Presented at the COMSOL Conference 2009 Milan

COMSOL CONFERENCE MILAN 2009

OCTOBER 14-16

Dynamic
D i C
CrackkPPropagation
ti in
i
Fiber Reinforced Composites
p
P. Lonetti, C. Caruso, A. Manna
 DYNAMIC FRACTURE MECHANICS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
MONOLITIC MATERIALS MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
Crack Branching phenomena FORMULATION

Crack speeds are limited FE MODEL

RESULTS
U k
Unknown path
th off th
the crack
k CONCLUSIONS

Ravi-Chandar and Knauss, Int J Fract, 1984

COMPOSITE STRUCTURES

Weak plane

High crack speed

Crack constrained along the interfaces (Rosakis, A.J., “Intersonic shear cracks and fault
ruptures propagation”, Advances in Physics, 2002)
DYNAMIC CRACK GROWTH MODELING
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION

Cohesive modeling MOTIVATIONS

ALE MODEL
Interface elements are introduced at the crack region FORMULATION
w FE MODEL
Damaged constitutive relationship is required RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS

Fracture Mechanics approaches

Static analyses:
(the time dependence is neglected “a priori”)

Steady state crack growth approaches:

(Mo ing reference system
(Moving s stem with
ith the tip
tip, crack tip speed is constant)

Unsteady models :
Full Time dependence , inertial forces,
loading rate,….
DYNAMIC CRACK GROWTH MODELING
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION

Node release technique MOTIVATIONS

ALE MODEL
Gradual release of the nodal
FORMULATION
forces behind the crack tip
FE MODEL
RESULTS
Virtual
V u ccrack
c cclosure
osu e methods
e ods CONCLUSIONS

The ERR is evaluated by the

mutual work at the crack tip
and behind the crack tip

Moving mesh methodology

The nodes are moved to predict

changes of the geometry
produced by the crack motion
MOTIVATION OF THE WORK AND SUMMARY
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
AIM OF THE WORK MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
Propose a generalized modeling based on Fracture mechanics and FORMULATION
moving mesh methodology to predict the dynamic behavior of FE MODEL
composite laminated structures RESULTS
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

Review the main equations of the ALE formulation in view of the

Dynamic Fracture Mechanics approach

Evaluate the specialized expressions of the ERR by the use of the

decomposition methodology of the J-integral and propose a
proper
p p mixed mode crack toughness
g criterion
Develop the finite element implementation. Propose validation by means of
comparisons with experimental data and a parametric study to analyze
dynamic crack behavior (i.e. crack arrest phenomena, allowable tip speeds
and rate dependence of the interfacial crack growth)
BASICS OF MOVING MESH STRATEGY: ARBITRARY-
LAGRANGIAN EULERIAN FORMULATION
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
“Lagrangian Approach” MOTIVATIONS
“Eulerian Approach”
pp ALE MODEL
t
BE FORMULATION
x X,t
t
at,a. t FE MODEL
B L
RESULTS
. xt CONCLUSIONS
a,t at t
X

x
 r,t  : BL  BE
 : BR  BL
X  r,t
x    r, t 
a  
X    r, t 
  r
B
R
“Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian”

The Reference configuration is fixed and independent of any placement of the material body
BASICS OF MOVING MESH STRATEGY: ARBITRARY-
LAGRANGIAN EULERIAN FORMULATION
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
time “t” time “t+dt”
.
a,t at t t . t+ t
a t+,a t+ t
Physical quantities: MOTIVATIONS
B
L
B L
ALE MODEL
d d
v    X, t  X , X    r, t  r FORMULATION
t t+ t  dt  
 dt  
X X FE MODEL
X 3

X  r,t
t
X t+ t
“Material” “Referential” RESULTS
X 
 r,t+t
2

CONCLUSIONS
X 1

r d
f  X,, t 
t

f  f   X
3
B
r
2
R
Time derivative rule
r  dX 
“Referential configuration” 
r 1

Physical fields in ALE formulation

u  u  2 x u  X   x uX   x   x u  X X   x u x X X
 “Material accel.”
          
 x u   r u J 1 “Grad. transform.” det J  0 “one-to-one relationship”
   
 DESCRIPTION OF THE DELAMINATION MODEL
INDEX:

F,  INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
Multi-layer Modeling
ALE MODEL

2D Kinematic formulation FORMULATION

FE MODEL

The laminate is divided into RESULTS

n mathematical layer a, a CONCLUSIONS

representing the staking sequence

. L-a t
a,t a t
C
Compatibility
tibilit equations
ti LMM:
LMM
hn Layer j+1-th
u=0,v=0 ui  ui 1  ui  0, vi  vi 1  vi  0,
hj Layer j-th
hj-1 Layer j-1-th “undelaminated interfaces”
v>0 u=0,v=0
h1
vi  vi 1  vi  0,
Layer j-2

“delaminated interfaces”
DESCRIPTION OF THE DELAMINATION MODEL IN
THE REFERENTIAL CONFIGURATION
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
Governing Equations: “Principle of d’Alembert”
MOTIVATIONS
n n n n

  udV
dV     u udV
dV    t udA
dA    f  udV
ALE MODEL
dV
i 1 Vi   i 1 Vi   i 1 i   i 1 Vi   FORMULATION
FE MODEL
Internal work External work RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS

    det  J  dVr
n n

    r  1
  1 .
udV C uJ r uJ a,t at
B
t

i 1 Vi   i 1 Vri      L

: Jacobian
 u udV    [u  2 r u J 1  X     r u J 1   X  
n n X

t


3
X
X
2

i 1 Vi   i 1 Vri        X  r,t

t

 r   r u J 1  J 1 X  X    r u J 1    r X J 1  X ] u det  J  dVr X 1

             a

r 3 t
n n n n
r B
 t udA    f  udV   t u det(( J )d  r    f  u det(( J )dVr
L


2

i 1 i   i 1 Vi   i 1  ri   i 1 Vri  
r

r 1
ERR RATE EVALUATION : J-INTEGRAL APPROACH
Revision of the J-integral Dec. procedure (Rigby & Aliabady, 1998, Greco & Lonetti, 2009)
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
n
MOTIVATIONS
P  ALE MODEL
.
a,t at
FORMULATION
X
P'  FE MODEL
2

RESULTS
Expressions
p of the ERR X 1
CONCLUSIONS

 u 
J  lim  W  K  n1  t   ds
 0
 
 X 
 “Path independent”
p
 u 
 X       
J   W  K  n1  t   ds     u  f u   uu  dA
   (Nishioka,T, 2001)\
  

Decomposition of the ERR into symmetric and antisymmetric fields
 S u S 
J I  GI    W  K S
n   S
n
 
 
 1 ij j x  ds     u S  f S u S  u S u S  dA,


 AS u AS 
J II  GII   W  K  n1   ij n j


AS AS

x      
 

ds     uAS  f AS u AS   u AS u AS  dA,
 

DYNAMIC CRACK PROPAGATION ANALYSIS:
GROWTH CRITERION
INDEX:
Crack growth criterion Material parameter INTRODUCTION

 1 G0
MOTIVATIONS
dx
GD  “Critical
C c valuev ue of
o thee ERR” ALE MODEL
cR m
c  (Freund, 1990; Ravi-Chandar, 2004) FORMULATION
1  t 
 VR  FE MODEL
RESULTS
m
c  VR GD  ct    “Rayleigh wave speed” CONCLUSIONS

c0 GD  ct   G0  0  “initiation value”

GG 0

1) Mixed
i mode crack growth criterion
i i
GI GII
gf   1  0
GID  ct  GIID  ct  1.700

M
Material
i l parameter 1.200

GID  ct   GIID  ct  
G0 I G0 II 700
3,0
m
, m 2,5
c  c 
200
3,0 2,0

1  t  1  t 
2,5
2,0 1,5
GI

 VR   VR 
1,5 1,0
GII 1,0 0,5
0,5
0,0 0,0
MOVING MESH METHOD: FOUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
ALE formulation to describe mesh motion MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
 X 1  0,
2
X  X 2  0.
2
X FORMULATION
  Mesh regularization technique
FE MODEL
X 1  X 1  r1  X 2  X 2  r2 “Winslow Smoothing method” RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
“Mesh displacements of nodes
Should be regular” Minimize the mesh warping

B
Boundary
d conditions
diti Example: DCB
C scheme

 X 1  0, X 2  0  on 1   2 , 1 3
X 2  0 on 3   4 h2 2
X 1  0  if g f  0 on , h1
X 1  ct  if g f  0 on , 4
 tip
X 2  0 on 
X 1  0   0, X 2  0   0, X 1  0   0, X 2  0   0
VARIATIONAL FORMULATION AND FE IMPLEMENTATION
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
Weak forms: coupled equations for the ALE and PS formulations: MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
  C   uJ    uJ  det  J  dV    [u   2 u  J  X    r u J   X  
n n
1 1 1 1
r r r r FORMULATION
i 1 Vri     i 1 Vri    

 r   r u J 1  J 1 X  X    r u J 1    r X J 1  X ] u det  J  dVr

FE MODEL
            
PS RESULTS
n n
  t u det( J )d     f  u det( J )dV
r r
CONCLUSIONS
i 1  ri i 1 Vri

   XJ
Vr

r
 
1
r

1

  
r
r
  
   wJ  det  J  dV     X   c  i   Xi 
  J ds  0,
t
ALE

1 3
Explicit equations for PS+ALE h2 2
h1
Implicit equation the crack growth
 tip 4

Crack growth criterion

VARIATIONAL FORMULATION AND FE IMPLEMENTATION
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
FE approximation by “Comsol Multiphysics”: MOTIVATIONS

Quadratic Lagrangian interpolation functions ALE MODEL

for displacements, velocity and acceleration Non Linear Equations FORMULATION

fields System FE MODEL
Quadratic Lagrangian interpolation functions RESULTS
for mesh points displacements CONCLUSIONS
FE equations
n n n n n

 M U   C U     K
i 1
i i
i 1
i i
i 1
i
 
 2i U i   Ti   Pi  0
 K 0i  K1i  K
 i 1  i 1 
CHECK
MESH ELEMENTS
W  X  Q  X   L  0, QUALITY
    
Solution Procedure
Implicit time integration scheme based Iterative-incremental
on variable-step-size backward
Solving procedure
differentiation formula
 RESULTS: VALIDATION OF THE STRUCTURAL MODEL

INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
0.6 0.20
MOTIVATIONS
0.15 a h h ALE MODEL
05
0.5 0 10
0.10
0.05 B h FORMULATION
h
0.4 0.00
FE MODEL
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

RESULTS
X(aa)/L

0.3 Experimental data u

P
Proposed
d model
d l
a/L 0.367, h/B=0.1,
a/L=0.367, h/B 0.1, m
m=0.5,
0.5, L CONCLUSIONS
G0/Gst=0.3, mm/s
 
0.2 u
B a 1
h 25  
0.1 u u
h Ed B a
L h
u

(Ed,Ec)/(G0BL)
20 h
0.0 L

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 a/L=0.367, h/B=0.1, m=0.5,
15 ct/csh G0/Gst=0.3, mm/s
tL

ct/csh
0.1

DCB mode I loading scheme 10

Comparisons with experimental data 5

Ec
0 0.01
AS 3501-6
3501 6 Graphite/Epoxy 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
tL
 RESULTS: EFFECT OF THE LOADING RATE
INDEX:
 
INTRODUCTION
0.045 u
B a a h MOTIVATIONS
0.040 h
h
 h u ALE MODEL
0 035
0.035
L B h
0.030
h FORMULATION
a/L=0.1, h/B=0.1, m=0.5, G0/Gst=50/150
 FE MODEL
ct/csh

0.025

0.020 u L u RESULTS
 
0.015 t CONCLUSIONS
 
0.010

0.005 
10 8 6 4 2 0
0.000 0.040 0.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0.035 0.005
t/T1 0.030 0.010

DCB mode I loading scheme 0.025 0.015
ct//csh

ct/ccsh
0 020
0.020  0 020
0.020
Influence of the loading rate
0.015 0.025

0.010 0.030
Evolution of the crack tip speed a/L=0.1, h/B=0.1, m=0.5, G0/Gst=50/150
0.005 0.035

0.000 0.040
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Xt/L
DEFORMED SHAPE OF THE BEAM UNDER
MODE I LOADING CONDITIONS

Horizontal displacement of the crack-tip front

t = 0.065 s

t = 0.12 s

t = 0.18
0 18 s

x direction
di ti
DEFORMED SHAPES OF THE BEAM UNDER
MIXED MODE LOADING CONDITIONS

TRIANGULAR MESH ELEMENTS

CRACK - TIP

t = 0.10 s
 RESULTS : MODE II ENF SCHEME
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
0.27 0.20
MOTIVATIONS
0.15
0.24 0 10
0.10
(F,u) ALE MODEL
B
0.21 0.05 a FORMULATION
0.00 -9 -9 -9
0.18 0.0 3.0x10 6.0x10 9.0x10
h FE MODEL
X(a)/L

Experimental data h
0.15 RESULTS
Proposed model
a/L=0.216, h/B=0.213, m=1,
0 12
0.12 G0/Gst=0.52, mm/s, CONCLUSIONS
L
 
0.09 (F,u)
B
a
ct/csh
0.06   u
h
h 0.8 B a
0.03 h
L h u
0.00 L
0.0 3.0x10
-9
6.0x10
tL 9.0x10-9
-9
1.2x10
-8 -8
1.5x10
0.6
tL a/L=0.367, h/B=0.1, m=1,
G0/Gst=0.52, mm/s

ENF mode II loading scheme 0.4

Comparisons with experimental data

0.2
tL
S2/8553 Glass/Epoxy
-9 -9 -9 -9 -8 -8
0.0 2.0x10 4.0x10 6.0x10 8.0x10 1.0x10 1.2x10
 RESULTS : MODE II ENF SCHEME
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
High amplifications in MOTIVATIONS
5.0
the ERR prediction
a/L=0.25,
/L 0 25 h/B=0.213,
h/B 0 213 m=1,
1 P ALE MODEL
G0/Gst=0.52, FORMULATION
4.5
 t FE MODEL
4.0 t0 / T1= 0.1
t0
RESULTS
3.5
CONCLUSIONS
3.0 t0 / T1= 0.4 t0 / T1= 0.5
G / Gst

2.5

20
2.0
t0 / T1= 0.7 t0 / T1= 1
1.5 (F,u)
B
1.0 a
t0 / T1= 2 h
05
0.5 h
0.0
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
L

t / T1
 RESULTS : MIXED MODE ANALYSIS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
0.40 0.20  
(F,u) FORMULATION
0.15 B
a
0.35 FE MODEL
0.10
h2
h1 RESULTS
0.30 0.05

0.00 Proposed model L CONCLUSIONS

X(a)/L

-9 -9 -9
0.0 2.0x10 4.0x10 6.0x10
0.25 Experimental data
 
(F,u)
0.20 B
a
Mesh tip discretization
0 15
0.15 h2
h1

0.10 L

a/L=0.220, H/B=0.485, h1/h2=0.66, m=0.5,

0.05
G0/Gst=0.526,  mm/s

0.00
-9 -8 -8 -8 -8
0.0 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 2.5x10
tL

AS 3501
3501-66 Graphite/Epoxy
 RESULTS : MIXED MODE ANALYSIS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
1
0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010
MOTIVATIONS
0.040
ALE MODEL
u/ust=[1.2; 1.42; 1.74; 2.36; 3.98;5.08; 7.12] (F,u)
0.035 0.4
Eq. (22), gf=[1.5; 3.0; 5.0; 10; 30;50; 100] B FORMULATION
a
0.030 FE MODEL
h2
0.3 h1

maxX(a))/L)
0.025 RESULTS
u/ust
ct/cssh

L
0.020 CONCLUSIONS
0.2
0.015
1

0.010 0.0035 0.0030 0.0025 0.0020 0.0015 0.0010

0.1 0.30 0.25
u/ust=[1.2; 1.42; 1.74; 2.36; 3.98;5.08; 7.12]
0 005
0.005 0 27
0.27 Eq. (22), gu/u
f
/ st 3.0; 5.0; 10; 30;50; 100]
=[1.5;

0.24 0.20
0.000 0.0 0.21

X(a)/L)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

X(a)/L
t/T1 0.18 u/ust 0.15

0.15
u,gf Crack arrest

max
0.12 0.10
u/u=7.12 gf =100 phenomenon
st
0.09
.....
..... 0.06 0.05
..... Loading curves 0.03
u/u=1.20
st
g =1.5
f
0.00 0.00
00
0.0 05
0.5 10
1.0 15
1.5 20
2.0 25
2.5 33.00

T t t/T1
1
RESULTS : MIXED MODE ANALYSIS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
FORMULATION
FE MODEL
RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS

Time incrementaation
CONCLUDING REMARKS
INDEX:
INTRODUCTION
MOTIVATIONS
ALE MODEL
A delamination model for general loading conditions based on FORMULATION
moving mesh methodology and fracture mechanics is proposed. FE MODEL
RESULTS
New expressions of the ERR mode components based on the CONCLUSIONS
J-integral decomposition procedure.

Comparisons
p with experimental
p data are p
proposed
p to validate the
delamination modelling

y
The analyzed parametric study
p y shows that delamination p phenomena
are quite influenced by the loading rate, inertial effects leading to high
amplifications in the ERR prediction and the crack growth.