Rock Engineering and Rock Mechanics: Structures in and on

Rock Masses Alejano, Perucho, Olalla & Jimnez (Eds)

2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, 978-1-138-00149-7

Dynamic fracture behavior of cubic and core specimens under impact load
G.H. Khandouzi, A. Mirmohamadlou & H. Memarian
Department of Mining Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT: Dynamic fracture plays a vital role in geotechnical problems. Limited attempts have been made
to measure dynamic parameters of straight notch cubic sample under impact. This is due to some difficulties
in preparation of samples and high accuracy needed for its testing. To solve these difficulties, its better to use
straight notch core specimen under impact. Explanation of dynamic crack propagation by numeric analyses
is limited. Among numeric methods, extended finite element method is an effective way to study dynamic
fracturing. This study used the X-FEM software (ABAQUS) to create a 3D model of dynamic crack propagation
of two samples; straight notch cubic and straight notch core specimen under impact load; then results obtained
from ABAQUS are compared. Present study showed that Dynamic toughness for core specimen is lower than
cubic specimen, Dynamic stress intensity factor for core specimen increases linearly but for cubic specimen is
oscillating before fracture initiation.

INTRODUCTION

Fracture mechanic has been suggested as possible

tool for solving a variety of rock engineering problems, such as rock cutting, hydro fracturing, explosive
fracturing and, rock stability and, based on the extension of Griffith theory and Irvins modification (Chen,
Pan & Amadei 1998). Concept of stress intensity
factor K (SIF) has been introduced by Irvin (Mohammadi 2008). Fracturing may take place under static
or dynamic condition. Earlier measurements of rock
fracture toughness followed the ASTM-E399 standard method. Because most rock are brittle, fatigue
pre-cracking required in ASTM standard has been
found to be very difficult to produce (Chen, Pan &
Amadei 1998). To solve rock fracture problems, The
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) recommended three suggested methods by core based
specimens; for determining static fracture parameters (Iqbal & Mohanty 2007). Dynamic fracture plays
a vital role in geotechnical applications frequently
encountered in various engineering problems; including blasting, protective design, rock burst, projectile
penetration and seismic events (Zho, Xia & Li et al.
2012, Chen, Xia & Dai et al. 2009, Dai, Xia &
Zeng et al. 2011). These processes are governed
by rock dynamic fracture parameters, such as fracture initiation toughness, fracture energy and fracture
velocity.
Thus fracture factors are important parameters of
materials in engineering applications. Due to different conditions on the dynamic failure, static fracture parameter couldnt use for dynamic phenomena.
(ISRM) suggested new method for measuring dynamic
fracture toughness, this method used the notch

semi-circular bend (NSCB) specimen under impact

load by Split Hopkinson Pressure bar (SHPB) (Zho,
Xia & Li et al. 2012).
Over the recent decades, numerical models have
gradually replaced with analytical solutions and physical models for rock engineering design (Backstrom,
Antikainen & Backer et al. 2008). Numerical modeling of crack propagation has been an active research
field since 1960s (Su, Yong & Liu 2010).
Today, there are many software packages for cracking process modeling. These software packages evaluate crack growth and fracture parameters by numerical
methods for complicate problem. Chen and Zhang
used finite element method (FEM) in 2004. They
suggested FEM (Chen & Zhang 2004).
Tang developed RFPA2D (rock failure process analysis code) for simulating non-linear behavior in
rock deformation in 1997 (Tang 1997). Chen, Pan
and Amadei have used new formulation of boundary element method (BEM) base on definition of
the J-integral for determining stress intensity factor (SIF) of anisotropic rock (Chen, Pan & Amadei
1998). Potyondy and Cundall proposed bondedparticle model to simulated fracture by means of
particle flaw cod (PFC) software (Potyondy & Cundall
2004). Hanson and Ingraffea (2003) used the sizeeffect, two-parameter, and fictitious crack models
to predict crack growth in materials like concrete
(Hanson & Ingraffea 2003). Reosler, Paulino, Park
and Gaedicke (2007) applied a finite element-based
cohesive zone model (CZM) by using bilinear softening (Reosler, Paulino & Park et al. 2007). Moes,
Dolbow and Belytschko in year 1999 presented a
new technique for modeling cracks in finite element framework; this technique allows the entire

149

crack to be representing independently of the mesh,

and so remeshing is not necessary to model crack
growth (Moes, Dolbow & Belytschko 1999). Stolarska, Chopp, Moes and Belytschko (2001) used level
set method (LSM) with the extended finite element
method (X-FEM) to model crack grow (Stolarska,
Chopp & Moes et al. 2001). In addition to above
mentioned, there are many other methods for cracking
process modeling like NMM and X-FEM.
Figure 1. Edge notch core specimen.

EXTENDED FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

(X-FEM)

Extended Finite Element Method (X-FEM) is a relatively new numerical method for crack growth modeling. This method mixed finite element and meshless
method. X-FEM has simply finite element method
and performance meshless method, two factors cause
X-FEM become powerful tool for different crack
growth problems; without need to change initial mesh.
The first effort for developing the extended finite
element method can be traced back to 1999 when
Belytschko and Black presented a minimal remeshing finite element method for crack growth. This
method allows the crack to be arbitrarily aligned within
the mesh, though it requires remeshing for severely
curved cracks. Mos et al. (1999) improved the method
and called it the extended finite element method
(XFEM). A major step forward was probably achieved
by Dolbow (1999), with his PhD thesis at Northwestern University (Extended finite element method
with discontinuous enrichment for applied mechanics). Sukumar et al. (2000) extended the XFEM for
three-dimensional crack modeling. Finally, different
people worked a lot with extended finite element
method (Mohammadi 2008).
XFEM method has advantages to solve problems
such as ability for modeling crack or discontinuity
at any point of mesh without changing mesh. This
is a very important point for solving 3D problems,
because reproducing mesh and match with discontinuity model is time consuming. This method doesnt
need different mesh element around crack especially
near crack tip and this characterize in finite element
method increases the speed of calculations.

Figure 2. Step loading.

Figure 3. Edge notch cubic specimen.

Table 1. Geometrical and mechanical properties of core
and cubic specimens.
Item

core

cubic

Diameter
Length
Wide
Thickness
E

54 mm
22 cm

31.37 GPa
0.3
2400 kg/m2

24 cm
54 mm
54 mm
31.37 GPa
0.3
2400 kg/m2

Impact load is applied to a point at the middle of

specimen on the specimen with applying speed. Graph
of load is shown in Figure 2; value of speed is given
in Equation 1.

SIMULATION OF CRACK PROPAGATE

BY X-FEM

For modeling crack growth and propagation under

dynamic load and analysis of crack growth problems
in dynamic conditions X-FEM have been used by
ABAQUS software.
Core and cubic specimen have been used for modeling and both of them placed in state of mode I fracture.
The core specimen is shown in Figure 1, has a diameter of 54 mm, a length of 22 cm and a 20 cm distance
between supports. An initial crack with 27 mm height
was made between supports.

The cubic specimen, shown in Figure 3, has a thickness of 54 mm, a length of 24 cm, width of 54 mm and
a 22 cm distance between supports, An initial crack
with a 27 54 mm was made between supports.
Impact load is applied on the specimen similar core
specimen.
Geometrical and mechanical properties of core and
cubic specimens have listed in Table 1.
In these models, the maximum principal stress for
failure (MAXPS) is selected for damage initiation

150

and energy based damage evolution law base on a

power law fracture criterion is selected for damage
propagation.
4

MODELING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The load-displacement curve and its relation with time

are shown in Figure 4.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the load p(t) increase
linearly and that corresponds to the loading of constant rate. The displacement curve, which illustrates
the changes of displacement rate, is small before the
critical point. This expresses the fact that displacement is caused mainly due to elastic opening of the
crack tip. When load passed this point, the relation
between load and displacement begins to deviate from
the linear path so that the displacement rate begins to
increase evidently. This point, is the turning point of
the displacement rate .This turning point, in our view,
can be taken as the critical point, expressed the critical
point of cracking (Chunan & Xiaohe 1990).
After obtaining critical point cracking from
displacement-time curve; the load corresponds to this
displacement could be obtain from load-time curve.
This load represents the critical load needed for fracture specimen under impact load. With this method,
critical point of cracking could be obtained, and the
initiation of dynamic intensity factor and dynamic
fracture toughness could be calculated.

Figure 4. Load-displacement curve and its relation with

time (Chunan & Xiaohe 1990).

Figure 5. 3D model of core specimen with meshes.

4.1

Determination of dynamic fracture toughness

After critical load necessary to start cracking obtained

from load-time curve, dynamic fracture toughness
and initiation dynamic stress intensity factor calculate
from Equations 2, 4 for core and cubic specimens

Figure 6. 3D undeformed shape model with crack.

4.2 Numeric results for core specimen

In core specimen: S = is support distance, D = is core

diameter, p(t) = is dynamic load that applied on specimen, Y
I = is the geometry factor and a = is the crack
depth.
In cubic specimen: S = is support distance,
B = is specimen thickness, w = is specimen width,
f(a/W) = is dimensionless stress intensity factor that
obtained from above equation and p(t) = is the
dynamic load that applied on specimen.

3-D core model with mesh and crack growth path for
core specimen are shown in Figures 5, 6.
Critical load is determined based on previous explanation, force-time and displacement-time (CMOD)
curve. Force-time curve is a reaction force history output for a point on specimen that dynamic load effects
on, CMOD is a displacement history output curve that
it achieved from displacement of two set nodes near
on both side of crack.
Figure 7 is the force-time curves and CMOD
for core specimens. Regarding to Figure 7, initiation dynamic stress intensity factor is calculating
at t0 = 0.002553s in critical load and dynamic fracture toughness also is calculating at t = 0.00278s in
maximum load.

151

Figure 9. 3D undeformed shape with crack.

Figure 7. CMOD and force-time for core specimen.

Figure 8. 3D model of cubic specimen with meshes.

Figure 10. CMOD and force-time for cubic specimen.

Based on the core geometry feature for the specimen, mentioned in the simulation of crack propagate by X-FEM; the Y
I geometry factor given by
Equation 3 is:

fracture toughness was calculated at t = 0.002806s in

maximum load.
With respect to cubic geometry feature for the specimen mentioned in simulation of crack propagate by
X-FEM; f(a/W) geometry factor is equal:

The initiation dynamic stress intensity factor for

core specimen is:
Dynamic fracture toughness, K, of rock; calculated
by the selection maximum load:
Dynamic fracture toughness, K, of rock; calculated
by the using maximum load instead of critical load, so
result will be:
4.4 Comparison between core and cubic specimens
results
4.3

Numeric results for cubic specimen

3-D cubic model with mesh and crack growth path for
cubic specimen was simulated by ABAQUS showed
in Figures 8, 9.
Figures 10 are the force-time curve and CMOD for
cubic specimen. Regarding to explanation for determining critical point, it for cubic specimen couldnt
be determined, because CMOD-time curve is oscillating and doesnt have linear part. Then, dynamic

The dynamic stress intensity factor plots for two specimens are compared. In Figure 11, dynamic stress intensity factor (DSIF) for two specimens (core and cubic)
are shown. It could be observed that the dynamic
toughness for core specimen is lower than cubic specimen. DSIF for core specimen increases linearly before
initiation of fracture and it doesnt have oscillation. So,
the initiation dynamic stress intensity factor (DSIF)
was determined easily for core specimen. The DSIF for
cubic specimen oscillate before initiation of fracturing.
This oscillation could be seen in both force-time and

152

(X-FEM) code in ABAQUS software. Two rock specimens were modeled, fracture parameters determined
for two specimen (core and cubic), and fracture parameters of them was determined. Initiation DSIF and
dynamic fracture toughness for core and cubic specimen are obtained; the following conclusion could be
drawn:
1. Dynamic toughness for core specimen is lower than
cubic specimens.
2. DSIF for core specimen increases linearly but
for cubic specimen is oscillating before fracture
initiation; this oscillation could be seen in both
force-time and CMOD curve.
3. Oscillation could be seen in both force-time and
CMOD curves for cubic specimen, and initiation dynamic stress intensity factor couldnt be
determined with high precision.
4. For two specimens, reaction force for cubic specimen is higher than core specimen.
5. In CMOD plot, the displacement of core specimen
is higher than cubic specimens.

Figure 11. DSIF-time plot for core and cubic specimens.

REFERENCES

Figure 12. Force-time plot for core and cubic specimen.

Figure 13. CMOD plot for core and cubic specimen.

CMOD curves. Thus, initiation dynamic stress intensity factor couldnt be determined with high precision
for cubic specimen.
It could be observed from force-time curves of
two specimens (Fig. 12), that the cubic specimens
reaction force is higher than core, but for CMOD
plot (Fig. 13) displacements plot for core specimen
is higher than cubic specimens.

CONCLUSION

This paper presents the simulation of crack growth

under impact load by extended finite element method

Backstrom, Ann. & Antikainenb, Juha. & Backers, Tobias. &

Feng, Xiating. & Jinge, Lanru. & Kobayashif, Akira. &
Koyama, Tomofumi. & Pand, Pengzhi. & Rinne, Mikael.
& Sheng, Baotang. & Hudson, John. A. 2008. Numerical
modeling of uniaxial compressive failure of granite with
and without saline pore water, International journal of
rock mechanics & mining sciences:11261142.
Chen, Chao-Shi. & Pan, Ernian. & Amadei, Bernard.
1998. Fracture mechanics analysis of cracked discs of
anisotropic rock using the boundary element method,
International journal of rock mechanics & mining sciences: 195218.
Chen, Mian. & Zhang, Guang-qing. 2004. Laboratory measurement and interpretation of the fracture toughness of
formation rocks at the great depth, Journal of petroleum
science and engineering: 221231.
Chen, R. & Xia, K. & Dai, F. & Lu, F. & Luo, S.N. 2009.
Determination of dynamic fracture parameters using a
semicircular bend technique in split Hopkinson pressure
bar testing, Engineering fracture mechanics: 12681276.
Chunan, Tang. & Xiaohe, Xu. 1990. A new method for measuring dynamic fracture toughness of rock, Engineering
fracture mechanics: 783791.
Dai, F. & Xia, K. & Zheng, H. & Wang, Y.X. 2011. Determination of dynamic rock Mode-I fracture parameters using
cracked chevron notched semi-circular bend specimen.
Engineering fracture mechanics: 26332644.
Hanson, James. H. & Ingraffea, Anthony. R. 2003. Using
numerical simulation to compare the fracture toughness values for concrete from the size-effect, twoparameter and fictitious crack models. Engineering fracture mechanics: 10151027.
Iqbal, M.J. & Mohanty, B. 2007. Experimental calibration of
ISRM suggested fracture toughness measurement techniques in selected brittle rocks, Rock mechanics & rock
engineering: 453475.
Moes, Nicolas. & Dolbow, John. & Belytschko, Ted. 1999. A
finite element method for crack growth without remeshing, International journal for numerical methods in
engineering: 131150.

153

Mohammadi, soheil. 2008. Extended finite element method.

Oxford (UK), Malden (USA) & Carlton (Australia): Blackwell publishing Ltd.
Potyondy, D.O. & Cundall, P.A. 2004. A bonded-particle
model for rock, International journal of rock mechanics &
mining sciences: 13291364.
Roesler, Jeffrey. & Paulino, Glaucio.H. & Park, Kyoungsoo. & Gaedicke, Cristian. 2007. Concrete fracture prediction using bilinear softening, Cement & Concrete
Composites: 300312.
Stolarska1, M. & Chopp, D.L. & Moes, N. & Belytschko,
T. 2001. Modeling crack growth by level sets in the
extended finite element method, International journal for
numerical methods in engineering: 943960.

Su, Xiangting. &Yang, Zhenjun. & Liu, Guohua. 2010. Finite

element modeling of complex 3D static and dynamic
crack propagation by embendding cohesive elements in
ABAQUS, Acta mechanica solida sinica, vol. 23.
Tang, Chunan. 1997. Numerical simulation of progressive
rock failure and associated seismicity, International journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences: 249261.
Zhou, Y.X. & Xia, K. & Li, X.B. & Li, H.B. & Ma, G.W. &
Zhao, J. & Zhou, Z.L. & Dai, F. 2012. Suggested methods for determining the dynamic strength parameters and
mode-I fracture toughness of rock materials. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences: 105112.

154