SGBEM-FEM COUPLING FOR ANALYSIS OF

CRACKS IN 3D ELASTIC MEDIA WITH

CONSIDERATION OF SURFACE ELASTICITY

NGUYEN Thai Binh, PhD.

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology

Seminar presentation May 24th, 2019

 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
• Surface elasticity and crack modeling
2. FORMULATIONS
• Governing Equations for general crack
• Numerical Implementation for general crack

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

• Numerical Results for planar crack
• Discussions/Conclusions/Applications

Seminar Presentation tbnguyen@hcmut.edu.vn

 SURFACE ELASTICITY
Real material

Macro Scale Nano Scale

Continuum
model

bulk (E, v)
Does NOT comply
(beam deflection, resonance
frequencies, COD …)

Part 1 – Introduction 03
 SURFACE ELASTICITY

Q1:What do we miss ?
Q2: If so, how do we implement the missing
part into the system ?  Mechanism

Interpretation

What if we have K2 in the system?

Part 1 – Introduction 04
 SURFACE ELASTICITY

“Surfaces of the bodies and interfaces between pairs of bodies

exhibit properties quite different from those associated with
their interiors.” [Adam (Oxford university press, 1941) &
Adamson (Interscience, 1967)]

Part 1 – Introduction 05
 SURFACE/VOLUME RATIO

Contribution of the surface effects to the properties

of the material plays an important role.

Micro/Nano Scale Macro Scale

Part 1 – Introduction 06
 SURFACE/VOLUME RATIO

 Surface to volume ratio increases with

reducing the size
Part 1 – Introduction 06
 MODELLING SURFACE EFFECTS

1. Gurtin – Murdoch surface elasticity model

2. Nonlocal continuum field theories

3. Theories of elasticity with couple-stress

Part 1 – Introduction 06
 INTERPRETATION/MODELLING
The role of surface energy and surface stress can be represented by a
pre-stretched elastic membrane firmly attached to the surface of the
elastic body ” [Gurtin & Murdoch (1975, 1978)]

Real material

Macro Scale Nano Scale

Elastic
membrane
(ls, ms, ts)

Perfectly Bonded

bulk (E, v) bulk (E, v)

+ Gurtin-Murdoch
Continuum model surface elasticity model Continuum model

Part 1 – Introduction 07
 PROBLEM DESCRIPTION

Schematic of medium
Prescribed traction on
containing an isolated
crack surfaces
general crack
Part 2 – Formulations 08
 RESEARCH SCOPE

• Body containing cracks: 3D, homogeneous,

isotropic linear elastic infinite medium
1
• Body: free of body force and remote loadings
2
• Crack surfaces: arbitrary shape, subjected to
3 general surface tractions

• Surface elasticity: complete Gurtin-Murdoch

4 surface elasticity model

Part 2 – Formulations 09
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
SC+
System of
SC Governing Equations

Discretized
Surface System of Linear
Bulk 0 thickness, perfectly bonded
Algebraic Equations
to crack surface of the bulk

Linear solver
Behaviors modeled by Behaviors modeled by • Solutions COD, 
classical theory of Gurtin-Murdoch • Verification of the
linear elasticity surface elasticity proposed solutions

Governing eqs derived Governing eqs derived

Extensive
by Weakly Singular by Standard Finite
parametric studies
SGBEM* procedure Element procedure
Continuity conditions
 WEAKLY SINGULAR SGBEM

Advantages of SGBEM
Reduce dimensions  simplify calculation

Contain weakly singular kernels O(1/r)  standard C0 elements

Be applicable for arbitrary configurations and under general loading conditions

Treat an infinite body efficiently

Produce system of linear equations with a symmetric coefficient matrix

Use weak form  coupled with standard finite elements

Part 2 – Formulations 11
 FOR THE MORE DETAILED SGBEM
Refer to
Li S, Mear ME (1998) Singularity-reduced integral equations for displacement discontinuities in
three-dimensional linear elastic media. International Journal of Fracture 93(1): 87114
Li S, Mear ME, Xiao L (1998) Symmetric weak-form integral equation method for three-
dimensional fracture analysis. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 151(34): 435459
Xiao L (1998) Symmetric weak-form integral equation method for three-dimensional fracture
analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Texas, USA
Rungamornrat J (2006) Analysis of 3D cracks in anisotropic multi-material domain with weakly
singular SGBEM. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 30(10): 834846
Rungamornrat J, Mear ME (2008a) Weakly-singular, weak-form integral equations for cracks in
three-dimensional anisotropic media. International Journal of Solids and Structures
45(5): 12831301
Rungamornrat J, Mear ME (2008b) A weakly-singular SGBEM for analysis of cracks in 3D
anisotropic media. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering
197(4950): 43194332

Part 2 – Formulations 12
 DOMAIN DECOMPOSITION

Original medium Bulk material 0-thickness layers

(Considering surface (Governed by linear (Governed by G-M
stress effects) elasticity) surface elasticity)

Part 2 – Formulations 13
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF THE BULK MATERIAL
Behavior modeled by the
classical theory of linear elasticity
• Displacement components at any interior point x:
u p (x)   U jp (ξ  x)t bj (ξ )dS (ξ )
Sc

  Gmjp (ξ  x) Dmu bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )   H ijp (ξ  x)ni (ξ )u bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )

Sc Sc
(1)
• Stress components at any interior point x:
 ij (x)    irt Clktj ,r (ξ  x) Dl ukb (ξ )dS (ξ )
Sc

   irt Gtjp,r (ξ  x)t bp (ξ )dS (ξ )   H ijp (ξ  x)t bp (ξ )dS (ξ ) (2)
Sc Sc

• Weakly singular kernels: {U jp , Gmjp , Cmjtk , H ijp }

Part 2 – Formulations 14
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF THE BULK MATERIAL

From formulation of u and s

components at any interior point
(Rungamornrat and Mear, 2008)

Taking limit to any point on

the crack surface

Performing integration by parts by

using Stokes’ theorem

Weak-form equations for crack

problem

Part 2 – Formulations 15
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF THE BULK MATERIAL

• The final weak-form equations:

1  b
p (y ) U jp (ξ  y )t bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )
t ( )u ( ) dS ( )  t
2 Sc Sc Sc
p y p y y

  tp (y )  Gmjp (ξ  y ) Dmu bj (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y ) (3)

Sc Sc

  tp (y )  H ijp (ξ  y )ni (ξ )u bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )

Sc Sc

1
  
u 
k ( y )t b
k ( y ) dS ( y )   D 
u
t k

( y )  C tk
mj (ξ  y ) D b
m j (ξ ) dS (ξ ) dS ( y )
u
2 S c S c S c

  Dt uk (y )  Gtkj (ξ  y )t bj (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y ) (4)

Sc Sc

  uk (y )  H lkj (ξ  y )nl (y )t bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )

Sc Sc

Part 2 – Formulations 16
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF TWO LAYERS

Behavior modeled by the Gurtin-Murdoch theory

• Equilibrium equations:
divS Σ  t S  t 0  0 (5)
• Surface constitutive relations: (full version of G-M theory)
Σ   s I  2(  s   s )IE  ( s   s )(tr E)I   s  s u (6)
• Strain-displacement relationship (e – u relationship):
E  1 2 ( Du  DuT ) (7)
where: I (x)  Lin (Tx ,V ) is an inclusion map of Tx in V
Du  P ( x) s u  Lin (Tx , Tx ) is a tangential derivative
P (x)  Lin (V , Tx ) is a perpendicular projection fromV onto Tx
Lin(U ,W ) is a space of linear transformations fromU onto W
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF 2 LAYERS
PLANAR SURFACE

Behavior modeled by the Gurtin-Murdoch theory

• Equilibrium equations:
divS Σ  t S  t 0  0  is ,   tis  tio  0 (5a)
• Surface constitutive relations: (full version of G-M theory)
Σ   s I  2(  s   s )IE  ( s   s )(tr E)I   s  s u
s
    s    s   s   s   2   s   s   
s
  s us , ;  3s   s u3,s 
(6a)
• Strain-displacement relationship (e – u relationship):
(7a)
E  1 2 ( Du  DuT )
s
   1
2 u
 ,
s
 us , 
Part 2 – Formulations 18
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF TWO LAYERS

Multiply
Integrate
with a Perform
Equilibrium over the
sufficiently integration
equations entire crack
smooth test by parts
surface
function

Surface
Final Form 2 linear Weak-form
combinations: constitutive
weak- equation for
relations
form (1) adding each crack
and e - u
equations (2) subtracting surface
relationship

Part 2 – Formulations 19
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF TWO LAYERS

• The final weak-form equations of two layers:

s
 s
 tr( Du
s
) tr( Du )dS 
s
 [ Du
s
 ( Du s )T ] :[ Du s  ( Du s )T ]dS   s  (n  n)( S u s ) : ( S u s ) dS
SC
2 SC SC

 s  u   tr( Du   u  I  Du   u
s s
)  I ν d    s s s
 ( Du s )T  ν d    s s
 (n  n) S u s  ν d 
SC SC SC

2 s   n  2  divS u s   u s  n  dS   u s  t s dS   u
s
 t 0  dS
SC SC SC

(8)
s
 tr( Du ) tr( Du )dS    
s s s s s T s s T s s s
  [ Du  ( Du ) ] :[ Du  ( Du ) ]dS    (n  n )( S u ) : ( S u ) dS
SC
2 SC SC

2 s   n divS u s  u s  n  dS   u s  t s dS   u
s
 t 0  dS
SC SC SC

(9)
Part 2 – Formulations 20
GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF WHOLE MEDIUM

1 
 t p (y )u bp (y )dS (y )   tp (y )  U jp (ξ  y )t bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )
2 Sc Sc Sc

 tp (y ) Gmjp (ξ  y ) Dmu bj (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )

 
Sc Sc
uis  uib  ui
 tp (y )  H ijp (ξ  y )ni (ξ )u bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )
Sc Sc uis  uib  ui
1
 
u 
( )t b
( ) dS ( )  D 
u 
( ) C tk
(  ) D u b
j (ξ ) dS (ξ ) dS ( y )
2 Sc Sc Sc
k y k y y t k y mj ξ y m tis  tib  ti
  Dt uk (y )  Gtkj (ξ  y )t bj (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )
Sc Sc
tis  tib  ti
  uk (y )  H lkj (ξ  y )nl (y )t bj  (ξ )dS (ξ )dS (y )
Sc Sc

s
 s
 tr( Du
s
) tr( Du )dS 
s
 [ Du
s
 ( Du s )T ] :[ Du s  ( Du s )T ]dS   s  (n  n)( S u s ) : ( S u s ) dS
SC
2 SC SC

 s  u   tr( Du   u  I  Du   u
s s
)  I ν d    s s s
 ( Du s )T  ν d    s s
 (n  n) S u s  ν d 
SC SC SC

2 s   n  2  divS u s   u s  n  dS   u s  t s dS   u
s
 t 0  dS
s SC SC SC

 tr( Du ) tr( Du )dS   [ Du  ( Du ) ] :[ Du  ( Du ) ]dS    (n  n)( S u ) : ( S u ) dS

s s s s s T s s T s s s

SC
2 SC SC

2 s   n divS u s  u s  n  dS   u
s
 t s dS   u
s
 t 0  dS
SC SC SC
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS OF WHOLE
MEDIUM

• System of governing equations of the crack

problem (complete Gurtin-Murdoch theory)

A (u s , u  )  B (u s , t  )  R1 (u s )

B (t  , u  )  C (t  , t  )  D (t  , u  ) 0 (10)
D (t  , u  )  E (u  , u  )  R2 (u  )

u = u+ + u- : sum of displacement
u = u+ - u- : jump of displacement
t = t+ + t- : sum of traction

Part 2 – Formulations 22
 DISCRETIZATION

• Standard Galerkin approximation

• Weakly singular kernels of O(1/r)  continuous
(C0) interpolation functions for both trial and test
functions
• Approximation for the test functions and the trial
functions:
N N
u   U
i
s s
3( p 1)  i  p ; u   U 3( q 1) i  q

i
Number of nodal points
p 1 q 1
N N Nodal basis functions at q
u   U 3( p 1) i  p ; u   U 3( q 1) i  q

i

i
p 1 q 1 Nodal degree of freedom
N N
ti   T3( p 1) i  p ;

t   T3(q 1) i  q
i

Arbitrary nodal quantities
p 1 q 1

Part 2 – Formulations 23
 DISCRETIZATION

• System of linear algebraic equations resulting

from the discretization:
Vector of nodal quantities

A B 0   U    R1 
 BT    
 C D   T    0 
 0 DT E  U    R 2 

Double surface integral

Part 2 – Formulations 24
 NUMERICAL INTEGRATION

Single surface • Contain regular integrands

integrals • Standard Gaussian quadrature

Double
surface • relatively remote  not singular 
integrals Standard Gaussian quadrature
• identical  weakly singular
(Three types • relatively close  nearly singular
depending on a
pair of elements)
Special transformation +
Standard Gaussian quadrature

Part 2 – Formulations 25
 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
OF TWO LAYERS

Four different mathematical models used in the

numerical study:

 Model-1: Classical theory without surface stresses

 Model-2: only residual surface tension (ls and ms)
 Model-3: only in-plane surface constants (ts)
 Model-4: full version of G-M theory (ls , ms , ts)

Part 2 – Formulations 26
 SHAPE FUNCTIONS

• Meshes:

20 elements 88 elements 216 elements

77 nodes 297 nodes 665 nodes

• Elements:

6-node 8-node 9-node

Part 2 – Formulations 27
 SHAPE FUNCTIONS

• Elements not on the crack front  standard isoparametric

shape functions
• Elements on the crack front: four cases

Model-1 • All components of u and u  special

 
(classical case)  

Model-2 • In-plane components of u  and u   special

• Out-of-plane components of u  and
    standard
(only residual
surface tension) u
 
Model-3 • In-plane components of u  and u   standard
• Out-of-plane components of u  and
    special
(only in-plane
surface constants) u
 
Model-4
(Full version of • All components of u  and u   standard
G-M model)  
 NUMERICAL RESULTS
PLANAR CRACK

1 Planar Penny-shaped Crack Under Pure Mode-I

2 Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Mixed-Mode

3 Planar Elliptical Crack (Normal & Shear Traction)

4 Two Coplanar Penny-Shaped Cracks

Part 3 – Numerical results 29

 1. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Pure Mode-I

0
Sc x3
x3
Sc+ 0

O x1
a
x2 _
x1 Sc 0

Sc
0

Schematic of a planar Prescribed normal traction

penny-shaped crack on planar crack surfaces

Part 3 – Numerical results 30

 1. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Pure Mode-I
1.1 Verification of proposed solutions
The medium tends to
1.0 be much stiffer than • Three models considered
the classical case
• Numerical results converge
0.8
• Highly accurate with
analytical solutions solved
0.6
u3 by Intarit et al. (2013)
 • Surface stresses have
0.4 Current Sol. - Mesh 1
Current Sol. - Mesh 2 significantly influent on
Current Sol. - Mesh 3
Intarit et al. (2012) (Model-4) CODs
0.2
Intarit et al. (2012) (Model-2)
Exact Sol. (Model-1)
• Residual surface tension
0.0
are more significant in
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 mode-I loading conditions
r0/a0
Comparison of NCOD from
three different models
Part 3 – Numerical results 31
 1. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Pure Mode-I
1.1 Verification of proposed solutions

10.0 10.0
Current Sol. - Mesh 1 Current Sol. - Mesh 1
Current Sol. - Mesh 2 Current Sol. - Mesh 2
8.0 8.0
Current Sol. - Mesh 3 Current Sol. - Mesh 3
Intarit et al. (2012) (Model-4) Intarit et al. (2012) (Model-2)
Exact Sol. (Model-1) Exact Sol. (Model-1)
6.0 6.0
 33 INFINITE stress  33
0 (Classical case) 0
4.0 4.0
Stresses are bounded
(surface elasticity)
2.0 2.0

0.0 0.0
1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0
Near-tip vertical stresses Near-tip vertical stresses
Model-4 Model-2
Part 3 – Numerical results 32
 1. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Pure Mode-I
Different values of residual surface tension

COD at center of crack

1.0 decrease when the 10.0
surface effect increases
s=0.1 N/m
0.8 8.0 s=0.5 N/m
s=1.0 N/m
Model-4
Model-2
0.6 6.0
u
3
 33 Model-1

 s=0.1 N/m 0 Stresses on crack front

0.4 s=0.5 N/m 4.0
increase when the
s=1.0 N/m
Model-4
surface effect decreases
0.2 Model-2 2.0
Model-1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0

NCODs Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 33
 1. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Pure Mode-I
Different values of crack radius
The corresponding stress
The stiffness of medium
field shows strong
1.0 shows strong dependency 10.0 dependency on crack size
on crack size
a0=0.5
0.8 8.0 a0=1.0
a0=10
Model-4
0.6 6.0 Model-2
u
3
33 Model-1
 a0=0.5 0
0.4 a0=1.0 4.0
a0=10
Model-4
0.2 Model-2
2.0
Model-1

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0

NCODs Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 34
 2. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Mixed-Mode

x3 x3
0
Sc+
O Sc
0 x1
Sc
a _
0
x2 Sc
x1
0

Schematic of a planar Prescribed shear traction

penny-shaped crack on planar crack surfaces

Part 3 – Numerical results 35

 2. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Mixed-Mode
Study on convergent & comparison

1.2 12.0
Mesh 1
1.0 10.0 Mesh 2
Mesh 3 (Model-4)
Mesh 1 Mesh 3 (Model-3)
0.8 Mesh 2 8.0 Mesh 3 (Model-1)
Mesh 3 (Model-4) Exact Sol. (Model-1)
u1 Mesh 3 (Model-3)  13
0.6 Mesh 3 (Model-1)  0 6.0

Exact Sol. (Model-1)
0.4 4.0

0.2 2.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0

NCSDs Near-tip shear stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 36

 2. Planar Penny-Shaped Crack under Mixed-Mode
Different values of crack radius

2.0 8.0
a0=0.1 a0=0.5
a0=1.0 a0=1.0
1.5 a0=10 6.0 a0=10
Model-4 Model-4
Model-3 Model-3
u1 Model-1  13 Model-1
1.0  0 4.0


0.5 2.0

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0

NCSDs Near-tip shear stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 37

 3. Planar Elliptical Crack

x3 x3 x3
Sc Sc+ 0 (a,0,0)
Sc+
x1 (0,-b,0) 0 (0,b,0) x2
O
x2 (-a,0,0)
x1 (a,0,0) (0,b,0) _ _
0

Sc Sc 0 Sc

Schematic of a Normal traction on Shear traction on

planar elliptical planar elliptical planar elliptical
crack surfaces surfaces

Part 3 – Numerical results 38

 3. Planar Elliptical Crack - 3.1 Normal traction
Study on convergent for the case a/b=2

1.2 10.0
Mesh 1
1.0 Mesh 2
8.0
Mesh 3 (Model-4)
Mesh 3 (Model-2)
0.8 Mesh 3 (Model-1)
6.0 Exact Sol. (Model-1)
u3  33
0.6
 Mesh 1 0
Mesh 2 4.0
0.4 Mesh 3 (Model-4)
Mesh 3 (Model-2)
Mesh 3 (Model-1)
0.2 2.0
Exact Sol. (Model-1)

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/b0 r0/b0
NCODs Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 39

 3. Planar Elliptical Crack - 3.1 Normal traction
Different values of semi minor-axis crack radius

1.2 10.0
Model-4
1.0 Model-2
8.0
Model-1
b0 = 0.5
0.8
b0 = 1.0
6.0
u3  33 b0 = 10
0.6 Model-4 0

Model-2 4.0
0.4 Model-1
b0 = 0.5
b0 = 1.0 2.0
0.2 b0 = 10

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/b0 r0/b0

NCODs Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 40

 3. Planar Elliptical Crack - 3.2 Shear traction
Study on convergent for the case a/b=2

1.4 10.0

1.2
8.0 Mesh 1
Mesh 1 Mesh 2
1.0 Mesh 3 (Model-4)
Mesh 2
Mesh 3 (Model-4) Mesh 3 (Model-3)
6.0 Mesh 3 (Model-1)
u2 0.8 Mesh 3 (Model-3) 23
Exact Sol. (Model-1)
Mesh 3 (Model-1)
 0.6 0
Exact Sol. (Model-1)
4.0

0.4
2.0
0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/b0 r0/b0

NCSDs Near-tip shear stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 41

 3. Planar Elliptical Crack - 3.2 Shear traction
Different values of semi minor-axis crack radius

1.4 10.0
Model-4
Model-1
1.2
b0 = 0.5 Model-4
8.0
b0 = 1.0 Model-1
1.0 b0 = 0.5
b0 = 10
b0 = 1.0
6.0
u2 0.8  23 b0 = 10
 0.6 0
4.0

0.4
2.0
0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/b0 r0/b0

NCSDs Near-tip shear stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 42

 4. Two Coplanar Penny-Shaped Cracks
Consider only residual surface tension

x3
Crack-2
x3
h Crack-2 Crack-1
0 0
a x2
O
0.001a a 0 0

x1 Crack-1 x2 h

Schematic of coplanar Prescribed normal traction

penny-shaped cracks on planar crack surfaces

Part 3 – Numerical results 43

 4. Two Coplanar Penny-Shaped Cracks
Study on Convergent for crack-1 with h/a=2.4

1.0 10

Mesh 1
0.8 8 Mesh 2
Mesh 3 (Model-2)
Mesh 3 (Model-1)
0.6 6 Exact (Model-1)
u3  33
 0
0.4 Mesh 1 4
Mesh 2
Mesh 3 (Model-2)
0.2 Mesh 3 (Model-1) 2
Exact (Model-1)

0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10
r0/a0 r0/a0

NCODs Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Numerical results 44

 4. Two Coplanar Penny-Shaped Cracks x3

Normalized vertical stress at point A with Crack-2

a
h

O A
different values of h/a x1
0.001a a
Crack-1 x2

15 15
Pair of cracks - s=0 N/m Pair of cracks - s=0 N/m
13 Pair of cracks - s=0.6056 N/m 13 Pair of cracks - s=0.6056 N/m
Pair of cracks - s=1 N/m Pair of cracks - s=1 N/m
Single crack Single crack
11 11

 33A  33A
9 9
0 0
7 7

5 5

3 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
h/a h/a
a0=1 a0=10

Part 3 – Numerical results 45

 CONCLUSIONS
Surface elasticity
SGBEM + FEM
(Gurtin & Murdoch)

A efficient numerical technique capable of modeling

cracks in 3D, linearly elastic, infinite media accounted for
the influence of surface elasticity has been established

 Single arbitrary
shape crack  Arbitrary loading condition
applied on crack surfaces
 Multiple arbitrary
shape cracks

Part 3 – Conclusions 46
 CONCLUSIONS
 Fracture can be regarded at different length scales
Microscopic Mesoscopic Macroscopic
(atomistic)

10-10 10-6 10-3 10-1 102

Continuum model
Continuum model
LENGTHSCALES
 PROPOSED TECHNIQUE  REDUCE TIME & COST

Part 3 – Conclusions 47
 CONCLUSIONS

Classical crack Surface elasticity

problem (Gurtin & Murdoch)

In contrast to the classical case, incorporating surface elasticity

leads to …
 The medium tends to be much stiffer than the classical case

 Surface effects can effectively reduce the stresses on the

crack front, the stresses on the crack front remain FINITE

 The solutions of crack problem (CODs, CSDs, Stresses)

exhibit strong dependency on crack size

Part 3 – Conclusions 48
 APPLICATIONS
The corresponding stress
10.0 field shows strong
a0=0.5 dependency on crack size
8.0 a0=1.0
a0=10
Model-4
a0>0.5
6.0 Model-2
33 Model-1
0 a0=0.5 (critical size)
4.0
Yielding point of material

a0<0.5  Suggesting criteria for the

2.0
crack propagation with
respect to the size of the
0.0
1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 crack
r0/a0

Near-tip vertical stresses

Part 3 – Applications 49
 FOR THE MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS…

Refer to our recent results in

Nguyen TB, Rungamornrat J, Senjuntichai T and Wijeyewickrema AC
(2015). FEM-SGBEM coupling for modeling of mode-I planar cracks in
three-dimensional elastic media with residual surface tension effects.
Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements 55: 40-51.
Nguyen TB, Rungamornrat J and Senjuntichai T (2016). Analysis of planar
cracks in 3D elastic media with consideration of surface elasticity.
International Journal of Fracture 202(1): 51-77.

tbnguyen@hcmut.edu.vn
Thank You

tbnguyen@hcmut.edu.vn