Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-018-1442-8

TECHNICAL PAPER

Surface crack growth prediction under fatigue load using probabilistic

S‑version finite element model
M. R. M. Akramin1 · A. K. Ariffin2 · Masanori Kikuchi3 · M. Beer4 · M. S. Shaari1 · M. N. M. Husnain1

Received: 11 October 2017 / Accepted: 3 October 2018 / Published online: 15 October 2018
© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to recognize the probabilistic distribution of crack growth and stress intensity factor for surface
crack. A model with surface crack is subjected to arbitrary constant-amplitude loads. The model is analysed using probabilis-
tic S-version finite element model (ProbS-FEM). In order to decide the probabilistic distribution, Latin hypercube sampling
is embedded with ProbS-FEM. Simulation model is compared with experimental specimens. The specimens are prepared
and investigated for fatigue testing. Good agreement between predictions, experiments, and previous numerical solutions
shows that the developed approach can serve for a realistic reliability analysis of three-dimensional engineering structures.

Keywords S-version finite element model · Crack growth · Surface crack · Stress intensity factors

List of symbols FL Force for local region

a Initial crack depth Fmax Maximum stress during loading cycle
a∕c Aspect ratio Fmin Minimum stress during loading cycle
b Length of specimen GTotal Total energy release rate
BG Deformation matrix for global GI,II,III Energy release rate for modes I, II, and III
BL Deformation matrix for local h Width of specimen
c Initial crack length I Node number around the crack tip
C Paris coefficient c K Stiffness matrix
CI Constant of VCCM KIC Critical stress intensity factor
D Material properties matrix KGG Stiffness matrix for global region
da Crack growth increment KLL Stiffness matrix for local region
damax Maximum crack growth increment KGL Stiffness matrix for overlay region
da∕dN Crack growth rate KI,II,III Stress intensity factor for modes I, II, and III
E Modulus of elasticity n Fatigue power parameter
E[] Mean operator h Nodal force
f Body force PIi Failure probability
FG Force for global region r Radius of crack growth
R Radius of crack front
S1J Area after crack front
Technical Editor: Paulo de Tarso Rocha de Mendonça, Ph.D.
S2J Area before crack front
* M. R. M. Akramin t Thickness of specimen
md_akramin@yahoo.com u Displacement function
1 uG Displacement function for global
Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan, Pahang, Malaysia
uL Displacement function for local
2
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43650 Bangi, Selangor, Var[] Variance operator
Malaysia
wJ Width of element parallel to the crack front
3
Tokyo University of Science, 2641 Yamazaki, Noda, vIi Nodal displacement between the upper and lower
Chiba 278‑8510, Japan
crack surfaces
4
Institute for Computer Science in Civil Engineering, Leibniz vi Crack opening displacement at the crack surface
University Hannover, Hannover, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
522 Page 2 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522
v Poisson’s ratio
𝛥 Width of the element in the radial direction
ΔKth Threshold value
ΔKeq Equivalent stress intensity factor
ΔKeqmax Maximum equivalent stress intensity factor
𝛺L Local mesh region
𝛺G Global mesh region
ε Strain
𝜀L Strain for local region
𝜀G Strain for global region
𝜃 Surface crack angle
𝜑0 Crack growth angle
σ Stress
𝜎3i Cohesive stress at the local axis x3
𝛤 Boundary condition
𝛤 GL Boundary condition at overlay region
𝜇 Shear modulus
1 Introduction
Crack growth has received a great deal of attention from
researchers. One noticeable finding was that of crack shape
development, which was first studied by Newman and Raju
[29]. One of the assumptions made was that an initial semi-
elliptical surface crack maintains its shape until fracture,
with an increment of cracking that is based on the Paris’s
law [5, 7, 8, 14]. Numerous studies have investigated the
evolution of crack shape through the alternative current field
measurement technique for various aspect ratios, and the
stress intensity factor (SIF) of corner cracks and round bars.
Crack shape growth rate has a tendency to slow at the free
surface; and hence, the usage of a semi-elliptical crack shape
during the simulation process allows it to evolve in a way
that is close to reality. Crack shape evolution was found to
be independent of the semi-elliptical shape; and researchers
gradually started to discover why. Investigations started at
the free and deepest surfaces of the crack’s shape, due to
variations of crack shape. The discovery of the plasticity-
induced crack closure phenomenon subsequently opened a
new chapter in crack shape development. Many researchers
studied the effects of crack closure behaviour; since it is
capable of decelerating crack growth rate at the free surface
[1, 10, 25, 34, 35]. The plasticity-induced crack closure phe-
nomenon has been used to explain fatigue crack phenomena,
such as the mean stress effect, crack growth retardation, and
anomalous growth behaviour [5, 7, 8, 14].
Due to this phenomenon, the numerical simulation of
surfaces cracks is complex, and fewer investigations focus
on three-dimensional models due to the complexity of the
computation required [6]. In order to model the problem in
a timely and cost-effective way, many types of finite ele-
ment models were introduced such as X-FEM [16, 39, 44]
13
and finite element alternating method (FEAM) [37, 38]. The
X-FEM and FEAM simulate crack growth with utilizing sin-
gular functions. It is used to capture the crack tip stress field
via rebuilding the finite element model. In this research, a
less demanding analysis is targeted to consider large scale
problems. Thus, S-version finite element model (S-FEM)
is selected as a basis, which does not involve rebuilding the
finite element model.
The S-FEM was established by combining h- and p-meth-
ods. The hp-method was introduced by Fish [13]. The hp
procedures show an improvement for polynomial order and
mesh refinement. The hp procedures were implemented in
S-FEM. Despite S-FEM was applied to various problems,
such as corrosion cracking [22], the crack closure effect [18],
heat-affected zone material [20, 21], and surface crack [23];
however, the efficiency of S-FEM still needs to be improved,
especially when dealing with uncertainties in computation
model. The uncertainties in loadings, material and unex-
pected environment are essential to model in an analysis.
Since few reports state that the characteristic of crack growth
shows a substantial amount of scatter [9, 36]. The effects of
uncertainties are highlighted when dealing with fatigue load-
ing [11, 40, 41]. Thus, probabilistic approach is essential for
predicting the results from random input parameters.
The most general and quite powerful probabilistic
approach of assessing parameter randomness is the Monte
Carlo simulation, and further developments thereof. A sig-
nificant number of powerful sampling techniques are avail-
able [4]. Hence, we employ Latin hypercube sampling as
a numerically efficient simulation technique, to improve
numerical feasibility. Latin hypercube is efficient at esti-
mating mean values and standard deviations in a structural
analysis, and is even more efficient than the standard Monte
Carlo simulation [31].
In view of crack growth, the characterization of the ran-
dom load behaviour is of particular interest [17, 19, 23, 24]
because it is one of the most critical parameters that influ-
ence failure probability. However, most previous papers
reported on the developments of deterministic constant-
amplitude loading. Only a few developments focused on a
statistical analysis of random loading [42, 43] in this context.
One drawback of these current approaches is that the ran-
domness of individual load cycles is neglected. Instead, the
entire load spectrum is modelled as a function. (A random
constant-amplitude loading has not been investigated yet.)
Furthermore, most existing data from the literature do not
characterize crack growth; and hence, it is only of a lim-
ited value to solve the problem at hand. Therefore, Akramin
et al. [3] investigate the SIF calculation for single and mul-
tiple surface cracks. Yet, the crack growth for single sur-
face crack is not presented in Akramin et al. [3]. Then, the
surface crack growth prediction is expected to be presented
in this paper. Since the sampling method in probabilistic
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522
S-FEM (ProbS-FEM) was developed in Akramin et al. [2],
the current development is focusing on the details of surface
crack growth using the developed sampling method. There-
fore, experimental investigations under deterministic con-
stant-amplitude loading, and numerical simulations under
deterministic and random constant-amplitude loadings, are
performed in this current study. Our aim is to provide com-
prehensive datasets for the formulation of crack growth and
SIF distributions.
This paper presents the development of ProbS-FEM for
surface cracking fatigue analysis. The aim of this paper is set
on the benefit of implementing uncertainty quantification in
fatigue analysis. The objective of the present investigation is
to evaluate the growth of surface cracks under bending and
tension cyclic loads, while considering parameter uncertain-
ties. At the same time, SIF at crack front is presented in this
paper. The development of ProbS-FEM is presented here as
a new method to predict the range of SIF and crack shape
development. Latin hypercube sampling is embedded with
ProbS-FEM for sampling strategy. Then, the ProbS-FEM’s
results are compared with experimental data and presented
in this research paper.
2 Methods
Two different topics will be discussed in this section, which
are S-FEM concept and the implementation of the proba-
bilistic concept in S-FEM. Figure 1 shows the surface crack
model with a , crack depth, and c , crack length. The sur-
face crack model is selected due to frequent occurrences
in engineering application such as on aircraft wings [15],
petrochemical storage tanks [26], helicopter longerons [28],
and rectangular cross-section component [12]. The surface
crack is introduced at the centre of the model. The model is
evaluated by tension and bending loading. The experimental
data are presented to validate the accuracy of the bending
model. The tension model is compared with existing results
from literatures.
Fig. 1  Geometry of the model
and axis identification
2h
a
2c
t
Page 3 of 14 522
Aluminium 7075-T6 was selected for the experimen-
tation purpose due to its application in aircraft indus-
tries. The aircraft was used for the last 40 years. The
reassessment for the ageing aircraft is essential for the
safety issue. The chemical composition of this material
includes Zn (5.6 wt%), Mg (2.5 wt%), Cu (1.6 wt%), and
Cr (0.3 wt%). Specimens were prepared in a Long Traverse
(LT) direction.
Figure 2 shows a specimen of 160 × 60 × 20 mm was
prepared and underwent fatigue testing until its fracture.
A notch, with 0.2 mm diameter, was introduced using an
electric wire cut machine. Then, the specimen is subjected
to a four-point bending fatigue test, with stress ratios of 0.1
and 0.8. Stress ratio 0.8 was used to produce bench marks,
while stress ratio 0.1 was used for crack front growth. The
tests were conducted on a 100-kN-capacity MTS servo
hydraulic machine, operated in load control mode. The
tests were carried out at a frequency of 20 Hz. The mean
load was 24.75 kN, and maximum load was 45 kN. The
crack shape aspect ratio a∕c was 0.7. The same parameters
for experimental specimen and setup were modelled in
ProbS-FEM. Table 1 shows the parameter details, for the
bending test and the model.
Three models of surface crack under uniform tension
were validated using a numerical solution by Newman and
Raju [29]. Tension model A and B were constructed with
ratios of a∕b = 0.1, c∕h = 0.1, and a∕t = 0.2 . The crack
shape aspect ratio, a∕c , was 0.4 for the model A and 1.0 for
the model B. Tension model C was set up with a∕b = 0.1,
c∕h = 0.1, a∕t = 0.2, and a∕c = 1.0. Load magnitudes were
the same for the models A and B, but different for the ten-
sion model C (see Table 2). Since a generation of a random
parameter was applied to represent a constant-amplitude
loading with specific mean and standard deviation as is
shown in Table 2, the load was named as random constant-
amplitude loading. That is due to the random process of
selection before the load was computed for finite element
analysis.
2b Angle
Crack
φ depth, a
Crack length, 2c
y
13
522 Page 4 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

Fig. 2  Experiment process

Start

Initial
surface-crack

Specimen

Stress Stress Stress

Fmax Ratio 0.1 Ratio 0.8 Ratio 0.1

Beach mark
Fmin Four-point bending test
Cycle

Surface-crack plane Surface-crack growth

Initial
surface-crack

Specimen
fractured

Beach mark

End

Table 1  Bending experimental and model setup Table 2  Classification of tension model

Bending Crack shape Load Fre- Crack shape aspect ratio, a/c Load
aspect ratio, a/c quency
Maxi- Stress ratio (Hz) Mean (MPa) SD (MPa)
mum
(kN) 1.0 201 20.1

Experiment 0.7 45 0.1 20

Experiment – 45 0.8 20 global and local area. Mesh was generated for both areas. A
(Beach
mark)
coarser mesh was generated for the global area, and a denser
Model 0.7 45 0.1 –
mesh was used for the local area. The crack tip was consid-
ered during the generation of local mesh, 𝛺L . The global
mesh, 𝛺G , was generated for the whole area. Then, the
local mesh was overlaid onto the global mesh. The bound-
2.1 S‑version finite element model (S‑FEM) ary of each area was represented as 𝛤 . The boundary of
constrained displacement, 𝛤 u, and the boundary of force, 𝛤 t ,
Figure 3 demonstrates the concept of S-FEM execution in were applied at the global area. The overlay boundary (local
crack surface analysis. There were two areas, which were area on global area) is represented as 𝛤 G−L . The overlay

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522 Page 5 of 14 522

Fig. 3  Concept of S-FEM f

Local Mesh
ΩL

Γt

ΩG ΩG : Global area
ΩL : Local area
ΓL
Displacement function
uG(x) in ΩG
Global Mesh uL(x) in ΩL

Γu

Local Mesh
L
Ω
Γt

Crack ΩG

ΓGL

Global Mesh

u
Γ

[ ]{ } { }
boundary was analysed to calculate the displacement of each KGG KGL uG FG
node. Displacement in the overlaid area was calculated from KLG KLL uL
=
FL (4)
the global and local meshes, as follows:
{ G where
u (x) x ∈ 𝛺G − 𝛺L
u(x) =
uG (x) + uL (x) x ∈ 𝛺L (1)
∫
[ ] [ ]T [ ]
KGG = BG [D] BG d𝛺G
Meanwhile, the summation of strain for the overlaid area was 𝛺G
calculated as follows:
∫
[ ] [ ]T [ ]
KGL = BG [D] BL d𝛺L
𝜀(x) = 𝜀G (x) + 𝜀G (x) (2) 𝛺L
The stress and strain relationship was well suited with virtual
∫
[ ] [ ]T [ ]
KLG = BL [D] BG d𝛺L
work equation as follows:
𝛺L

∫𝛺 ∫𝛤 ∫
{ G }T { G } G−L { G }T [ ] [ ]T [ ]
𝛿𝜀 [D] 𝜀 d𝛺 − 𝛿u {f }d𝛤 GL KLL = BL [D] BL d𝛺L .
({ ) ({ } { }) 𝛺L

∫𝛺
}
G T
{ }T
+ 𝛿𝜀 + 𝛿𝜀L [D] 𝜀G + 𝜀L d𝛺L (3)
({ { }T )
∫𝛤
}T
− 𝛿uG + 𝛿uL {f }d𝛤 L = 0
[ ]
The [B] is the displacement–strain matrix, and K GL
matrix
{ represents
} { the
} stiffness matrix of the overlaid area.
where 𝛺G−L represents the non-overlay area. In matrix form, The FL and FG are the nodal force at local and global
the equation for S-FEM is:

13
522 Page 6 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

area, respectively. By computing Eq. (4), the displacement near to the crack front, as shown in Fig. 5a. VCCM results
of each node can be calculated for both global and local were computed using the following equation:
meshes. Since the global mesh was not affected by the
5
changing size of local mesh, a re-meshing process can be 1 ∑ I I I
generated for the local area alone. A re-meshing process
GTotal = C vi Pi (6)
2ΔwJ I=1
was required for fatigue crack growth model. Figure 4
shows the combination of local and global meshes with where I refers to the number of the nodes around the crack
boundary condition. The local mesh’s size was expanded tip (as is shown in Fig. 5a). PIi is the nodal force, and the
based on crack growth for every iteration. Once the crack
growth was occurred then the energy release rate, G was
calculated for the new size of local mesh.
From the calculation of energy release rate, the SIF is Applied
obtained as follows: Stress
√ √ √
KI = EGI , KII = EGII , KIII = 2𝜇GIII (5)
where E is the Young’s modulus of elasticity under the plane
stress condition. Meanwhile, for the plane strain condition,
the modulus of elasticity is divided by 1 − v2 where the v is
Poisson’s ratio. Since the failure occurred in the region of PI=1
the linear elastic fracture mechanic, the energy release rate ν 1 2
P
Relative P3
was used in the crack growth simulation. displacement ν2
ν5 P4
The energy release rate was determined via the virtual ν3 P5 Nodal
ν4 Force
crack closure method (VCCM) [30]. The VCCM technique
was then extended to synchronize with the probabilistic
analysis. The VCCM considered the opening displacement

C ron
ra t
F
ck
Load Local
area Applied
Stress

(a)
Constraint

(a)
B’’

Load
B’

r c’’
B
c’ A’’
Local
area c A’
A
θ)
R(
Constraint

Crack
Front
O
(b) (b)

Fig. 4  Global mesh with boundary condition and overlaid local mesh Fig. 5  a Virtual crack closure method for local mesh with curved
in wireframe view: a four-point bending, b tension model crack front and b arrangement of crack front plane

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522 Page 7 of 14 522

opening displacement at the five nodes at the front edge of da ( )n

= C ΔKeq (14)
the crack front was shown by vIi . The width of the element dN
parallel to the crack front is represented by wJ . 𝛥 is the width
where N and da are the number of cycles and crack growth
of the element in the radial direction. The constant CI is
increment, respectively. C and n coefficients are material
expressed as:
constants. The crack length is expressed as:
wJ wJ ( )n
C1 = C2 = , C3 = 1, C4 = C5 =
wJ+1+ wJ + wJ wJ−1 da = C ΔKeq × dN (15)
(7)
The ΔKeq is the equivalent SIF. It is a parameter that associ-
Figure 5b shows the crack plane with a certain condition for
ated with the fatigue crack growth rate under mixed-mode
VCCM implementation. The lines A–A′–A″ and B–B′–B″
conditions. The equivalent SIF ΔKeq is expressed by:
are both straight lines that meet at the point O. The seg-
ments c–c′ and c′–c″ represent the width of the element in ΔKI 1
√
( )2 ( )2
the radial direction. Both segments have the same length ΔKeq = + ΔKI2 + 4 1.155ΔKII + 4 ΔKIII
2 2
which is indicated by 𝛥. (16)
The segments were introduced in order to define the dis- Furthermore, the crack growth angle, 𝜑0 , is influenced by
placements and stresses. The areas of element before, S2J , and the value of KI , KII and KIII. Based on Richard et al. [33], the
after, S1J , crack front are expressed as: crack growth angle can be calculated as follows:
𝜃2 𝛥 𝜃2 (
[ ( )2 ]
) |K | |K |
𝛥2 | II | | II |

∫ ∫ ∫
◦ ◦
𝜑0 = ∓ 140 − 70
S1J = (R + r)drd𝜃 = ΔR + d𝜃 (8) KI + ||KII || + ||KIII || KI + ||KII || + ||KIII ||
2
(17)
where 𝜑0 < 0 for KII > 0 and 𝜑0 > 0 for KII < 0 and KI ≥ 0.
𝜃1 0 𝜃1
◦ ◦

Figure 6 shows the crack growth angle, 𝜑0.

𝜃2 𝛥 𝜃2 ( )
𝛥2
∫ ∫ ∫
S2J = (R − 𝛥 + r)drd𝜃 = ΔR + d𝜃 (9) 2.2 Probabilistic S‑version finite element model
2
𝜃1 0 𝜃1 (ProbS‑FEM)

The energy release rate, implemented by Okada et al. [30], The ProbS-FEM that was developed in this study consisted
is employed in this study. The equations are shown below: of an uncertainty analysis of the complex mathemati-
cal models of failure. If each of the random parameters is
K12
)] ∫ 𝜎33 (r)v3 (𝛥 − r)dS1
1 J
GI = = [ (
E J 1 J J
2 S1 − 4 S1 − S2 SJ
1

(10)

)] ∫ 𝜎31 (r)v1 (𝛥 − r)dS1

1 J
GII = [
J 1( J J (11)
2 S1 − 4 S1 − S2 SJ
1

)] ∫ 𝜎32 (r)v2 (𝛥 − r)dS1

1 J
GIII = [
J 1 ( J J (12)
2 S1 − 4 S1 − S2 SJ
1

Crack
)] ∫ 𝜎3i (r)vi (𝛥 − r)dS1
1 J
GTotal = [ Crack
1( J (13)
J J
2 S1 − 4 S1 − S2 SJ Front
1

where vi is the crack opening displacement at the crack face

and 𝜎3i is the cohesive stress at the local axis x3. Then, the
energy release rate can be converted to the ΔKeq via Eq. (5).
The crack growth rate is expressed by the Paris’s law equa-
tion [32] as follows: Fig. 6  Crack growth direction

13
522 Page 8 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

characterized by a probability density function (PDF), then
a joint PDF, fx(X), is produced. Since the evaluation of joint
PDF is difficult, therefore the Monte Carlo and Latin hyper-
cube sampling are used in the ProbS-FEM. Crude Monte
Carlo analysis was used only as a benchmark in this paper.
The concentration is on the implementation of Latin hyper-
cube sampling and a quality assessment of the results, by
comparing them to crude Monte Carlo results.
Table 3 shows the random variables for the aluminium
7075-T6 model. The different type of distribution was used
for different variables. For instance, fatigue power param-
eter, n, was computed as deterministic to control the fatigue
crack growth acceleration. Since critical SIF, KIC, and tensile
strength were criterion value, both variables were computed
as deterministic. Young’s modulus was assumed with a Log-
normal distribution, because the variable changed accord-
ingly in practice, due to a small coefficient of variation. The
Paris coefficient C of Al 7075-T6 was represented by a mean
of 6.54 × 10−13 and a standard deviation of 4.01 × 10−13. The
distribution was assumed to be lognormal based on [27].
The type of distribution for remaining variables was based
on [27].
Crack shape development was based on the comparison
between the value of calculated SIF and critical SIF. If the
calculated SIF was higher than critical SIF, then the new
crack shape will develop. The comparison of SIF process
was continued for every looping process. Each looping
process was generated new input parameters for the next
sample. Thus, after a number of samples were generated,
statistical results were produced to quantify the uncertainty
of crack development.
In order to produce the statistical results, Crude Monte
Carlo is often used to model every possibilities of mechani-
cal behaviour in numerical calculation. However, due to
its high numerical cost, Crude Monte Carlo is infeasible.
In order to facilitate statistical analysis for industry-sized
problems, Latin hypercube sampling was proposed to keep
the number of samples, and hence, the computing time, at a
manageable level.
The purpose of Latin Hypercube sampling was to reduce
number of samples and to cover the distribution of random
number as wider as possible. Reducing the number of sam-
ple will reduce the simulation time. The wider coverage of
the distribution was to consider samples in the tail region of
the distribution. Sample at the tail of distribution was often
contributes to the fatigue failure, which are important for the
reliability assessment.
Figure 7 shows a basic comparison between crude Monte
Carlo and Latin hypercube sampling. With the same sam-
ple size, Latin Hypercube sampling is able to cover a much
larger variable range than crude Monte Carlo alone. The
Latin Hypercube allows to generate small sample size with
the distance between samples maximized and the correlation
minimized. Attention was paid to covering the distributions
sufficiently wide, in order to not exclude variable values that
are critical for failure.
3 Results and discussion
In this section, the discussion are focus on uncertainty quan-
tification for the tension model and the bending model, SIF
calculation for the tension model, and finding the crack
growth distribution for the bending model. The tension
model focused on SIF calculation, because a numerical solu-
tion (by a previous researcher) already exists for validation
purposes. The bending model focused on crack growth, in
order to verify the calculation against the bending experi-
ment’s results.
A numerical calculation was performed using a sam-
ple size of 100 for both the bending model and the tension
model; both used aluminium 7075-T6 plate properties.
Each sample element was tested under stress ratio of 0.1.
The experimental setup and the bending model were simu-
lated with deterministic constant-amplitude loads of 45 kN.
For the tension model, the load was sampled as a random
constant-amplitude loading (as is shown in Table 2). This
allowed us to analyse the effect of random loads.

Table 3  Input distribution for Variable Distribution Mean SD

the model
Critical stress intensity factor, KIC Deterministic 29 MPa √m 0
Fatigue power parameter, n Deterministic 2.88 0
Tensile strength, yield Deterministic 691 MPa 0
Young’s modulus, E Lognormal 71.7 GPa 0.01
Paris coefficient, C Lognormal 6.54 × 10−13 4.01 × 10−13
Threshold value, ΔKth Lognormal 5.66 MPa √m 0.268
Maximum crack growth increment, damax Lognormal 1.3 mm 0.22
Initial crack length, c Lognormal 4.5 mm 0.05
Initial crack depth, a Lognormal 3.5 mm 0.05

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522 Page 9 of 14 522

1 1

Cumulative distribution function,

7th Portion
Cumulative distribution function,

6th Portion

/
/

5th Portion

Random Number,
Random Number,

0.5 4th Portion

0.5
3rd Portion

2nd Portion

1st Portion
0 0

Probability density function

Probability density function

7th sample

Random Random
1st sample

5th sample
1st sample

4th sample

6th sample

7th sample
2nd sample
3rd sample
Coverage variable, X variable, X
range

Coverage range

(a) (b)

Fig. 7  Comparison between a Monte Carlo and b Latin hypercube sampling method

The uncertain input data were generated according to SIF of 29 MPa √m was not exceeded by the deterministic
its distribution with a given mean and standard deviation results; that pretends a safe structure, since an unstable crack
(as is shown in Table 3). Cumulative distribution functions growth will not occur for an SIF below this critical value.
(CDFs) and the associated histograms for the sampled data However, this only reflects the mean behaviour. The con-
are plotted in Fig. 8. fidence bounds exceed the critical SIF clearly, which indi-
cates a significant probability for unstable crack growth and,
3.1 Tension model hence, fracture of the material and structural component. A
quantitative result for the structural safety was obtained with
In order to validate the ProbS-FEM program, SIF curves the probability of failure estimated from the sampled data.
were compared with a numerical solution by Newman and Figure 10 shows a histogram of the SIF at 2𝜙∕𝜋 = 0 for
Raju [29] for tension model. Details of the model are sum- tension model C. The maximum and minimum stresses were
marized in Table 2. The random variables were generated 31.65 and 22.32 MPa √m, respectively. The mean value was
based on Table 3. 26.99 MPa √m. The maximum and minimum deviations
The proposed ProbS-FEM approach revealed an impor- from the mean were 4.66% and 4.67%, respectively. Even
tant issue when the random constant-amplitude load was though the range between minimum and maximum was only
considered, with an increased mean of 201 MPa and a stand- approximately 9% of the mean, this does not appear as a
ard deviation of 20.1 MPa as shown in Fig. 9. The critical major uncertainty, and the failure probability was estimated

13
522 Page 10 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

Fig. 8  Data input distribution Frequency CDF Frequency CDF

25 1.00 25 1.00

20 0.80 20 0.80

Frequency

Frequency
15 0.60 15 0.60

CDF

CDF
10 0.40 10 0.40
5 0.20 5 0.20
0 0.00
0 0.00

71.679
71.684
71.688
71.693
71.697
71.702
71.707
71.711
71.716
71.720
71.725

5.08
5.21
5.34
5.46
5.59
5.72
5.85
5.98
6.11
6.24
6.37
Young's modulus, E Threshold value, Kth

Frequency CDF Frequency CDF

40 1.00 20 1.00

30 0.80 0.80
Frequency

15

Frequency
0.60

CDF
20 0.60

CDF
0.40 10
10 0.40
0.20
5
0.20
0 0.00
1.41E-13
3.31E-13
5.21E-13
7.11E-13
9.02E-13
1.09E-12
1.28E-12
1.47E-12
1.66E-12
1.85E-12
2.04E-12
0 0.00

0.91

1.12
1.23
1.34
1.45
1.56
1.67

1.89
1.02

1.78

2.00
Paris coefficient, C Maximum crack growth increment, da

Frequency CDF Frequency CDF

20 1.00 20 1.00

0.80 0.80
15 15
Frequency

Frequency

0.60 0.60
CDF

CDF
10 10
0.40 0.40
5 5
0.20 0.20

0 0.00 0 0.00
4.40
4.42
4.45
4.47
4.49
4.52
4.54

4.61
4.64

3.41
3.44
3.46
3.48
3.51
3.53
3.55

3.60
3.62
4.57
4.59

3.39

Initial crack length, c 3.58 Initial crack depth, a

35 Frequency KIC
30 12
25 10
20
Newman-Raju 8
Frequency

15
Det. S-FEM
6
10 Mean
5 95% Bounds 4
KIC
0 2
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
22.32
23.42
24.51
25.61
26.70
27.79
28.89
29.98
31.08
32.17
33.27

Fig. 9  SIFs along crack front in a tension model C

KI [MPa·√m]

as a quite significant Pf = 0.24 . This result demonstrates

Fig. 10  Histogram of SIFs at 2ϕ/π = 0 for tension model C
the importance of a probabilistic analysis, in the context of

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522 Page 11 of 14 522

fatigue problems, to avoid structural failure and potentially
harmful consequences. Hence, an implementation of a prob-
abilistic design is advisable for practical cases.
3.2 Bending model
The bending model is used to predict the crack growth. The
analysis demonstrates the flexibility in applying the devel-
oped approach with respect to different models. A specific
feature of the bending model is the deceleration effect of
crack growth due to bending. The material properties were
simulated according to the specifications in Table 3. The
maximum load was 45 kN with stress ratio 0.1.
Figure 11 shows the simulation results for surface crack
growth, compared with experimental results. A notch
introduced during the early stages of the experimental pro-
cess, for the initiation of crack growth, is indicated. After
a deterministic constant-amplitude loading was applied to
the specimen, pre-cracking was observed (as is illustrated
in the plot). The approximate pre-cracking area is shown in
the graph. Crack growth started after pre-cracking. Crack
growth was observed using a microscope linked to software,
in order to produce coordinates of each point on the crack
front.
In the numerical simulation with ProbS-FEM, the bound-
ary conditions were defined the same as in the experiment,
and the four-point bending process was analysed. The size
of the pre-cracking area was modelled in a local mesh. Crack
growth rate was calculated based on Eq. (14). Then, based
on Eq. (15), the crack length was extracted via the equivalent
SIF that was calculated in Eq. (16).
The variability in crack growth (due to the randomness
of uncertain parameters) is shown in Fig. 11. These results
cover all possible options for crack growth. The histograms
for both crack depth and crack length increment are plotted
in this illustration. Range for the crack depth increment was

Fig. 11  Crack growth on Frequency CDF

surface crack with distribu- 25 1.00
tion of crack length and depth
increment 20 0.80
Frequency

15 0.60

CDF
10 0.40
5 0.20
0 0.00
0.009
0.023
0.037
0.050
0.064
0.077
0.091
0.104
0.118
0.131
0.145
Crack depth increment at Y

Y Bound
4 Experiment Mean
y-axis

2 Pre-cracking
Notch

0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Z' x-axis on surface crack Z

Frequency CDF Frequency CDF

30 1.00 25 1.00
25 0.80 20 0.80
20
Frequency

Frequency

0.60 15 0.60
CDF

CDF

15
0.40 10 0.40
10
5 0.20 5 0.20
0 0.00 0 0.00
0.151
0.270
0.390
0.509
0.628
0.748
0.867
0.987
1.106
1.225
1.345

0.216
0.315
0.413
0.511
0.610
0.708
0.807
0.905
1.003
1.102
1.200

Crack length increment at Z' Crack length increment at Z

13
522 Page 12 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522

[0.009, 0.145] mm. The ranges for the crack length incre- fit as a Gaussian distribution as is shown in Table 4. There-
ment at point Z′ and Z were [0.151, 1.345] mm and [0.216, fore, the ECDF (in this case is Gaussian CDF) was a step
1.200] mm, respectively. Crack length and crack depth incre- function that has a step of one over total samples at each
ment samples show a skewness and kurtosis near to zero. of the observed data points (as is plotted in Fig. 12). The
This motivated an approximation of the histograms with ECDF was an estimate of the true CDF. In order to compare
a Gaussian distribution. The mean and standard deviation the ECDF with CDF of crack length or depth increment,
of the crack length and depth increment are presented in the CDF from Fig. 11 is redrawn in Fig. 12 and labelled as
Table 4. ProbS-FEM. The CDF of crack length and depth increment
The empirical cumulative distribution functions (ECDFs) was generated from ProbS-FEM simulation.
are shown in Fig. 12 (also see Table 4 for their estimated A K–S test was performed to assess the suitability of the
parameters). The ECDF was calculated based on the cor- Gaussian models for the crack growth at points Y, Z and Z′.
responding stepwise CDF of the observed ordered samples. Table 4 shows the maximum differences between the ECDFs
The ECDF is like an ideal CDF line for the assumed distri- and the estimated Gaussian distributions, as a basis for the
bution. For instance, crack depth increment was assumed to K–S test. The largest rejection probability found was 0.1360
for point Y, Z and Z′. Figure 12 shows that the estimated
Gaussian distributions were in good agreement with the
Table 4  Statistical data of crack growth distribution ECDFs. Furthermore, 95% confidence bounds, based on the
ECDFs (as plotted in Fig. 12), covers the estimated Gaussian
Point Mean (mm) SD (mm) Assumed type Maximum
of distribution difference, CDFs completely. These results support the Gaussian model
Dn for both crack length and crack depth increment. The type
of model is useful for the maintaining process if the crack
Y 0.090 0.025 Gaussian 0.0632
length is below the threshold of an inspection limit. Since
Z 0.750 0.200 Gaussian 0.0460
the crack growth shows an amount of scatter, it is impera-
Z′ 0.790 0.220 Gaussian 0.0505
tive to treat the residual life from a probabilistic viewpoint.

Fig. 12  K–S test for crack depth 1.0

and length increment ProbS-FEM
ECDF
Cumulative probability

0.8
Bounds

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.01 0.06 0.11
Crack depth increment at Y

1.0 1.0
ProbS-FEM ProbS-FEM
ECDF ECDF
Cumulative probability

Cumulative probability

0.8 Bounds 0.8

Bounds

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.15 0.65 1.15 0.22 0.72
Crack length increment at B' Crack length increment at B

13
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522
The sampling results were used for a reliability assess-
ment, with unstable crack growth as a failure criterion. This
criterion was verified by comparing the calculated SIFs
against the critical SIF (as discussed earlier). The probabil-
ity of failure was obtained as Pf = 0.17 using Latin hyper-
cube sampling with a sample size of 200. This result was
verified with crude Monte Carlo and a sample size of 1000.
For problems with smaller failure probabilities, the gain in
computational efficiency, using Latin hypercube sampling,
can be expected to be much higher. However, crude Monte
Carlo is sufficient for the current example. The uniform dis-
tribution of the hypercubes over the sample space led to hits
of the failure domain, even for a relatively small sample
size, and hence to high-quality estimates of Pf with moder-
ately small samples. Latin hypercube sampling also avoids
redundant samples in a hypercube. Herein, we use Latin
hypercube sampling exclusively to demonstrate its appli-
cability in association with our proposed approach. While
crude MCS is sufficient for the example shown herein, Latin
hypercube sampling becomes relevant when applying the
proposed approach to problems with a higher demand for
the stochastic simulation.
The computational cost is also affected by the curse of
dimensionality, due to an exponential increase in the number
of hypercubes with the number of random input parameters.
To address this issue, it is advisable to perform an initial sen-
sitivity analysis, in order to reduce the random input to only
those parameters that are significant. However, since only six
random parameters were involved, this was not necessary in
the present example.
4 Conclusion
A fatigue problem was analysed under two types of loadings,
which are deterministic and random constant amplitude. The
random crack growth and reliability of the structural com-
ponent were explored in this paper. A ProbS-FEM method
was developed based on a Latin hypercube concept and
applied into the fatigue analysis framework. The distribu-
tion of SIFs for tension and bending models was evaluated.
The SIF results were found to be in good agreement with the
benchmarks reference results.
Furthermore, distributions were estimated for both crack
length and depth, for which a Gaussian distribution was
found to be a suitable model. It is essential to validate the
distribution type of crack growth since it is useful to decide
the maintaining priority. Although the example problem was
chosen to be quite simple for demonstration purposes, the
method is applicable for more complex structures, especially
when the SIF is close to the critical SIF.
Failure probability was calculated using Latin hyper-
cube sampling and verified with crude Monte Carlo. Even
Page 13 of 14 522
though the failure probability in the example was high, the
efficiency gain using Latin hypercube sampling was obvious.
In ProbS-FEM, the Latin hypercube allows to generate small
sample size with minimum distance between points maxi-
mized. The Latin hypercube would be helpful where failure
probability is smaller, but for the current example, crude
Monte Carlo is sufficient. The focus of the paper is set on
the added value of implementing uncertainty quantification
in fatigue analysis. Further research is needed to investigate
more complex practical problems using advanced concepts
of uncertainty quantification.
Overall, the presented development shows the signifi-
cance of uncertainties in fatigue analyses and highlights
the need for considering uncertainties in respective reli-
ability analyses. However, aside from some difficulties that
may arise in determining the standard deviation of random
parameters, the method is applicable to model any arbitrary
value. Thus, ProbS-FEM is proved useful in engineering
analysis.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by RDU170383 from
Universiti Malaysia Pahang and Fundamental Research Grant Scheme
(FRGS/1/2017/TK03/UMP/02/24) from Kementerian Pendidikan
Malaysia with Number RDU170124.
References
1. Aguilarespinosa AA, Fellows NA, Durodola JF (2013) Experi-
mental measurement of crack opening and closure loads for 6082-
T6 aluminium subjected to periodic single and block overloads
and underloads. Int J Fatigue 47:71–82
2. Akramin MRM, Ariffin AK, Kikuchi M, Abdullah S (2017) Sam-
pling method in probabilistic S-version finite element analysis for
initial flaw size. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39:357–365
3. Akramin MRM, Shaari MS, Ariffin AK, Kikuchi M, Abdullah
S (2015) Surface crack analysis under cyclic loads using proba-
bilistic S-version finite element model. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng
37:1851–1865
4. Beer M, Liebscher M (2008) Designing robust structures—a non-
linear simulation based approach. Comput Struct 86:1102–1122
5. Brighenti R, Carpinteri A (2013) Surface cracks in fatigued
structural components: a review. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct
36:1209–1222
6. Cao Z, Liu Y (2012) A new numerical modelling for evaluating
the stress intensity factors in 3-D fracture analysis. Struct Eng
Mech 43:321–336
7. Carpinteri A (1993) Shape change of surface cracks in round bars
under cyclic axial loading. Int J Fatigue 15:21–26
8. Carpinteri A, Ronchei C, Vantadori S (2013) Stress intensity fac-
tors and fatigue growth of surface cracks in notched shells and
round bars: two decades of research work. Fatigue Fract Eng
Mater Struct 36:1164–1177
9. Choi S, Grandhi RV, Canfield RA (2007) Reliability-based struc-
tural design, 1st edn. Springer, London
10. De Matos PFP, Nowell D (2009) Experimental and numerical
investigation of thickness effects in plasticity-induced fatigue
crack closure. Int J Fatigue 31:1795–1804
11. Duquesnay DL, Underhill PR (2010) Fatigue life scatter in 7xxx
Series aluminum alloys. Int J Fatigue 32:398–402
13
522 Page 14 of 14 Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering (2018) 40:522
12. Faszynka S, Lewandowsk J, Rozumek D (2016) Numerical analy-
sis of stress and strain in specimens with rectangular cross-section
subjected to torsion and bending with torsion. Acta Mech Autom
10:5–11
13. Fish J (1992) The S-version of the finite element method. Comput
Struct 43:539–547
14. Hou C-Y (2011) Simulation of surface crack shape evolution using
the finite element technique and considering the crack closure
Effects. Int J Fatigue 33:719–726
15. Iyyer N, Sarkar S, Merrill R, Phan N (2007) Aircraft life man-
agement using crack initiation and crack growth models—P-3c
Aircraft experience. Int J Fatigue 29:1584–1607
16. Jamal-Omidi M, Falah M, Taherifar D (2014) 3-D fracture analy-
sis of cracked aluminum plates repaired with single and double
composite patches using XFEM. Struct Eng Mech 50:525–539
17. Kikuchi M, Maitireymu M, Sano H (2010) Study on fatigue crack
growth criterion 1st report, Paris’ law of a surface crack under
pure mode I loading. Nihon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, A Hen/
Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng Part A 76:516–522
18. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Maitireyimu M, Sano H (2010) Closure
effect on interaction of two surface cracks under cyclic bending.
In: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels
and Piping Division. Bellevue, Washington, USA, July 18–22,
2010
19. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Ohdama C (2010) Effect of ­Kiii on fatigue
crack growth behavior. In: American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, Pressure Vessels and Piping Division. Bellevue, Washing-
ton, USA, July 18–22, 2010
20. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Shimizu Y, Li Y (2012) Crack growth analy-
sis in a weld-heat-affected zone using S-Version FEM. Int J Press
Vessels Pip 90–91:2–8
21. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Shimizu Y, Yulong L (2010) Crack growth
analysis in weld-heat affected zone using S-version FEM. In:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure Vessels and
Piping Division. Bellevue, Washington, USA, July 18–22, 2010
22. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Shmizu Y, Li Y (2011) Stress corrosion
cracking analysis under thermal residual stress field using S-FEM.
Key Eng Mater 462–463:431–436
23. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Suga K (2011) Surface crack growth simu-
lation under mixed mode cyclic loading condition. Proc Eng
10:427–432
24. Kikuchi M, Wada Y, Suga K, Ohdama C (2010) Effect of K ­ iii
on fatigue crack growth behavior (factory roof and fatigue crack
growth rate). Nihon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, A Hen/Trans Jpn
Soc Mech Eng Part A 76:1674–1680
25. Kim C-Y, Choi J-M, Song J-H (2013) Fatigue crack growth and
closure behavior under random loadings in 7475-T7351 aluminum
alloy. Int J Fatigue 47:196–204
26. Kim J-S, An D-H, Lee S-Y, Lee B-Y (2009) A failure analysis of
fillet joint cracking in an oil storage tank. J Loss Prev Process Ind
22:845–849
13
27. Liu Y, Mahadevan S (2009) Probabilistic fatigue life prediction
using an equivalent initial flaw size distribution. Int J Fatigue
31:476–487
28. Newman JA, Baughman JM, Wallace TA (2010) Investigation of
cracks found in helicopter longerons. Eng Fail Anal 17:416–430
29. Newman JC Jr, Raju IS (1981) An empirical stress-intensity factor
equation for the surface crack. Eng Fract Mech 15:185–192
30. Okada H, Higashi M, Kikuchi M, Fukui Y, Kumazawa N (2005)
Three dimensional virtual crack closure-integral method (VCCM)
with skewed and non-symmetric mesh arrangement at the crack
front. Eng Fract Mech 72:1717–1737
31. Olsson A, Sandberg G, Dahlblom O (2003) On Latin hypercube
sampling for structural reliability analysis. Struct Saf 25:47–68
32. Paris P, Erdogan F (1960) A critical analysis of crack propagation
laws. J Basic Eng 85:528–534
33. Richard HA, Fulland M, Sander M (2005) Theoretical crack path
prediction. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 28:3–12
34. Savaidis G, Savaidis A, Zerres P, Vormwald M (2010) Mode I
fatigue crack growth at notches considering crack closure. Int J
Fatigue 32:1543–1558
35. Song PS, Shieh YL (2004) Crack growth and closure behaviour
of surface cracks. Int J Fatigue 26:429–436
36. Stephens RI, Fatemi A, Stephens RR, Fuchs HO (2001) Metal
fatigue in engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
37. Thomas SB, Mhaiskar MJ, Sethuraman R (2000) Stress intensity
factors for circular hole and inclusion using finite element alter-
nating method. Theoret Appl Fract Mech 33:73–81
38. Tian L, Dong L, Bhavanam S, Phan N, Atluri SN (2014) Mixed-
mode fracture & non-planar fatigue analyses of cracked I-beams,
using a 3D SGBEM-FEM alternating method. Theoret Appl Fract
Mech 74:188–199
39. Tran V-X, Geniaut S (2012) Development and industrial applica-
tions of X-FEM axisymmetric model for fracture mechanics. Eng
Fract Mech 82:135–157
40. Underhill PR, Duquesnay DL (2008) The effect of dynamic
loading on the fatigue scatter factor for Al 7050. Int J Fatigue
30:614–622
41. Underhill PR, Duquesnay DL (2009) Effect of small cycles and
load spectrum truncation on the fatigue life scatter in 7050 Al
alloy. Int J Fatigue 31:538–543
42. Virkler DA, Hillberry BM, Goel PK (1979) The static nature
of fatigue crack propagation. ASME J Eng Mater Technol
101:148–153
43. Wu WF, Ni CC (2007) Statistical aspects of some fatigue crack
growth data. Eng Fract Mech 74:2952–2963
44. Zhuang Z, Liu Z, Cheng B, Liao J (2014) Chapter 4—fundamental
concept and formula of X-Fem. In: Zhuang Z, Cheng ZL, Liao J
(eds) Extended finite element method. Academic Press, Oxford,
pp 51–73