EFG and XFEM Cohesive Fracture Analysis

EFG and XFEM Cohesive Fracture Analysis

Methods in LS
Methods in LS
-
-
DYNA
DYNA
Yong Guo*, Cheng-Tang Wu
Livermore Software Technology Corporation
LS-DYNA Seminar
Stuttgart, Germany
November 24, 2010
LS-DYNA Seminar
2
1. Overview on Failure/Crack Simulations
2. EFG and XFEM Cohesive Fracture
Methods
3. Numerical Examples
4. Conclusions
Outline
Outline
LS-DYNA Seminar
3
1. Overview on Failure/Crack
1. Overview on Failure/Crack
Simulations
Simulations
Tie-break Interface
Force/stress-based failure + spring element, rigid rods, or other constraints
Suitable for delamination, debonding, known weak areas
Element Erosion
Stress/strain-based failure + contact force
Loss of conservation, strong mesh dependence and inadequate accuracy
Cohesive Interface Element
Cohesive zone model + interface element + contact force
Crack along interfaces: Mesh dependence
EFG
Cohesive zone model + moving least-square + EFG visibility
XFEM
Cohesive zone model + level sets + extended finite element
LS-DYNA Seminar
4
2. EFG and XFEM Cohesive Failure
2. EFG and XFEM Cohesive Failure
Methods
Methods
EFG and XFEM Failure Analysis
Both are discrete approaches (strong discontinuity).
Crack initiation and propagation are governed by cohesive law
(Energy release rate).
Crack propagates cell-by-cell in current implementation.
EFG is defined by visibility; XFEM is defined by Level Set.
Minimized mesh sensitivity and orientation effects in cracks.
Applied to quasibrittle materials and some ductile materials.
EFG for Solid with 4-noded integration cells.
XFEM for 2D plain strain and shells.
LS-DYNA Seminar
5
2.1 EFG Cohesive Failure Method 2.1 EFG Cohesive Failure Method
+

0
( ) X
Meshfree Method: MLS + Visibility Criterion (Belytschko et al. 1996)
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ,h W
,h W

I J
T
J
J
I I
T
I
I
I
I
h
X X X P X P X A
X X X P X A X P
u X X u
=
=
=

=
1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

J J
J
J
J
J
FEM
I
I
I
J J
J J J J I
I
FEM
I

|
|

\
|

|
|

\
|
+ + =


+
+
=
=
X
X
X
u
X
X
u X
x
u X u X X x
0 0
0 0
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Mid-plane fracture surface
The domain of influence of particles on one side of the crack cannot go
through the crack surface and the particles on one side of the crack cannot
interact with the particles on other side of the crack
Moving Least Square
Visibility Criterion Intrinsic (implicit) crack: no additional unknowns
LS-DYNA Seminar
6
Minimization of Mesh Size Effect Minimization of Mesh Size Effect
in Mode in Mode- -I Failure Test I Failure Test
Coarse elements Fine elements
Failure is
limited in this
area
01 . 0 = =
cr
D 005 . 0 = =
cr
D
T
n
D=0.01
D=0.005
LS-DYNA Seminar
7
IDIM EQ. 1: Local boundary condition method
EQ. 2: Two-points Guass integration (default)
EQ.-1: Stabilized EFG method (applied to 8-noded, 6-noded and combination of them)
EQ.-2: Fractured EFG method (applied to 4-noded & SMP only)
Variable DX DY DZ ISPLINE IDILA IEBT IDIM TOLDEF
Type F F F I I I I F
Default 1.01 1.01 1.01 0 0 -1 2 0.01
Card 2
Variable IGL STIME IKEN SF CMID IBR DS ECUT
Type I F I F I I F F
Default 0 1.e+20 0 0.0 1 1.01 0.1
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
5, 41
1.1, 1.1, 1.1, , ,4, -2,
, , , , 100, 1, 2.0, 0.2
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH
100,1.0e-07, ,1, 330.0, 0.0001,
Card 3
Input Format for EFG Failure Analysis
*SECTION_SOLID_EFG
SF: Failure strain
CMID: Cohesive material ID
IBR: Branching indicator
DS: Normalized support for displacement jump
ECUT: Minimum edge cut
LS-DYNA Seminar
8
2.2 XFEM Cohesive Failure Method 2.2 XFEM Cohesive Failure Method
Extended FEM: Level Set + Local PU (Belytschko et al. 2000)
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | |
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) | |

=
+ =

=
tip crack contain
element cut fully
I
* FEM
I
I
FEM
I
I
I
w I
I I
I
FEM
I
h
f H f H
f H f H

X X
X X
X
q X u X u
1
*

0 = f
Level Set
Discontinuity defined by two implicit functions:
) ( and ) ( X X g f
( ) | | X X n X X X
X
=


sign f min ) (
0 0 > =

) , ( and ) ( if t g f X X X
0
Signed distance function
Discontinuity
Local Partition of Unity
Define implicit functions locally

=
I
I I
N f f ) ( ) ( X X
n propagatio crack e elementwis for index by replaced ) , ( t g X
LS-DYNA Seminar
9
- Song, Areias and Belytschko (2006)
Approximation of crack in element
( ) ( ) | | { }

+ =
I
I I I I
h
f H f H t t N t ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , ( X X q u X X u
Phantom Nodes and Phantom Elements Phantom Nodes and Phantom Elements
Rewrite into superposition of two phantom elements
( ) ( )


+ =
2 2 1 1
2 1
S I
t
I I
S I
t
I I
h
f H N t f H N t t ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , (
) , ( ) , (
X X u X X u X u
X u X u
43 42 1 43 42 1
where

>
< +
=

>
<
=
0
0
0
0
2
1
) ( if
) ( if
) ( if
) ( if
I I
I I I
I
I I I
I I
I
f
f
f
f
X u
X q u
u
X q u
X u
u
0 < ) (x f
0 > ) (x f
1
1
2
2
3 3
0 = ) (x f
0 > ) (x f
0 < ) (x f
1 2
3 4 4
4
1
2
=
+
Real node
Phantom node
LS-DYNA Seminar
10
Easier in implementation
Domain Integration Schemes Domain Integration Schemes
Integration in phantom elements and assembly according to area ratios
| |
| |

= =
+ =
+ =
=
=
e
c
2
e
c
1
e
t
e
2
2
e
t
e
1
1
e
1
1
1
e
1
1
e
c
c coh
e
e
c
c coh
e
e
t
e e ext
e
e
t
e e ext
e
e e (e int
e (e
e (e
e e (e kin
e (e
d d
d f H d
A
A
d f H d
A
A
d
A
A
d
A
A
, 0 , 0
, 0 0
, 0 0
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
, 0 0 , 0 0
, 0
0
0 0
0
, 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
) /
) /
) / 0 0
0
) /
) /

) (
) (
n N f n N f
X t N b N f
X t N b N f
P B f
u N N f
T T
T T
T T
T
T

& &
0 < ) (x f
0 > ) (x f
1
1
2
2
3 3 4
4
1
2
1
e
2
e
- Song, Areias and Belytschko (2006) Phantom Element Integration
Sub-domain integration
Integration conducted in two sub-domains cut by cracks
More accurate results
Difficulties in implementation: Varied integration schemes,
Different data structure, Transfer of state variables
LS-DYNA Seminar
11
Variable CMID IOPBASE IDIM INITC
Type I I I I
Default 13,16 0 1
*SECTION_SHELL
5, 53
0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1
100, 16, 0, 1
*MAT_COHESIVE_TH
100,1.0e-07, ,1, 330.0, 0.0001,
Card 3
Input Format for XFEM Failure Analysis
*SECTION_SHELL{_XFEM}
Variable SECID ELFORM SHRF NIP PROPT QR/IRID ICOMP SETYP
Type I I F I F F I I
Card 1
ELFORM EQ. 52: Plane strain (x-y plane) XFEM
EQ. 54: Shell XFEM
CMID: Cohesive material ID
IOPBASE: Base element type
Type 13 for plain strain XFEM
Type 16 for shell XFEM
IDIM: Domain integration method
0 for phantom element integration
1 for subdomain integration
INITC: Criterion for crack initiation
1 for maximum tensile stress
LS-DYNA Seminar
12
Crack is consisted of mathematical crack (cohesive zone) and
physical crack.
Cohesive zone crack initiates when maximum stress reached.
Physical crack occurs when critical COD reached.
Cohesive work = critical energy release rate
Constitutive cohesive law relates the traction forces to
displacement jumps through a potential:
( )

q
T

=
,
2.3 Cohesive Fracture Model 2.3 Cohesive Fracture Model
Different Cohesive Laws
Displacement jumps can have various components
due to different crack modes.
LS-DYNA Seminar
13
Constitutive Cohesive Law Constitutive Cohesive Law
max

T M T T T T
t t t n efs

|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
Equivalent fracture stress
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1 |
|

\
|


+
|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

=
max

t
t
t
t
n
n
u u u
Effective displacement jump
Initially Rigid Cohesive Law
0
1
1

max
T T
max

max
max
1
max 2
2
2
2
2
max 1
1
1
1
1
max

1
1
1
1
T M
T
u
u
T
T
u
u
T
T
u
u
T
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
n
n
n
n

|
|

\
|

=


=
|
|

\
|
=

=
|
|

\
|
=

=
|
|

\
|
=

=
Tractions
max

, ,

=
|
|

\
|

=
|
|

\
|

=
n
t
n
t
n
2
2
2
2 2
1
2
1 1
n c I
c III
c I
c II
n c I
t
G
G
G
G
T G

= = = =
6 2
1
2 1
max
max

, , ,
- Zavattieri (2001, 2005)
( )
max max max
max
if , 0
, max


> = =
=
LS-DYNA Seminar
14
2.4 Computation Procedures 2.4 Computation Procedures
1. Representation of Cracks
2. Cohesive Law
Crack initiation/propagation
3. Branching/Multiple cracks
4. State Variables Transfer
5. Numerical Integration
( )
| | | |
c
c coh
t
ext
kin
coh ext kin
d W
d d W
d W
d W
u X u W W W W
c
t
=
+ =

=
=
+ =

u
t u b u
P
X
u
u u

0 0
0 0
0
int
0 0
0
int
0
0
0
0
:
& &

=
+ =
=
=
+ =
e
t
e
t
e
e
e
e
t
c e coh
e
e
t
e e e ext
e
e e int
e
e e kin
e
coh ext kin
d
d f H d f H
d f H
d f H
, 0
, 0 0
0
0
, 0 0
, 0 0 0
0
0 0
int
) 1 (
)) ( ) 1 (( )) ( ) 1 ((
)) ( ) 1 ((
)) ( ) 1 ((
n N f
X t N X b N f
X B f
u X N N f
f f f f
T
T T
T
T

& &
Cohesive tractions treated as external forces
LS-DYNA Seminar
15
7
5
m
m
2
5
m
m
1
0
0
m
m
100mm
50mm
1
0
0
m
m
0
v
x
y
m/s 5 . 16
m 10 245 . 5 , N/m 10 213 . 1
30 0 , GPa 190 , kg/m 8000
0
5
max
4
3
=
= =
= = =

v


Ic
G
. E
3.1 Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation 3.1 Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation
LS-DYNA Seminar
16
EFG 3D
Maximum Principle Stress Contour
XFEM Plain Strain
Failure Indicator
Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation Kalthoff Plate Crack Propagation
o
0 . 69
o
0 . 70
Average Crack Angle: Average Crack Angle:
Average Crack Angle from Experiment:
o
5 . 62
LS-DYNA Seminar
17
3.2 EFG 3D Edge 3.2 EFG 3D Edge- -cracked Plate cracked Plate
under Three under Three- -point Bending point Bending
101 x 31 x 6 nodes
Elastic
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
front
back
Resultant Displacement Contour
Failure Contour
d
LS-DYNA Seminar
18
3.3 Rigid Ball Impact on EFG 3.3 Rigid Ball Impact on EFG
Concrete Plate Concrete Plate
Progressive Crack Propagation
Elastic
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
Time-velocity of the rigid ball
LS-DYNA Seminar
19
3.4 Steel Ball Impact on Steel Plate 3.4 Steel Ball Impact on Steel Plate
image01
Elastic_plastic
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
LS-DYNA Seminar
20
Time-velocity of the metal ball
Steel Ball Impact on Steel Plate Steel Ball Impact on Steel Plate
LS-DYNA Seminar
21
3.5 EFG Glass under Impact 3.5 EFG Glass under Impact
101 x 101 x 4 nodes
Elastic + Rubber
EFG Fracture
Linear Cohesive Law
Explicit analysis
front
back
Failure Contour
LS-DYNA Seminar
22
Rigid ball Metal ball
3.5 EFG Glass under Impact 3.5 EFG Glass under Impact
LS-DYNA Seminar
23
3.6 Thin Cylinder Pulling 3.6 Thin Cylinder Pulling
m/s 5
mm 5 mm, 200 mm, 50
MPa 200 , k 500
MPa 200 100 3 0 , 70 , 7830
3
=
= = =
= =
+ = = = =
v
h L R
T G
. E
Ic
p
y
max
N/m
) ( , GPa kg/m
1860 elements
C
l
a
m
p
e
d

e
d
g
e
v
Rigid diaphragms
Pre-crack
LS-DYNA Seminar
24
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
EFG and XFEM cohesive failure methods are successfully
applied to brittle and semi-brittle materials.
EFG failure analysis with visibility criterion is more robust and
capable of handling crack branching and interaction.
XFEM cohesive failure analysis is more suitable for crack
analysis with pre-cracks and without crack branching or interaction.
Further research is needed for ductile fracture analysis.