平成 28 年 1 月 第 23 回超音波による非破壊評価シンポジウム講演論文集 177

９−２

ONE DIMENSIONAL FEM AND EFIT APPROACHES FOR MODELING OF

NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR ON INTERACTING CRACK FACES
˓ Ibrahim ASRIANA1) Kazuyuki NAKAHATA1)

1)
EHIME UNIVERSITY

The nonlinear ultrasonic method is one of effective tools for the detection of a closing crack such as
stress corrosion crack, fatigue crack, and so on. Although many experimental works were reported, few
numerical modeling have been proposed to show the nonlinear phenomena. In this study, we consider
the numerical models of the ultrasonic scattering due to the dynamic motion on crack faces. Here,
we adopt the elastodynamic finite integration technique and finite element method. The one dimensional
simulations of the both methods are demonstrated, and the accuracy is checked compared to the analytical
solution. The numerical stability with different Courant number is also investigated.

KEYWORDSɿNumerical simulation, nonlinear ultrasonic, crack-face interaction, EFIT, FEM

1. Introduction
Nonlinear ultrasonic method has been proposed for the detection of closed cracks in structural compo-
nents. This method is concerned with the acoustic harmonics generated by the interaction on the crack
faces[1]. The mathematical model of the crack with interacting faces was investigated by Richardson[2]. In
this study, we consider the numerical modeling using the elastodynamic finite integration technique (EFIT)
and finite element method (FEM). The both methods can be applied for the image-based modeling[3] in
which a digital image is directly fed into the simulation. Here, as a first step of the application, one dimen-
sional (1D) modeling of the open/closed crack is investigated in the framework of the EFIT and FEM. In the
EFIT, a set of split computational nodes is used to express the crack faces. On the other hand, the penalty
method is introduced to model the crack faces in the FEM.

2. Governing Equations
Consider an infinitely long vertical crack embedded in a 1D linear elastic body. The stress τ11 and
displacement u1 are governed by the constitutive law and equation of motion as
∂ 2 u1 (x1 , t) τ11 (x1 , t) ∂u1 (x1 , t)
ρ = , τ11 (x1 , t) = (λ + 2μ) (1)
∂t2 ∂x1 ∂x1

where λ and μ are the Lamé constants, and ρ is the density. The wave velocity is expressed as cL = λ+2μ
ρ .

2.1 Elastodynamic finite integration technique (EFIT)

The 1D discretization of the EFIT is accomplished using the spatial staggered grid and leap-frog time in-
cremental scheme[4]. The stress and velocity (v1 = ∂u 1
∂t ) grids are allocated as shown in Fig.1(a). The
crack is located on the velocity grid at x1 = nΔx. Here we define the gap displacement of the crack faces
as [u1 ] = u+ −
1 − u1 . Note that the split-nodes are bound together if the crack is closed. At the boundary,
the material is subjected to a pre-stress P0 . The explicit scheme to determine the crack open/closed state is
shown in Fig.1(b).
2.2 Finite element method (FEM)
The penalty method is introduced to model the dynamic behavior of the crack in the explicit FEM[4]. As
shown in Fig.2(b), we assume that the crack faces are located on node labeled as n and n + 1, while the gap
178 第 23 回超音波による非破壊評価シンポジウム講演論文集 平成 28 年 1 月

3 &UDFN 3 &ORVHGVWDWH 7 N 2SHQVWDWH


,QFLGHQWZDYH
 W 
N
&DOFXODWH  ! &DOFXODWH
ª
 W Q   W Q  º»
  
 W  >X @
N N N N
 
 ¬« ¼
7 N


WQ QQ QQ WQ QQ
>X @
N
ǻ[ d
D E

Fig.1 1D spatial arrangement in the EFIT (a) and switching of crack open/closed state (b)

3 &UDFN 3 &ORVHGVWDWH 7 N   2SHQVWDWH

N
,QFLGHQWZDYH &DOFXODWH 
W !
 &DOFXODWH
N N
N 
X  
X Q

W  OP 
 Q N

'[
7 N   >@
X 
N
ǻ[ XQ XQ 'LVSODFHPHQW >@
X  d
D E
Fig.2 1D spatial arrangement in the FEM (a) and switching of crack open/closed state (b)

(),7 )(0

>X@K  >X@K  >X@K  5HVXOWVE\5LFKDUGVRQ

D
$PSOLWXGHDUEXQLWV

$PSOLWXGHDUEXQLWV

(),7 )(0
K  K 
 

                     
ZWS ZWS
&1  &1  &1 
E
Fig.3 (a) Gap displacement on the crack faces for η=0.1, 0.5 and 0.9. (b)Stability comparison for different C.N.

between the crack faces is expressed as [u1 ] = (u1 )n+1 − (u1 )n . The explicit scheme in Fig.2(b) is adopted
to determine the crack open/closed state. In the penalty method, we set a large value at the crack component
in the stiffness matrix when crack is closed.

3. Numerical Results
Figure 3(a) shows the gap displacement on the crack faces when the sinusoidal incident wave with the
amplitude σ0 and period T is transmitted. We use the Courant number C.N. (= ΔtcL /Δx) = 0.29 in the
present analysis and a very fine mesh cL T /Δx =116. The both numerical results in the EFIT and FEM are
plotted in Fig.3(a), and the analytical solution by Richardson[2] is shown as a carbon copy in each figure.
Here, we show the result using the dimensionless amplitude parameter defined as η = P0 /σ0 . The results
show good agreement with the analytical solution. Figure 3(b) shows the numerical results for the different
Courant number. The EFIT has a fair stability of calculation compared to the FEM simulation.
ࢀߟจ‫ݙ‬
[1] I. Solodov, N. Krohn and G. Busse ; Ultrasonics, 40(2002) P. 621
[2] J. M. Richardson ; Int. J. Eng. Sci., 17(1979) P. 73
[3] K. Nakahata, H. Sugahara, M. Barth, B. Köhler and F. Schubert ; Ultrasonics, Doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2015.12.013
[4] I. Asriana and K. Nakahata ; Proc. MINDTCE15, (2015)