 0.3
c Displacement
(MPa√mm)
method
J-integral method
450
Nodal force method
400
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/t
55
500
475 Raju-Newman (1984)
a
= 0.5
450 c Displacement
method
350
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
a/t
of computed mode-I SIF with respect to Raju and Newman (1984) solution are shown
in Table 4.13.
Newman (1984) solution
a/t J-integral Nodal force
extrapolation integral
method method
method method
a / c = 0.3
0.30 2.09 2.18 2.19 6.70
0.50 3.78 3.88 3.88 8.29
0.70 6.20 6.30 6.30 10.55

a / c = 0.5
0.30 0.75 0.84 0.85 5.30
0.50 1.40 1.49 1.50 5.89
0.70 1.92 2.01 2.02 6.32
56
The magnitude of percentage deviations in SIF values are shown with respect
to different a / t ratios. Fig. 4.33 and Fig. 4.34 show percentage deviations in SIF for
a / c value 0.3 and 0.5 respectively.
12
Displacement extrapolation
a
10 = 0.3 method
c
% Deviation of SIF
8 Interaction integral method
6 J-integral method
4
Nodal force method
2
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
8
a
7 = 0.5 Displacement
c
% Deviation of SIF
method
4
J-integral method
3
1
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
a/t
57
It is noticed that percentage error is very less for displacement extrapolation

method, interaction integral method and J-integral method. For nodal force method,
error is somewhat larger (5-10%) compared to other methods. Hence, it is concluded
that nodal force method is least likely to recommend. Results from numerical methods
are more deviating when a / t ratio is 0.7.
4.7 Example 7: Determination of SIF of penny-shaped

embedded crack in a semi-infinite plate under pure tension
Standard representation of semi-infinite plate with penny shaped embedded
crack is shown in Fig. 4.30. In present analysis, dimensions and material properties of
the semi-infinite plate with the penny shaped embedded crack are Poisson’s ratio
 = 0.33 , modulus of elasticity E = 200 GPa, width of plate 2b = 100 mm, height of
plate 2h = 100 mm, crack length = 2c , crack depth = a , thickness of plate = t . Stress
intensity factors are calculated for a / t ratio 0.5 and a / c ratio 1. SIFs are calculated
at depth direction point ( = 90) . For the mode I configuration, the tensile stress of
100 MPa is applied on top surface and bottom face is fixed. Model, crack configuration
and boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.30 and meshing is shown in Fig. 4.16. For
the finite element analysis 20 noded three dimensional quadratic element (SOLID 186)
is used and it is having three degrees of freedom at each node.
Newman and Raju (1984) provided stress intensity factor equations for surface
on finite element analysis. In present investigation on semi-infinite plate with penny
shaped embedded crack has been done with the help of ANSYS APDL.
Table 4.14 SIFs of penny shaped embedded crack in semi-infinite plate by

different numerical techniques implemented for a / c = 1.0 and a / t = 0.5
Raju and
Displacement Interaction J- Nodal
Newman
a/t extrapolation integral integral force
(1984)
method method method method
solution
0.50 318.25 316.67 316.55 316.38 301.58
58
As shown in Table 4.14 stress intensity factors are calculated at  = 90 for
different numerical techniques with the help of ANSYS APDL. Raju and Newman
(1984) solution for penny-shaped embedded crack front in semi-infinite plate is taken
as standard. Displacement extrapolation method, interaction integral method, J-integral
method and nodal force method are implemented to find mode-I stress intensity factors.
The percentage error in SIF is calculated using Eq. (4.1) and shown in Table
4.15.
Newman (1984) solution for a / c = 1.0 and a / t = 0.5

J-integral
method
0.5 0.498 0.535 0.588 5.240
It is shown that percentage error is within 1% for displacement extrapolation

method, interaction integral method and J-integral method. For nodal force method,
error is largely deviating from Raju and Newman (1984) solution.
4.8 Determination of stress intensity factors in actual gas

turbine disk segment Model:
As one of the objectives of the present investigation is to understand the

accuracy of estimation of the selected SIF extraction methods when actual geometry is
employed. In this example, mode I SIFs for a crack emanating from the bolt hole of a
turbine disk are estimated using the displacement extrapolation method, interaction
integral method and J-integral method. The results of the present analysis provide
confidence on the fatigue crack growth analysis using the actual turbine disk. The disk
considered here is provided by Zhuang (2000). Mode I SIFs have been estimated for
59
both the rotational speeds 8000 RPM and 37000 RPM. The geometry of the disk and
the corresponding finite element boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 4.35. Table
4.16 shows material properties for turbine disk problem. Table 4.17 show the SIF data
which are directly taken from technical report (DRDO project) by Murthy (2018). Table
4.18 - 4.20 show the estimated SIFs using different numerical methods using ANSYS
for a / c ratios of 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 and 1.0 using interaction integral method, J-integral
method and displacement extrapolation method respectively.
Table 4.16 Material properties for turbine disk problem
Young’s Modulus, E 200 GPa
Poisson’s Ratio,  0.33
Density,  4373 kg/m3
Rotational speed,  between 8000 rpm and 37000 rpm
uy = 0 Holes 4.76 Ø
uz = 0
50 Ø
80 Ø
212 Ø
250 Ø
Fig. 4.35 Geometry and boundary conditions of the turbine disk segment
60
Table 4.17 Stress intensity factors data from DRDO technical report, Murthy
(2018)
At N = 37000 rpm At N = 8000 rpm
a/c a Kc Ka Kc Ka
0.2 18.17 32.63 0.96 1.47

0.3
0.4 22.87 44.4 1.07 2.07
0.2 20.48 31.51 0.96 1.47

0.4
0.4 26.13 42.9 1.22 2.01
0.2 23.28 29.44 1.09 1.38

0.6
0.4 30.07 39.98 1.41 1.87
0.2 24.25 25.15 1.13 1.18

1.0
0.4 32.36 34.69 1.51 1.62
Table 4.18 Stress intensity factors using interaction integral method in actual
disc segment model ( K is in MPa m )
At N = 37000 rpm At N = 8000 rpm
a/c a Kc Ka Kc Ka
0.2 16.8200 31.8680 0.7863 1.4898

0.3
0.4 21.2360 42.5910 0.9804 2.0173
0.2 19.1940 30.7150 0.8973 1.4359

0.4
0.4 24.5240 41.7700 1.1465 1.9527
0.2 21.9820 28.4210 1.0277 1.3287

0.6
0.4 28.4780 38.6930 1.3395 1.8159
61
0.2 23.4780 24.4300 1.0976 1.1421

1.0
0.4 30.9400 33.4580 1.4464 1.5642
Table 4.19 Stress intensity factors using J-integral method in actual disc segment
model ( K is in MPa m )
At N = 37000 rpm At N = 8000 rpm
a/c a Kc Ka Kc Ka
0.2 15.3059 28.9273 0.7155 1.3523

0.3
0.4 18.6841 31.8601 0.8932 1.8301
0.2 17.5042 27.8814 1.0003 1.7393

0.4
0.4 22.3388 37.8966 1.0443 1.7717
0.2 19.9956 25.8022 0.9348 1.2062

0.6
0.4 25.8711 35.0971 1.2168 1.6472
0.2 21.2703 22.1842 0.9944 1.0371

1.0
0.4 28.0226 30.3456 1.3100 1.4187
Table 4.20 Stress intensity factors using displacement extrapolation method in

actual disc segment model ( K is in MPa m )
At N = 37000 rpm At N = 8000 rpm
a/c a Kc Ka Kc Ka
0.2 17.3070 31.0910 0.8091 1.4535

0.3
0.4 28.7700 50.2730 1.0423 1.9797
0.2 19.7320 30.1160 0.9225 1.4118

0.4
0.4 25.1790 41.1080 1.1771 1.9218
0.2 22.3360 28.2070 1.0442 1.3187

0.6
0.4 28.8930 38.4580 1.3590 1.8048
62
0.2 23.5490 24.7000 1.1009 1.1547

1.0
0.4 31.0050 33.8600 1.4495 1.5829
The following observations can be made from the results presented in above 3 tables.
• As expected for all ratios of a/c, Ka > Kc
• As a/c ratio approaches to 1 or the crack becomes quarter circular, Ka becomes
equal to Kc
• SIFs at higher speeds are greater than that at lower speeds as expected.
• A good agreement between the result of Murthy (2018) and present work can
be noticed from all Tables 4.17 – 4.20.
All these examples on SIF estimation show the merits and demerits of various SIF
extraction methods using finite element analysis. It is seen that SIF values from
interaction integral method, J-integral method and displacement extrapolation method
are close to our reference results.
63
64
65
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Future scope of work
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Future scope of work
This chapter describes the important conclusions drawn from the previous
chapter. It also states future scope of work where we can extend our continuing work.
5.1 Conclusions
A 3D finite element analysis of various cracked configurations under mode I
loading have been carried out in the present investigation in order to estimate the stress
intensity factor (SIF). Analyse has been carried out using both the structured and
unstructured meshes. The SIF values have been obtained using displacement
extrapolation method, J-integral method, interaction integral method and nodal force
method. Some of the important conclusions of the present work are:
1. Displacement extrapolation method, J-integral method and interaction integral
method are giving promising results amongst all the numerical techniques
implemented compared to Raju and Newman (1979) solution for surface cracks
and embedded cracks.
2. Results from nodal force method are somewhat more deviating from reference
solution in all problems.
3. The SIF values of a corner crack are found close to Zheng (1996) solution
instead of Newman and Raju (1984) solution.
4. When plate thickness is decreasing, SIF value is increasing for fixed a / c ratio.
5. When a / t ratio is increasing for fixed thickness plate, SIF value is increasing.
6. When a / t ratio is up to 0.5, SIF values, by using all numerical techniques are
reasonably accurate. But when it is larger than 0.5, results from numerical
techniques are deviating from standard solutions.
7. For turbine disk problem, SIF values from Murthy (2018) are closer for
displacement extrapolation method, interaction integral method and J-integral
method.
67
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Future scope of work
5.2 Future scope of work

Future scopes of our works where we can extend our continuing work are described
below.
1. All the problems discussed here are of mode-I. Similar investigation is needed
for mixed mode problems.
2. More investigation is needed on various corner cracks, as the solutions are
deviating from the reference solutions.
68
References
References
Ahangar RG, Verreman Y (2018), Assessment of mode I and mode II stress intensity
factors obtained by displacement extrapolation and interaction integral method,
Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, 85-96.
Anderson TL (2005), Fracture mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, 3rd ed.,

Taylor and Francis, London.
ANSYS 17.2 (2016), Reference manual.
Barsoum RS (1976), On the use of isoparametric finite elements in linear fracture

mechanics, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 10, 25-37.
Erdol R, Erdogan F (1978), A thick-walled cylinder with an axisymmetric internal or

edge crack, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 45, 281-286.
Green A, Sneddon I (1950), The distribution of stress in the neighbourhood of a at

elliptical crack in an elastic solid, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society, Cambridge Univ Press, 46, 159-163.
Griffith AA (1921), The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Philosophical

transactions of the royal society of London, 221, 163-198.
Guinea GV, Planas J, Elices M (2000), K I evaluation by the displacement extrapolation
technique, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 66, 243-255.
Han Q, Wanga Y, Yin Y, Wang D (2015), Determination of stress intensity factor for
mode I fatigue crack based on finite element analysis, Engineering Fracture
Mechanics, 138, 118–126.
Irwin GR (1957), Analysis of stresses and strains near the end of a crack traversing a
plate, Spie Milestone Series MS, 137, 167-170.
Irwin GR (1962), Crack-extension force for a part-through crack in a plate, Journal of

Applied Mechanics, 29, 651-654.
Liao CY, Atluri SN (1989), Stress intensity factor variation along a semicircular surface
flaw in a finite-thickness plate, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 34, 957-976.
69
References
Morais AB (2007), Calculation of stress intensity factors by the force method,

Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 74, 739-750.
Murthy KSRK (2018), Fatigue crack growth prediction in gas turbine disk using 3D
FEM, Technical report submitted to GTRE, Bengalore.
Newman JC, Raju IS (1979), Analysis of surface cracks in finite plates under tension
or bending loads, NASA Technical Paper.
Newman JC, Raju IS (1981), An empirical stress-intensity factor equation for the
surface crack, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 15, 185-192.
Newman JC, Raju IS (1984), Stress-intensity factor equation for cracks in three
dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and bending loads, NASA Technical
Paper.
Paris PC, Sih GC (1965), Stress analysis of cracks, ASTM International.
Raju IS, Newman JC (1977), Three dimensional finite-element analysis of finite-

thickness fracture specimens, NASA Technical Paper.
Raju IS, Newman JC (1979), Stress-intensity factors for a wide range of semi- elliptical
surface cracks in finite-thickness plates, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 11, 817-829.
Raju IS, Newman JC (1986), Stress-intensity factors for circumferential surface cracks
in pipes and rods under tension and bending loads, NASA Technical Paper.
Rao BN, Rahman S (2003), Computational Mechanics, 32, 40-51.
Rege K, Pavlou DG (2019), Stress intensity factors for circumferential through‐wall

cracks in thin-walled cylindrical shells subjected to tension and torsion, Fatigue &
Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, 42, 1062-1074.
Rice JR (1968), Mathematical analysis in the mechanics of fracture, In: Fracture: An

advanced treatise, 2, 191-308.
Rybicki EF, Kanninen MF (1977), Finite element calculation of stress intensity factors
by a modified crack closure integral, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 9, 931-938.
Sari E, Zergoug M (2015), FEM techniques comparison for SIF computing of cracked
plate, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 40, 1165-1171.
70
References
Shariati M, Rokhi MM, Rayegan H (2017), Investigation of stress intensity factor for
internal cracks in FG cylinders under static and dynamic loading, Fracture and
Structural Integrity, 39, 166-180.
Smith FW, Alavi MJ (1971), Stress intensity factors for a penny shaped crack in a half
space, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 3, 241-254.
Smith SA, Raju IS (1998), Evaluation of stress-intensity factors using general finite-
element models, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics, American Society for Testing and
Materials, ASTM STP 1321, 176-200.
Thresher RW, Smith FW (1971), Stress intensity factors for a surface crack in a finite
solid, Journal of Applied Mechanics, 39, 195-200.
Tracey DM (1971), Finite elements for determination of crack tip elastic stress intensity
factors, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 3, 255-265.
Zheng XJ, Glinka G, Dubey RN (1996), Stress intensity factors and weight functions
for a corner crack in a finite thickness plate, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 54, 49-
61.
Zhuang WZ (2000), Prediction of crack growth from bolt holes in a disc, International
Journal of Fatigue 22, 241–250.
Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL (1977), The finite element method, 3, McGraw-hill,

London.
71

Mtech Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mtech Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THREE DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT

ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF CRACKED BODIES

a crack length in 2D and crack depth in semi-elliptical crack

Newman (1979) method 32

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.3 36

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.5 36

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.7 37

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.3 46

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.5 46

Newman (1979) method at a / c = 0.7 47

Newman (1984) method at a / c = 0.3 57

Newman (1984) method at a / c = 0.5 57

Newman (1979) solution for a / c = 1 31

Newman (1979) solution 35

solution for a / c = 0.5 and a / t = 0.5 40

Newman (1979) solution for structured mesh 45

Newman (1984) solution 56

Newman (1984) solution for a / c = 1.0 and a / t = 0.5 59

A fracture parameter known as stress intensity factor (SIF) denoted by K is

1.1 Stress intensity factor and its importance

On obtaining the influence of important fracture parameters like stress intensity

1.2 Different types of cracks

Embedded cracks are usually modeled as an ellipse in the literature of fracture

1.2.1 Importance of study on surface cracks

Stress intensity factor (SIF) is important fracture parameter to understand stress

2.1 Literature on determination of SIF along semi-circular,

2.2 Literature on nodal force method to determine SIF

2.3 Literature on displacement extrapolation method to

Sari and Zergoug (2015) performed a computation comparison of SIF

2.4 Literature on interaction integral method and J-integral

2.5 Summary of literature review

This chapter describes the theoretical background of fracture mechanics with

3.1 Fracture Mechanics

3.1.1 Modes of fracture

(i) Mode-I (symmetrical opening mode)

(a) Mode-I (b) Mode-II (c) Mode-III

Fig. 3.1 Fundamental modes of failure

K I = lim  ijI (r , 0) 2 r fijI ( ) (3.1)

K II = lim  ijII (r , 0) 2 r fijII ( ) (3.2)

K III = lim  ijIII (r , 0) 2 r fijIII ( ) (3.3)

and mode-III loading conditions respectively.

Fig. 3.2 Polar coordinate system at the crack tip

3.1.2 Types of a crack

Different categories of cracks are listed below:

(i) Through the thickness crack

(a) Centre crack (Fig. 3.3a)

(b) Edge crack

(c) Corner crack (Fig. 3.3b)

(ii) Surface crack (Fig. 3.3c)

(a) Semi elliptical crack

(b) Semi-circular crack

(c) Curved crack tip

(iii) Embedded crack (Fig. 3.3d)

(a) Elliptical crack

(b) Penny shaped crack

(c) Arbitrary shaped crack

3.1.2.1 Corner crack

3.1.2.2 Surface crack

3.1.2.3 Embedded crack

3.2 Different numerical techniques to find stress intensity

According to Williams' analysis, the components of the stress field can be

3.2.1 Displacement extrapolation method

3.2.2 Nodal force method