Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2/2001
s n
(a) B (b)
H/2 tz
H/2 tx
F
H
W
y
c
a
H/2 a a
s/2 y W
s/2 x
z b b
Fig. 1: A single-edge cracked beam (a) and a flat plate with a semielliptical surface crack (b). Length measures in mm.
The meshes of the analysed models were generated with quadratic in Franc2d and MARC. The crack front (or crack tip
the relevant preprocessors (Casca, OSM, Mentat) in three mesh in two-dimensional cases) formed in all programs collapsed
densities at a time, in order to observe the influence of mesh quarter-point quadratic elements [14], the number of which
fineness on stress intensity factors. Thus, from each examined varied in three-dimensional cases from 16 to 48 along the
probe type there were models with a coarse, medium fine crack front. The rosette consisted of 6 to 8 collapsed ele-
and fine mesh in each program (Table 1). Although in general ments. The two dimensional models were considered as plain
it is appropriate to take advantage of a model symmetry, here, strain problems. The meshes of Mentat were generated by a
with respect to future studies, complete models were created newly introduced parametric modeling function. The load
(Fig. 2). The basic elements were taken linear in Franc3d, and of the single-edge cracked beam models consisted of a sin-
Elements Nodes
coarse medium fine fine coarse medium fine fine
Single-Edge Cracked Beam
Franc2d/Casca 556 1636 2168 1645 4525 6395
Franc3d/OSM 936 2252 4020 902 2148 3876
MARC/Mentat 2760 8400 14080 13233 37939 62115
Centre Cracked Plate
Franc3d/OSM 1206 2014 3084 1001 1918 2780
MARC/Mentat 7396 12880 17608 33143 55979 76341
Fig. 2: An example of the used Franc3d meshes; (a) single-edge cracked beam, (b) flat plate
gle force ( F = 500 N) with two-dimensional models, or of The dependences of the stress intensity factors on the
a uniformly distributed force ( f = 125 Nmm-1) in three-di- mesh fineness are displayed in Figs. 4 and 5. The optimum
mensional models. The flat plate was loaded with normal solutions of stress intensity factors are compared in the
stress (sn = 200 MPa) on the upper surface of the model. following diagrams, Fig. 6:
stress intensity factors in a single-edge cracked beam under
3 Strategy and results single force or distributed force loading; three numeri-
cal solutions and one analytical solution; F = 500 N or
A single-edge cracked beam was analysed in Franc2d, f = 125 Nmm-1 respectively;
Franc3d and MARC. The flat plate was analysed as a sheer
stress intensity factors in a flat plate under normal stress
three-dimensional problem only in Franc3d and MARC. The
loading; two numerical solutions and one analytical solu-
analytical solutions were carried out for both probe types.
tion; sn = 200 MPa.
After analysis there were three results (coarse, medium fine
32000 12000
31920
200 MPa
28000
10960
500 N
10000
24000
Computational time [s]
8000
20000 coarse coarse
medium fine medium fine
12663
3749
3660
12000
3319
4000
2861
6300
8000
1260
2000
2498
4000
900
650
25
40
5
0 0
Franc2d MARC Franc3d MARC Franc3d
Fig. 3: Computational time of the single-edge cracked beam (left) and flat plate (right)
and fine mesh) for one probe type from each used program.
In particular, these were three mesh qualities three pro-
4 Discussion
grams from the single-edge cracked beam, and three mesh With simple crack configurations, such as that of the sin-
qualities two programs from the flat plate. From each three gle-edge cracked beam, mesh quality seems to have only a lit-
results the optimum solutions were then chosen. The criteria tle influence on the values of the stress intensity factors
for this were minimum deviation from the analytical solution (Fig. 4). The smallest differences can be observed for Franc2d.
on the one hand, and the lowest possible computational time However, mesh quality appears to be significant in the case of
on the other. In the end the programs optimum solutions more complicated crack forms, such as that of a semielliptical
were compared together with the analytical solutions in one crack (Fig. 5). The stress intensity factors differ with MARC es-
diagram for each probe. The stress intensity factors were pecially at the crack edges; Franc3d shows consistent values
evaluated as a single value at a crack tip or as a course of from a certain mesh fineness.
values at a crack front. The overall comparison of stress intensity factors for a sin-
The Franc2d models were solved with an implicit direct gle-edge cracked beam was performed in the middle of the
solver, which required very low computational times (Fig. 3). crack front, as these show more important evidence than the
There was no point in using more sophisticated solvers, as the values at the crack ends. However, this was not the case for the
problem was entirely linear. The Franc3d jobs were processed semielliptical crack in the flat plate, where the stress intensity
by the boundary element solver BES, which includes four factors vary considerably along the whole crack front. The
different schemes. In this study the iterative scheme with values of Franc3d are always somewhat higher than the analyt-
out-of-core element storage proved best: the direct scheme ical solution (deviation up to 9.7 %, Fig. 6), whereas MARC
could not be applied to larger models, as the programs delivers somewhat lower values (deviation up to 8.4 %). On
crashed after the stiffness matrix assembly, and the other the one hand, the deviations can be traced to the methods
schemes turned out to run slightly more slowly. The MARC used (boundary element vs. finite element method) and ele-
analyses were carried out with the iterative solver (in-core ments (linear vs. quadratic), but on the other hand, they may
element storage, incomplete Choleski preconditioner). All also result from the different methods of calculating the stress
computations were performed on an SGI Origin 2000 intensity factors. The deviations of the Franc2d values from
computer. the analytical solution are the lowest, which agrees with the
64
Acta Polytechnica Vol. 41 No. 2/2001
600
600
Franc3d Mesh quality:
fine
Franc2d 500 N 560 medium fine
560 b) coarse
a) analytical solution
520
520
480
480 470.7 467.9 468.9 471.5
500 N
440
440
400
400 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
analytical coarse medium fine fine
solution mesh
Coordinate along the crack front [1]
600
MARC Mesh quality:
fine
560 medium fine
c) coarse
analytical solution
520 500 N
480
440
400
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Coordinate along the crack front [1]
Fig. 4: Influence of mesh fineness on stress intensity factors KI for a single-edge cracked beam using Franc2d (a), Franc3d (b) and MARC (c)
500 500
Franc3d 200 MPa 200 MPa
MARC
.
460 460
a) b)
420 420
380 380
Mesh quality: Mesh quality:
fine fine
340 medium fine medium fine
coarse 340 coarse
analytical solution analytical solution
300 300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Angle along the crack front y [deg] Angle along the crack front y [deg]
Fig. 5: Influence of mesh fineness on stress intensity factors KI at the flat plate using Franc3d (a) and MARC (b)
600 500
Franc3d, coarse mesh 500 N
Franc2d, medium fine mesh b) 200 MPa
. MARC, medium fine mesh .
560 460
analytical solution
D 0.5 = 0.4 %
D 9 = 9.7 %
520 a) D 0.5 = 6.3 % 420
D90 = 8.4 %
480 380
D101= 12.2 %
Fig. 6: Comparison of stress intensity factors KI for a single-edge cracked beam (a) and flat plate (b)
67