INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING, VOL.

26,2739-2753 (1988)

O N THE COMPUTATION OF TWO-DIMENSIONAL

STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS USING THE BOUNDARY
ELEMENT METHOD

Z. H. JIA AND D. J. SHIPPY

Department of Engineering Mechanics, Uniuersity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506, U.S.A.

F. J. RIZZO
Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
General two-dimensional linear elastic fracture problems are investigated using the boundary element
method. The displacement and 1/& traction behaviour near a crack tip are incorporated in special
crack elements. Stress intensity factors of both modes I and I1 are obtained directly from crack-tip nodal
values for a variety of crack problems, including straight and curved cracks in finite and infinite bodies. A
multidomain approach is adopted to treat cracks in an infinite body. The body is subdivided into two
regions: an infinite part with a finite hole and a finite inclusion. Numerical results, compared with exact
solution whenever possible, are accurate even with a coarse discretization.

INTRODUCTION
The determination of the stress intensity factors (SIF’s) for a crack, straight or curved, in a two-
dimensional linear elastic body has been an important and interesting topic for investigation in
both theoretical and numerical stress analysis. Various theoretical techniques, exact or approxi-
mate, produced accurate solutions to certain idealized problems. They are, however, less
successful in handling problems with arbitrary geometries and loading conditions. Among the
numerical techniques, the finite element method (FEM) and the boundary element method (BEM)
(or the boundary integral equation (BIE) method as it is sometimes called) are the two most
powerful ones used extensively in fracture analysis. Henshell and Shawl and Barsourn’ are among
the early researchers who solved crack problems using the FEM. Cruse3 is probably the first to
carry out fracture mechanics analysis using the BEM. His study was later improved by Blandford
et aL4 They used a multidomain approach to treat a straight crack in an elastic body. Using the
quarter-point element and the transition element to model the crack-tip stress-displacement
behaviour, they were able to obtain some SIF solutions with satisfactory accuracy. Since the
traction value tends to infinity and the displacement goes to zero at the crack tip, no information
there was utilized to calculate the SIF. Blandford et al. and most other investigators used crack
surface displacements to compute the SIF indirectly. They made use of analytical expressions
relating the SIF and displacement to calculate approximations of the SIF at nodes adjacent to the
crack tip and then extrapolated to the crack tip to get the results. This procedure, in our point of
view, suffers from two major drawbacks. First, since the analytical expressions used to relate the
SIF and displacement are valid only in a small vicinity of a crack tip, very fine discretization is
needed to produce reliable results. Second, the SIF results are likely to be element-size sensitive; in
other words a slight change of mesh design at the crack would cause a relatively larger change of
0029-598 1/88/122739-15$07.50 Received 20 January 1988
0 1988 by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 April 1988
2710 Z. H. JIA, D. J. SHIPPY A N D F. J. RIZZO

the results. Hence experience with mesh arrangement is essential to obtain the best possible
numerical solutions. More recently, Martinez and Dominguez’ prese’nted a different method of
computing the SIF using the quarter-point boundary elements. They realized that the SIF‘s are
directly related to the crack-tip nodal values of traction if the l/J traction variation is correctly
modelled and were able to obtain the SIF of mode I from crack-tip nodal values for a few
geometrically symmetric problems. The accuracy of their results was better and less dependent on
crack element length when compared with those of Blandford et aZ. in Reference 4. Based on this
procedure, Dominguez and Chirino6 later solved wave scattering problems involving a straight
crack in an unbounded domain and gave results for the SIF.
In this paper, we discuss an improved strategy to attack a wide variety of crack problems.
Instead of using the quarter-point crack elements employed by most previous investigators, we
developed a set of crack elements based on the ordinary mid-point elements. The shape functions
for geometries, displacements and tractions on the crack elements constitute three different sets.
The derivation of those shape functions is discussed in this paper, and it is shown that bothfi and
1/& variations of displacements and tractions are correctly represented by the shape functions.
One major advantage of the BEM over domain-type numerical methods is its capability of
dealing with problems of infinite domains quite naturally. By virtue of this feature, we are able to
successfully carry out analyses involving cracked infinite bodies and compare our numerical
results for the SIF with the exact ones available in the literature.
The SIF‘s of both mode I and I1 are computed using Martinez and Dominguez’s direct-
evaluation approach proposed in Reference 5. This method is shown to be valid for straight and
curved cracks. Furthermore, this idea is being applied to three-dimensional problems by the
present authors. Such problems will be considered in forthcoming papers.

FORMULATION O F CRACK SHAPE FUNCTIONS

The direct boundary integral equation (BIE) governing a two-dimensional elasticity problem for a
region B with boundary r(Figure 1) is written as7

uj(Q)Tij(P, Q)ds = (1)

Figure 1. A two-dimensional elastic body

 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2741

where uj and ti are displacement and traction boundary values, respectively; U i j and Tij are
fundamental solutions for displacement and traction in an infinite elastic body; the free-term
coefficient cii depends on the local boundary goemetry at point P ; integration is performed over
the entire boundary r; both point P and Q are boundary points, sometimes referred to as the
source point and the collocation point, respectively.
To solve the BIE (1) numerically, the boundary r is discretized into a series of elements, over
each of which a polynomial variation of geometry, displacements and tractions is assumed. This
type of element is described as isoparametric and was originaliy created for use in the finite
element method.*
In a typical three-node line element (Figure 2), a quadratic variation is assumed, and the
geometry, displacement and traction are represented over each element as

3
ti(<)= 1 Na(t)r:
a= 1
(2c)

in which a is the local node number, 5 is an intrinsic co-ordinate and the W ( t )are shape functions
given as (see e.g. Reference 4)
" ( 5 ) = 4t(t - 1) (34
N2(t)= 1 - t2 (3b)
N 3 ( t ) =4t(t + 1) (34
The expressions (2) are applicable to many engineering problems, including those of elasticity.
As long as the elements are sufficiently small, most boundary variations can be represented
reasonably well. Unfortunately, ordinary polynomials as in (3) are inadequate whenever a
singularity occurs. This is especially true in fracture mechanics.
The theory of linear elastic fracture mechanics has shown that in a small vicinity of a crack tip,
the displacements ui and tractions t i are expressible as (see e.g. Reference 9)
ui(r,e) = A : ( e ) + A : ( e ) & + A , q o ) r + ... (4)

L-----
Figure 2. A three-noded line element
XI
2742 Z. H. JIA, D. J. SHIPPY AND F. J. RlZZO

and
ti(l, e)= B!(o) + B?(8)+ B?(O)J; + . . .
~
(5)
J;
where the A ; , Br are functions only of 8, the polar angle from the crack at its tip, and r is the polar
distance of a field point from the crack tip (see Figure 3).
We have developed special shape functions to model the displacements and the tractions near a
crack tip as follows. The construction of the displacement shape functions is staightforward, and
they are expressible in terms of the intrinsic co-ordinate t (assuming node 1 is at the crack tip) as

This set of shape functions has the following desired properties:

X ( t p ) = hap, a, B = 1, 2, 3 (7)
and

where t pis the value of 5 at local node /?,and d,, is the well-known Kronecker delta.
Traction shape functions are obtained by dividing each of NA and NZ by and by
dividing N : by JT1+5)/2:

It is noticed here that the properties in (7) and (8) are only partially applicable for NP. The reason is
that, because the traction value at the crack tip (node 1) is infinite, it is impossible to recover that

Figure 3. Polar co-ordinates at a crack tip

 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2743

value explicitly by using shape function interpolation. Therefore we have

N:(tl)= lim N : = co
<+-I

At nodes 2 and 3, however, (7) still applies.

The formulation of singular traction shape functions is by no means unique. For instance, we
could divide through all three shape functions (3) by to generate a l/m term. Since
the most prominent behaviour of crack-tip traction is expressible with this leading term, there are
no apparent reasons, conceptually at least, against the use of shape functions so obtained. In fact,
we considered four different sets of singular traction shape functions and made a choice based
upon numerical experiments. Those listed in (9) were the most effective in the computation of the
SIF.

REMOVAL OF SINGULARITIES IN BIE

In a conventional BIE formulation without any singular field variables, the only singularities
occurring in the integrals are in the kernel functions Uij and T,, which in two-dimensional
elasticity are given as (see e.g. Reference 7)

uij(P,Q) =
8np(l- v*)
1
+
1
(3 - 4 v * ) l 0 g - 6 ~ ~r.ir,j
r

where r is the distance between points P and Q; n is the unit outer normal; p is shear modulus; v*
+
equals v, the Poisson ratio in the case of plane strain, and v* equals v/(l v) for plane stress.
The introduction of the singular traction shape functions (9) gives rise to higher-order
singularities in the integrals involving unknown tractions. These singularities, nevertheless, are
removable with the help of elementary changes of variables.
Consider first, for example, the term on the right-hand side of (1):

Irtj(Q)Uij(p, Q)ds (12)

and substitute the expressions (2) with the appropriate special shape functions.
For simplicity, attention is focused on a singular element with 5 ranging from - 1 to 1. Without
loss of generality, the crack tip is located at local node 1 (Figure 4). Having transformed all
quantities involved from the original x1-x2 space into the mapped 5 space, we can write the
integral as
1
C N : C O +~ ~~ : ( t ) a ;+ ~:(t)ai31uij(p, Q ) J ( O ~ C (13)

I 2 3

: [=-I 0 I

Figure 4. A crack element

2744 Z. H.JIA. D. J. SHIPPY AND F. I. RlZZO

where a; is the jth component of the traction value at local node a except for a = 1; aj’ is a value
(r)
directly related to the magnitude of the stress intensity factor; J is the Jacobian of co-ordinate
transformation.
Consider the integral involving N : , split the integration interval into halves [ - 1,0] and [0, 13,
and look at the first half of the interval. It can be seen that for P at node 1

It is clear that the integrand log(1 +<)/m < is singular at = - 1, yet the integral itself exists
in the ordinary sense. In fact, we may use a simple change of variable to eliminate the singularity.
Letting 5 = y4 - 1 in the left-hand side of (14), we have

which is non-singular everywhere on the subinterval [ - 1,Ol.

For the case with P at node 2, we have

r <
Singularities occur at both = - 1 and = 0. A different manipulation is used here to remove the
singularities. Letting t = - sin2y in ( I 6) leads to
O logsin’y
(- 2siny cosy)dy

which has a non-singular integrand.

After the singularities have been eliminated, ordinary Legendre-Gauss quadrature is used in the
y space to evaluate the integrals.

COMPUTATION OF STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS

Although displacement and traction are the two primary field variables in a BEM elasticity
analysis, it is meaningless to evaluate tractions at a crack tip. In fact, most of the effort spent on a
linear elastic fracture problem goes into the determination of the stress intensity factors (SIF’s).
Two different approaches have been adopted by most researchers to evaluate the SIF
numerically. These may be referred to as the displacement approach and the traction approach.
Using simple algebraic expressions relating displacements and stresses to the SIF, the obtained
boundary values of displacements or tractions near a crack tip are employed to get approxima-
tions of the SIF. Of the two approaches, the displacement approach has produced more accurate
results (see e.g. References 4 and 10).
We might regard the approaches mentioned in the previous paragraph as indirect methods of
SIF evaluation. By contrast, a different way of calculating the SIF, presented in Reference 5, could
be viewed as a direct method. The essential ingredients of this direct method are singular shape
functions for tractions. The adoption of such shape functions makes it possible to express the
tractions over a crack element as
t i ( [ ) = N:(()uj’ + N:(5)a; + N:(<)aS (18)
 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2745

where N: are defined in (9).

Nodal traction values for nodes 2 and 3 may be obtained by letting ( = 0 and 5 = 1, respectively,
tf = t i(o) = u; (19)
t j = ti( 1) = a; (20)
<
When = - 1, however, nodal tractions are recovered. Instead, the nodal values a; can be
shown to be directly related to the SIF of modes I and 11, respectively, in the following formulae:

K,,= a: f i
where 1 is the crack element length in the physical space.
A few comments should be made here. Although the above direct method for evaluating the SIF
was proposed by Martinez and Dominguez’ in 1984, a similar treatment of singularities was also
suggested by Rezayat et al.” at about the same time. In the latter paper, the authors developed
shape functions to represent an rs singularity and explained the significance of the nodal values at
the singular point.
The above approach can be easily applied to three-dimensionalcases, where the SIF‘s of modes
I, 11 and I11 are directly related to the nodal values at the crack front.

A CRACK IN AN INFINITE BODY

Some crack problems involving infinite bodies are more conveniently treated analytically than
numerically. This is partly due to the simplicity of the associated boundary conditions. In
addition, modelling for a problem involving an infinite domain numerically may not be an easy
task. Fortunately, the BEM works particularly well for such problems.
One BEM approach to the solution of such problems is that taken by Dominguez and Chirino6
for problems involving a straight crack. Their method consists of bisecting the unbounded body
with an infinite straight line along the crack and then analysing one half of the body. They
discretized a truncation of the line of bisection extending a sufficientlylarge distance on both sides
of the crack. They presented results for the scattering of harmonic waves, which reduce to the static
case at zero frequency.
Our approach, in which the infinite body is subdivided in a different way, is applicable to cracks
of arbitrary shape and involves no truncation of discretization. Consider an infinite body
containing a crack of arbitrary shape and subjected to a uniform remote load of some kind. A
partially imaginary closed contour may be defined which divides the cracked body into two
subregions (Figure 5), such that each crack face forms part of a subregion boundary.
Define subregions as follows:
Region I-a finite body with known tractions on part of its boundary, namely on the crack face;
Region 11-an infinite body with a hole having known tractions on part of its boundary
(another crack face).
Both tractions and displacements are unknowns over the common boundary (dashed line),
since this is not a real boundary.
The boundary integral equations for regions I and I1 are identical except for sign changes in the
Tiikernel and slight differencesin the cij(P)term. Therefore, the coefficient matrix for either I or I1
is sufficient to construct the matrix for the entire problem.
2146 Z. H. JIA. D. J. SHlPPY A N D F. J. RlZZO

“2

l t t l t
c

Figure 5. Cracked infinite body and subregion dividing strategy

Using a conventional interior formulation, we may write the matrix form of the BIE (1) for
region I as

Obviously this is an underdetermined system whose number of unknowns is more than the
number of equations (u; is unknown throughout the boundary, and t, is unknown over the
common boundary). Since region I1 has essentially the same boundary geometry as that of region
I, its matrix may be constructed by taking advantage of (23). Thus, for region I1 the BIE is
expressible as

where A* is identical to A except for the diagonal terms, where the contribution of the boundary at
infinity has to be taken into consideration; and B is the same for both regions. Again this is an
underdetermined system for the same reason as for (23). Now use the continuity conditions over
the entire common boundary for both displacements and tractions:
UI = UII

Thus we can combine (23) and (24) into one system of equations,

where G is the overall matrix of coefficients of twice the order of matrices A and B;x is the vector of
unknowns consisting of displacements on the entire boundary and tractions on the common
boundary; f is a known vector containing crack-face tractions multiplied by the corresponding
coefficients from the B matrix. Ordinary Gaussian elimination may be used to solve the system of
linear algebraic equations.
In general, normal tractions could exist on the crack surface. For simplicity, however, we
consider only problems involving traction-free cracks. Since the loading is applied at infinity, a
direct representation of loading as part of the boundary conditions is out of the question. Instead,
a superposition strategy is used in which two different problems are solved. One is that of a
homogeneous, infinite body under uniform remote loading, to which the exact solution is known
(no singularities). The other is that of an infinite body containing a crack on which a known
 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2747

traction acts. A BEM analysis is performed to solve the second problem. Superposition of the two
solutions gives the solution sought. It should be pointed out that the stress intensity factors
obtained from the second analysis equals that of the original problems, since the contribution
from the non-singular case is zero.

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Five problems were studied using the approach described in this paper. The first two problems
were taken from those considered by Blandford et aL4 The same problems were also investigated
by Martinez and Dominguez in Reference 5. Specifically, these two problems involve a finite-
width plate having double edge cracks (see Figure 6) or a central crack (see Figure 7), in which the
value of a is 1.8 and the load stress no is taken to be unity. Approximate analytical solutions
accurate to 1 per cent have been given by Bowie'* as K , = 2.737 for edge cracks and K,= 2.830 for
a central crack.
Because of symmetry, the boundary of only one-fourth of the plate needs to be discretized. We
used identical nine-element meshes (Figure 8) for both problems. Here, 1 is the length of each of the
two elements containing the crack tip (referred to as crack elements).
It is desirable for computed values of K , to change very little as the ratio l/a changes. Therefore,
we carried out a series of numerical experiments to examine the sensitivity of K, to l/a ranging
from 005 to 0.9. Our computed values of K,are presented as the square symbols in Figures 9 and
10 in a relative error form, where A % = [K,(BEM) - K,(analyt.)]/K,(analyt.) in per cent. The
results of Reference 5 are presented as the triangles for comparison.
It can be seen from Figures 9 and 10 that both our results and those of Reference 5 agree well
with those of Reference 12 and are relatively insensitive to l / a over the range 0.2 to 0.8. However,

=0

-Domain of
Discretization

Figure 6. Plate with double edge cracks

2748 2.H. JIA, D. J . SHIPPY A N D F. J . RlZZO

"0

,Domain of
Discretization

Figure 7. Plate with a central crack

Figure 8. A 9element mesh

outside of this range, especially for very small I/a, noticeable deviations occur.
The deterioration of K , (mid-point element) for extreme values of the l/a ratio could be
attributed to the drastic change in adjacent element sizes which tends to cause error. To remedy
this for a small l/a ratio, we added one element on each side of the crack tip to make an 1 1-element
 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2749

0 Mid-Point ( 9 E l e m e n t s ; This P a p e r )

I
5 --a
a-'
Q
0

-5

~ I "

0 .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 7 .8 .9 I
J/a

Figure 9. K , for edge crack problem

0 Mid-Point ( 9 E l e m e n t s ; This P a p e r )

0 _I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 I

110

Figure 10. K , for central crack problem

mesh. Results for K ,by the use of such a mesh are plotted as the circles in Figure 9 and 10 for
l/a = 0.05, 0 1 and 0.2. As can be seen, the addition of elements considerably improves the
accuracy. Because there is still only one crack element on each side of the crack tip, our results
suggest that this is sufficient. In other words, a second crack element (or transition element),
representing certain singular behaviour, as discussed in References 4 and 5, is unnecessary. Note
that additional elements are not helpful for large l/a. Thus, it seems to be wise not to use an l / a
ratio larger than 0-6 for a crack discretization. It is noteworthy that the quarter-point, singular-
traction approach gives results which for this problem are less mesh-sensitive than the mid-point
approach. This single example, however, does not conclusively indicate which method is superior.
A more thorough study is required to reveal the relative advantages of the two approaches.
2750 2. H.JIA, D. J. SHIPPY AND F. J. RlZZO

The next problem considered is one of a slanted straight crack in an infinite body subjected to a
uniform remote tensile load (see Figure 1 1). In solving this problem, four values of the slant angle /?
are used: /? = 90°, 60°, 45" and 30"; crack length a and uniform stress noare again taken to be
unity. A 14-element mesh (Figure 12) is used for all four cases. Since only the crack surfaces are
loaded in the BEM solution, as mentioned in the foregoing section, different orientations of the
crack can be treated systematically by loading the crack surfaces properly without changing the
mesh.
Numerical results for K , and K,, are listed in Table I together with those from exact solutions,4
which are given as
K , = aoJ&sin2/? (27)

Figure 1 1 . Infinite body containing a slanted crack

Figure 12. 14-element mesh for slanted crack problem

Table I. SIF of a slanted crack

B (deg.) K , (BEM) K I (exa.) Error % K , , (BEM) K , (exa.) Error %

90 1.782 1.773 0.5 0.001 0.0 -

60 1.336 1.329 0.5 0.771 0,768 0.4
45 0.890 0.886 0-5 0.890 0,886 0.5
30 0445 0443 0.4 0.771 0,768 0.5
 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 275 1

It is seen that an accuracy of 0.5 per cent is obtained for all four cases.
The fourth problem is that of a circular-arc crack in an infinite body subjected to a uniform
remote biaxial tensile load (Figure 13). In the crack configuration, a is the radius of the arc, and a is
half of the arc angle. The values of a considered are a = go", 60" and 45". In each case a = oo = 1.
The total number of elements used for these solutions is 12; of those, four are on the crack. The
crack elements on the imaginary cut have to be straight and tangent to the crack surface because
formulae (21) and (22) are based upon this assumption. This requirement, however, does not put
any restriction on the nature of the problem. Better results could be expected if one or two more
straight elements are used collinearly adjacent to the crack elements.
Numerically obtained values of K,and K,, are listed in Table 11, and in the same table are the
exact solutions given byi3

An overall accuracy of better than 3.5 per cent is observed for all solutions, and generally the K,
results are better than those for K,,.Improved results can be achieved with a refined mesh,
especially on the curved crack surfaces. However, the purpose of demonstrating the capability of
our method is served well enough by the results shown in Table 11.
Finally, we consider a problem involving two straight cracks in an infinite body, as depicted in
Figure 14. The two cracks of equal length are symmetrically located in a uniform, remote, biaxial,

QO

t t t t t

1 1 1 1 1
Figure 13. Infinite body containing a circular crack

Table 11. SIF of a circular crack

a (deg.) K , (BEM) K , (exa.) Error % K,,(BEM) K,, (exa.) Error %

90 0.818 0836 - 2.2 0812 0-836 -2 8

60 1.141 1.143 -0.2 0.642 0-660 -2.1
45 1-190 1-201 - 1-0 0.48 1 0.498 - 3.4
2752 Z. H. JIA, D. J. SHIPPY AND F. J. RlZZO

tensile stress field; the distance between the centres of the cracks equals a constant, 22a; and the
angle 8 between the cracks may vary from 180"(collinear cracks) to 0" (parallel cracks). The two
closest crack tips are denoted by A and the other two by B. This problem was solved by Aksogan
in 1975.13His results for K,and K,,for a full range of 6 are presented graphically. We have used
values from his graphs, but only with limited accuracy.
In this study, we take a = 1, c1= c2 = 1, 8 = 180", go", 0". The total numbers of element for
these cases are 19, 20 and 22, respectively. Four elements are used on each crack. It should be
noted that the size of the mesh is arbitrarily chosen; we generally wish to make as big a cut as
possible, provided that it does not jeopardize the uniformity of the mesh configuration. That is to
say, the length ratio of adjacent elements should not be too far from unity.
Numerical values of K , and K,, for both crack tips A and B are shown in Tables III(a) and III(b),
where A % is defined in the same way as for the first two problems. It is seen that our K , results are
generally quite accurate, the percentage differences for all three angles 8 being within 2 per cent; in
contrast, the relative differences for K,, are somewhat large, especially for small absolute values of

Figure 14. Infinite body containing two cracks

Table IlI(a). Two-crack interaction (tip A)

6 (deg.) K , (BEM) K , anal.) A Yo KII(BEM) KII(anal.) AYa

- .. .-

180 2.671 2.623 1.8 0.005 0-OOO -

90 1.670 1.696 - 1.6 0-094 0.092 1.6

0 1.522 1.519 0.2 0.0960 Q103 -6.7

Table III(b). Two-crack interaction (tip B)

0 (deg.) K , (BEM) K , (anal.) A% K , , (BEM) K , , (anal.) A ?a'

180 2.018 1.982 1.8 0006 0-000 -

90 1.714 1.695 1.2 0,158 0165 - 4.0
0 1.522 1.519 02 0096 0.103 - 6.1
 TWO-DIMENSIONAL STRESS INTENSITY FACTORS 2753

K,,. Nevertheless, the absolute differences are no larger than their K, counterparts. Finer
discretizations as well as a bigger cut domain could, of course, be used to improve the accuracy.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

A direct evaluation of the SIF of both modes 1 and I1 using the BEM in two-dimensional linear
fracture mechanics has been made for a variety of problems. The strategy is based on the
employment of singular, mid-point, traction shape functions at crack tips. Accurate solutions were
obtained for the majority of the cases treated, even though relatively coarse discretizations were
utilized. Results obtained by the current method are satisfactorily insensitive to crack-element
size, but not as much so as the quarter-point method of Reference 5 for some cases. Further study
is required to reveal the differences between the two approaches in greater detail.
We have solved without much difficulty various problems involving infinite domains containing
either straight or curved cracks. In contrast, such problems are difficult to solve by certain other
numerical techniques. Extension of the current method to three dimensional analysis is under
investigation and will be the topic of later papers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We gratefully acknowledge support of this investigation by the Office of Naval Research under
Contract NOOO1486K-0551 and by the Kentucky EPSCoR Program under the Com-
putational Sciences Project.

REFERENCES
1 . R. D. Henshell and K. G. Shaw, 'Crack tip elements are unnecessary', In t. j . numer. methods ung., 9,495-507 (1975).
2. R.S. Barsoum. 'On the use of isoparametric finite elements in linear fracture mechanics', Int. j . numer. methods eny., 10,
25-37 (1976).
3. T.A. Cruse, 'Boundary-integral equation fracture mechanics analysis,' in T. A. Cruse and F. J. Rizzo (eds.),Boundary-
Integral Equation Method Computational Applications in Applied Mechanics. ASME Applied Mechanics Symposium
Series, AMD-Vol. 11, 1975, pp. 3148.
4. G. E. Blandford. A. R. Ingraflea and J. A. Liggett, 'Two-dimensional stress intensity factor computations using the
boundary element method, Int. j. numer. methods eng., 17, 387404 (1981).
5. 1. Martinez and J. Dominguez,'On the use of quarter-point boundary elements for stress intensity factor computation'.
fnt. j . numer. methods eng.. 20, 1941--1950(1984).
6. J. Dominguez and F. Chirino, 'BEM for dynamic crack problems in two dimensions', in J. J. Connor and C. A. Brebbia
(eds), Proceedings (fthe 2nd BE Technology C o & - m c r , Computational Mechanics Publications, BETECH, 1986.
7. F. J. Rizzo, 'An integral approach to boundary value problems of calssical elastostatics', Q. Appl. Math., 25, 83-95
(1 967).
8. 0.C. Zienkiewicz, The Finite Element Method, McGraw-Hill, London, 1977.
9. M. L. Williams, 'On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary stress', J . Appl. Mrch. A S M E , 24, 109-1 14 (1957).
10. C. L. Tan and R. T. Fenner, 'Elastic fracture mechanics analysis by the boundary integral equation method, Proc. R.
Soc. Lond., A369, 243-260 (1979).
t 1. M. Rezayat, F. J. Rizzo and D.J. Shippy, 'A unified boundary integral equation method for a class of second order
elliptic boundary value problems', J . Austral. Math. Soc., B25, 501-517 (1984).
12. 0. L. Bowie, 'Rectangular tensile sheet with symmetric edge cracks', J. Appl. Mech. A S M E , 31, 208-212 (1964).
13. C. C. Sih, Handhook of Stress Intensity Factors, Lehigh University, Bethleham, Penn., 1973.