VIBRATION ANALYSIS OF CRACKED

BEAMS (ISOTROPIC AND

FUNCTIONALLY GRADED) AND
COMPOSITE PLATES USING FINITE
ELEMENT METHOD
By
Sabiju V V
12ME63R05
Under the guidance of
Dr Kumar Ray
1

CONTENTS
Introduction
Literature review
Objectives
Mathematical formulation
Finite element analysis
Results and Discussions

Conclusions
Scope of Further works
References
2

INTRODUCTION
Generation and propagation of crack has been crucial in life and
operation of structural elements.
Crack propagation is a slow process but fracture is really rapid one.
Vibrating structures behaves differently with the presence of crack.
The parameters (flexibility, stiffness), strain energy will be different for a
cracked component.
The change in dynamic response will occur with the initiation and
propagation of crack.
It is necessary to study the dynamics of cracked structure to improve the
life of it.
3

LITERATURE REVIEW
D.Y. Zheng et al

Analysed a cracked beam with effect of stiffness reduction in

globally rather than local variation

H. Tada et al

Explains the correction factors for stress intensity factors for

different conditions of loading.

S. Valiappan et al

Proposed a new method for damage analysis in plates and

anisotropic elements.

Z. Friedman et al

Explains improved model for analysis of Timoshinko beam

R.D.Mindlin

Studies Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions

of isotropic elastic plates

E. Reissner et al

Analysed the effect of transverse shear deformation on the

bending of elastic plates

OBJECTIVES
To investigate the change in natural frequencies with the depth and
location of crack of an isotropic cantilever beam.
To analyze the forced response of the same with the applied load.
To extend the same analysis for a Functionally graded cracked cantilever
beam.
To find free and forced vibration response of a damaged composite plate
with varying modulus ratio, stacking sequence, side to thickness ratio and
boundary conditions.

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION

Fig.1 isotropic beam with a crack

6

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Strain energy will be increased due to the existence of crack.

c GdA
Where G is the strain energy release rate function and A will be the
effective cracked area.
G can be expressed as

1
G ' [( K I 1 K I 2 K I 3 )2 K II 2 2 ]
E
Where El = E for plain stress condition and El = E/(1-2 ) for plain strain.
KI1, KI2, KI3 and KII2 are the stress intensity factors due to loads P1, P2 and P3.
7

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
KI1

P1

F1 ( )
bh
h

KI 2

s = x/h

6P

K I 3 32 F2 ( )
bh
h

6 P2 Lc

F
(
)
2
2
bh
h

K II 2

P2

FII ( )
bh
h

s = depth of crack/ total depth of beam

F1(s) = (1.078s4-3.048s3+3.17s2 1.195s+1.119)/(1-s)3/2

F2(s) = (2.368s4-6.319s3+6.308s23.095s+1.15)/(1-s)3/2
FII(s) = (1.194s4-3.455s3+3.693s22.425s+1.105)/(1-s)3/2
F1, F2 and FII are the correction factors for stress intensity factors[2].
8

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
From the total potential energy we have
c
i
i = 1,2,3
Pi

Elements overall additional flexibility

cij

i
(i j 1, 2,3)
Pj

P1
b 2
6P2 Lc
6P3
2 P2 2
2
cij
{[

F
(
)

F
(
)

F
(
)]

F
1
2
2
II ( )}d
E Pi Pj bh
h
bh2
h bh2
h
b2 h2
h

Cov = Ccrack + Cintact

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Material properties of Functionally Graded beam is assumed to vary in Z
direction only.
The bottom surface is pure metal(Al) and the top surface is pure ceramic Al2O3
Effect of Poissons ratio on the deformation is much less than that of Youngs
modulus. So it is considered as constant through out the analysis.
Power law is utilised for defining the variation in youngs modulus with the
depth
z 1
E ( z ) ( Et Eb )( ) k Eb
h 2

k is an index which determines the metal fraction.

10

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Displacement field is based on First order Shear Deformation Theory.
U(x, z, t) =U0 (x, t) z (x, t)

W(x, z, t)= W0(x, t)

U0 (x, t) & W0(x, t) are the mid plane displacements.

Strain displacement relation is given by

u0 z x

xx

xz 0 w0

x
x

Using Hamiltons Principle Differential Equation of Motion can be found

out.

t2

t1

[ Te U e We ]dt 0
11

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
In composite plates also FSDT is used to define the displacement field.
u ( x, y, z, t ) u0 ( x, y, z, t ) x ( x, y, t )
v( x, y, z, t ) v ( x, y, z, t ) z ( x, y, t )

w( x, y, z, t ) w0 ( x, y, z, t ) 0

The linear strain-displacement relation is as follows

=

Constitutive relation for the each lamina is as follows

=
11 =

11
112 21

22 =

22
112 21

12 =

21 11
112 21

Q44 = G23, Q55 = G13, Q66 = G12

12

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Constitutive equation for the damage materials[8]

Fig. 2 Illustration of damage material

AI-A1: A1, = the area of damaged material with unit normal ni , Ai* : = the effective
area of A1. A2-A2,: A2 = the area of damaged material with unit normal n, A* 2 = the
effective area of A2
13

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
Thus the stress tensor can be expressed as follows
11
21

12
22 =

11
1 1
21
1 1

12
1 2
22
1 2

Depends on the variation of i the state of stress as well as the stiffness at

the desired element changes. It can vary from 0.1 to 0.9.

14

MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
The boundary conditions are as follows

Fig. 3 SS-1 Boundary condition is used for cross ply stacking sequence and
SS2 for angle ply stacking sequence.

15

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

A typical cracked beam subjected to axial force, shear force and
bending moment
Lc

vi(Vi)

vj(Vj)

a
ui(Ui)

(Qi)

Le

uj(Uj)

(Qj)

Fig. 4 finite element model of beam.

The relationship between displacement and force can be expressed as

u j ui

U j

C
j i
e i
ovl V j

j i

16

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

u, v, are deflections and U,V,Q are corresponding loads.
Covl is the overall flexibility matrix of the cracked beam.
Cintact is the flexibility matrix for the intact beam.

Total flexibility will be the sum of the above two.

K c LC 1tot LT
The above expression gives rise to the stiffness matrix of the cracked beam
element, where L is a transformation matrix that is obtained using
equilibrium conditions
Ctot = Cintact + Covl
17

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Formulation for plate element
The strain-displacement relation for plate is given as
u

10 zk10

where 10 u0
xx
1
x
x
v
v
yy 2 20 zk2 0
20 0
x
x
u v
u v
xy 6 6 0 zk6 0
60 0 0
y x
y x

w v
40
y z
u w
zx 5
50
z x

yz 4

40

w0

y
w

0
5 x x

k10

k2 0

k6 0

x
x
y
y

x y

y
x

18

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Mid plane strain vector is defined as follows

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T
1 2 6 1 2 6 4 5

k k k

Also

8 X 1 L 8 X 5 5 X 1

Where

u0 v0 w0 x y

[L] is the operational matrix.

19

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Potential Energy=Strain Energy

U

T
1

dV
2

20

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Q

Potential energy can be written as U 1 D dA

T

T
Where D
[
T
]
[Q][T ]dz

k 1 zk 1
Eight noded isoparametric element is considered here
N

4(-1,1)

zk

7(0,1)

3(1,1)

6(1,0)

1(-1,-1)

5(-0,-1)

2(1,-1)

Fig. 5 Eight noded isoparametric element in natural coordinates with node number. 21

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Element bending stiffness matrix is defined as

K ( e ) B ( e )T DB ( e ) dA( e ) where

[ B](e) [ L][ N ](e)

Keij is computed numerically as

1 1

K ij

(e)

T
B
i
DB j det Jd d

1 1

J is Jacobian matrix given by

J=

22

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The following characteristics were studied for the beams
Free vibration characteristics.
cracked/intact Vs dcrack/d
cracked/intact Vs Lcrack/L
cracked = natural frequency of cracked beam
intact = natural frequency of intact beam
dcrack = depth of crack

Lcrack = location of crack

d = depth of beam

L = length of beam

Forced vibration characteristics

Deflection Vs applied frequency (for various crack depths)

23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The stress correction factors for stress intensity factors are found out from
the correlation results from stress concentration data book[2]
Polynomial expressions are made by curve fitting using MS Excel.
Free vibration response
cracked / intact Vs depth ratio
cracked / intact Vs location ratio
depth ratio = depth of crack/depth of beam
location ratio = location of crack from fixed end/length of beam

24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.2

cracked natural frequency ratio

y1 = -5.726x6 + 11.09x5 + 0.891x4 - 16.38x3 + 14.84x2 - 5.763x + 1.042

y2 = 9.4395x6 - 38.99x5 + 64.972x4 - 56.061x3 + 26.797x2 - 7.1942x + 1.0352

0.8

y3 = 16.129x6 - 62.007x5 + 96.132x4 - 76.999x3 + 33.957x2 - 8.2487x + 1.0364

0.6

Series1
Series2

0.4

Series3

0.2

0
0

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

depth ratio

Fig. 6 natural frequency ratio Vs depth ratio

25

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.2

cracked natural frequency ratio

0.8
y1 = -0.033x2 - 0.043x + 1.000

0.6

Series1

y2 = -0.1156x2 - 0.0618x + 1.0039

Series2
Series3

y3 = 0.1501x3 - 0.3758x2 + 0.0121x + 1

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

location ratio

Fig. 7 natural frequency ratio Vs location ratio

26

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Figure 6 and 7 depicts the relation between the first three natural
frequencies with the depth and location of crack respectively.
It is clear that frequencies decrease gradually with the crack propagation.
From the figures (6,7) it is clear that variation of frequencies with depth is
more predominant than that with the location
Approximate polynomial expressions are found out by curve fitting using
MS Excel

27

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Natural frequency ratio to the depth ratio
1 = -5.726s6 + 11.09s 5 + 0.891s 4 - 16.38s 3 + 14.84s 2 - 5.763s + 1.042
2= 9.439s 6 - 38.99s 5 + 64.97s 4 - 56.06s 3 + 26.79s 2 - 7.194s + 1.035

3 = 16.12s 6 - 62.00s 5 + 96.13s 4 - 76.99s 3 + 33.95s 2 - 8.248s + 1.036

Natural frequency ratio to the location ratio
1 = -0.033 2 - 0.043 + 1.000

2 = -0.115 2 - 0.061 + 1.003

a = location ratio

3 = 0.150 3 - 0.375 2 + 0.012 + 1

28

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Previous equations gives us natural frequencies readily after supplying
depth ratio or location ratio. (Modulus of elasticity, density of the materials,
length, breadth, depth, shear correction factor, Poisson's ratio remain
constants)
Depth and location of crack can be found out if natural frequencies are
measured/supplied. Thus it can be decided whether the crack is severe or
mild.
Depth of crack

s = -2.154 16 +2.012 15 + 8.373 14 -17.86 13+4.05 12 -5.418 1+1.009

Location of crack
= -72.51 12+126.7 1-54.24
29

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.2

y 1= 29.56x6 - 108.1x5 + 157.9x4 - 117.3x3 + 46.94x2 - 9.940x + 1.031

0.8

y2 = -28.39x6 + 87.54x5 - 100.3x4 + 50.05x3 - 7.274x2 - 2.578x + 1.008

Series1

0.6

Series2

y 3= -40.68x6 + 118.1x5 - 122.1x4 + 48.32x3 + 0.061x2 - 4.800x + 1.049

Series3
Poly. (Series1)

0.4

Poly. (Series2)
Poly. (Series3)

0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

-0.2

Fig. 8 natural frequency ratio Vs depth ratio for an FGM beam

30

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.2

y1 = -15.23x6 + 52.83x5 - 71.62x4 + 46.90x3 - 13.71x2 + 0.059x + 1.000

y2 = 0.361x3 - 0.509x2 - 0.408x + 1.006

_cracked/_intact

y3 = 25.38x6 - 75.02x5 + 78.68x4 - 31.98x3 + 2.067x2 + 0.207x + 0.998

0.8
Series1
Series2

0.6

Series3
Poly. (Series1)

0.4

Poly. (Series2)

Poly. (Series3)
0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Fig. 9 natural frequency ratio Vs location ratio for an FGM beam

31

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Forced response
Applied force is sinusoidal (F0cost) in nature.
Deflection Vs forcing frequency curves are plotted for different crack
depths.
2

10

10

10

-2

10

10

-2

Response (m)

Response (mm)

10

-4

10

-4

10

-6

-6

10

-8

10

10

-8

10

-10

-10

10

10
0

100

200

300

400
500 600
Frequency (rad/s)

700

800

900

1000

Fig 10 forced response of Intact beam

100

200

300

400
500
600
Frequency (rad/s)

700

800

900

1000

32

Fig 11 forced response of Beam with 5 mm crack

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

2

10

10

-2

Response (m)

10

-4

10

-6

10

-8

10

-10

10

100

200

300

400
500
600
Frequency (rad/s)

700

800

900

1000

Fig 12 Forced response of beam with 50 mm

crack

Fig 13 Forced response of beam with depth

as crack depth
33

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. 10 to 13 represent the forced characteristic curve (deflection Vs
applied frequency)
The response changes drastically as the crack advances.
As the crack depth become depth of beam it separates, with the
application of load the separated piece will deflect all of a sudden and
then no further movement. (Shown clearly in Fig. 13)
Free and forced response of a composite plate are shown ahead

Nondimensional natural frequency Vs % of damage

Nondimensional central deflection Vs % of damage has been studied
for different E1/E2, stacking order, side/depth ratios
34

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

central deflections Vs % of damage (cross ply)

2
1.8
1.6

nondimensional central deflection

E1/E2=40
1.4
y3 = -8E-09x6 + 1E-06x5 - 5E-05x4 + 0.0011x3 - 0.016x2 + 0.1329x + 0.9331

1.2

W_max1
1

W_max2

y1 = -4E-09x6 + 5E-07x5 - 2E-05x4 + 0.0006x3 - 0.0077x2 + 0.0638x + 0.4491

W_max3

0.8

E1/E2 = 25

0.6

E1/E2=10

0.4

y2 = -3E-09x6 + 3E-07x5 - 2E-05x4 + 0.0004x3 - 0.005x2 + 0.0416x + 0.2927

0.2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% of damage

Fig. 14 Central deflection Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios

35

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

20

natural frequencies Vs % of damage (cross ply)

nondimensional natural frequency

18
y2 = 6E-08x6 - 8E-06x5 + 0.0004x4 - 0.0098x3 + 0.1358x2 - 1.0609x + 18.476

16

E1/E2 = 40

14
12

E1/E2 = 25

10

y1 = 5E-08x6 - 6E-06x5 + 0.0003x4 - 0.0079x3 + 0.1102x2 - 0.8581x + 14.915

Omega_natural2
Omega_natural3

E1/E2 = 10

Omega_natural1

y3 = 3E-08x6 - 4E-06x5 + 0.0002x4 - 0.0055x3 + 0.0777x2 - 0.5992x + 10.349

4
2
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% of damage

Fig. 15 Natural frequency Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios36

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1.2

Central deflection Vs % of damage (angle ply)

y3 = -6E-09x6 + 7E-07x5 - 3E-05x4 + 0.0008x3 - 0.011x2 + 0.0821x + 0.5753

nondimensional central deflection

E1/E2=40
0.8

W_max1

0.6

W_max2

y1 = -3E-09x6 + 3E-07x5 - 2E-05x4 + 0.0004x3 - 0.0048x2 + 0.0362x + 0.2478

W_max3
0.4

E1/E2=25
E1/E2=10

0.2

y2 = -2E-09x6 + 2E-07x5 - 1E-05x4 + 0.0002x3 - 0.003x2 + 0.0232x + 0.1577

0
0

10

15

20
25
% of damage

30

35

40

45

Fig. 16 central deflection Vs % of damage of angle ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios

37

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

30

natural frequency Vs % of damage (angle ply)

nondimensional natural frequency

25

y2 = 1E-07x6 - 1E-05x5 + 0.0006x4 - 0.0147x3 + 0.1986x2 - 1.4742x + 25.169

E1/E2=40

20

Omega_natural

E1/E2=25

15

Omega_natural2

y1 = 8E-08x6 - 1E-05x5 + 0.0005x4 - 0.0117x3 + 0.1586x2 - 1.1708x + 20.078

Omega_natural3

E1/E2=10

10

y3 = 5E-08x6 - 6E-06x5 + 0.0003x4 - 0.0077x3 + 0.1042x2 - 0.7558x + 13.179

5

0
0

10

15

20of damage
25
%

30

35

40

45

Fig. 17 natural frequency Vs % of damage of cross ply composite plate with different E1/E2 ratios38

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

central deflection Vs % of damage

natural frequency Vs % of damage

16

0.8

y = -4E-09x6 + 5E-07x5 - 2E-05x4 + 0.0006x3 0.0078x2 + 0.0646x + 0.4544

0.7
0.6
0.5
central deflection
0.4
0.3
0.2

nondimensional natural frequency

nondimensional central deflection

0.9

y = 5E-08x6 - 6E-06x5 + 0.0003x4 - 0.0079x3 +

0.1097x2 - 0.8525x + 14.825

14
12
10
8
natural frequency

6
4
2

0.1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

% of damage

Fig. 18 central deflection Vs % of damage

Moderately
thick plate

10

20

30

40

50

% of damage

Fig. 19 natural frequency Vs % of damage

39

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

central deflection Vs % of damage

natural frequency Vs % of damage

y = -6E-09x6 + 7E-07x5 - 4E-05x4 + 0.0009x3 0.0114x2 + 0.0882x + 0.621

1.2
1
0.8
0.6

central deflection

0.4
0.2

14
nondimensional natural frequency

nondimensional central deflection

1.4

y = 4E-08x6 - 6E-06x5 + 0.0003x4 - 0.007x3 +

0.0961x2 - 0.7202x + 12.629

12
10

8
6

natural frequency

4
2
0

10

20

30

40

50

% of damage

10

20

30

40

50

% of damage

Thick plate
Fig. 20 central deflection Vs % of damage

Fig. 21 natural frequency Vs % of damage

40

CONCLUSIONS
Natural frequency reduces with the advance of crack in beams.
Central deflection goes on increase with the increase in damage.
Natural frequency goes on decrease with the increase in damage.

With increase in E1/E2, both central deflection and natural frequency increases.
FSDT is accurate for thin plates only so the analysis of thick and moderately thick
plate may result in error.

41

SCOPE OF FURTHER WORK

It includes
Non-linear free and forced vibration analysis of Functionally Graded
cracked beam with different boundary conditions.
Buckling analysis of composite beam and plate with crack
Free and forced vibration analysis of composite shells with crack.

42

REFERENCES
1.

Free vibration analysis of a cracked beam by finite element method, D.Y. Zheng et al 2003
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 457475

2.

The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook, H. Tada et al, ASME Press, New York, 2000.

3.

An improved two-node Timoshenko beam finite element, Z. Friedman et al1992, computers

& structures, 473-481,

4.

Simplified models for the location of cracks in beam structures using measured vibration
data, J.K. Sinha, M.I. Friswell and S.Edwards 2001 Journal of Sound and Vibration, 13-38.

5.

The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates, E. Reissner,
ASME. Appl.Mech, 12[2].69-77, 1945

6.

Influence of rotary inertia and shear on flexural motions of isotropic elastic plates,
R.D.Mindlin, ASME.Appl.Mech, 18, 31-38, 1951.

7.

.Mechanics of Composite Materials, Arthur Kaw, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.

8.

Finite element analysis of anisotropic damage mechanics problems, S. Valiappan, V. Murti

and Zhang Wohua, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 1990
43