Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 228 views

    Cohesive Zone Models vs. XFEM

    Uploaded by

    jangdini
    The document compares numerical simulations of fatigue crack growth using cohesive zone models and extended finite element methods. It finds that both approaches can produce close results if properly calibrated, though cohesive zone models are more dependent on mesh refinement. The document also presents a modified cohesive zone model for simulating contact fatigue problems under variable amplitude loading and non-normal contact conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cohesive Zone Models vs. XFEM

    Uploaded by

    jangdini
    228 views23 pages
    The document compares numerical simulations of fatigue crack growth using cohesive zone models and extended finite element methods. It finds that both approaches can produce close results if properly calibrated, though cohesive zone models are more dependent on mesh refinement. The document also presents a modified cohesive zone model for simulating contact fatigue problems under variable amplitude loading and non-normal contact conditions.

    Original Description:

    Numerical Simulation of Fatigue Crack Growth: Cohesive Zone Models vs. XFEM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document compares numerical simulations of fatigue crack growth using cohesive zone models and extended finite element methods. It finds that both approaches can produce close results if properly calibrated, though cohesive zone models are more dependent on mesh refinement. The document also presents a modified cohesive zone model for simulating contact fatigue problems under variable amplitude loading and non-normal contact conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    228 views23 pages

    Cohesive Zone Models vs. XFEM

    Uploaded by

    jangdini
    The document compares numerical simulations of fatigue crack growth using cohesive zone models and extended finite element methods. It finds that both approaches can produce close results if properly calibrated, though cohesive zone models are more dependent on mesh refinement. The document also presents a modified cohesive zone model for simulating contact fatigue problems under variable amplitude loading and non-normal contact conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 23
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The presentation compares cohesive zone models and extended finite element models for simulating fatigue crack growth, and applies both approaches to problems involving contact fatigue.

    Cohesive zone models and extended finite element models can provide close results if properly calibrated, but cohesive zone models are more mesh dependent. Extended finite element models are less mesh dependent.

    Fatigue crack growth is modeled using damage accumulation rules based on deformation measures and stress levels for both cohesive zone models and extended finite element models.

    Numerical Simulation of Fatigue Crack Growth: Cohesive Zone Models vs.

    XFEM

    Thomas Siegmund Purdue University


    T. Siegmund, Purdue
    1

    Funding
    JOINT CENTER OF EXCELLENCE for ADVANCED MATERIALS, FAA Cooperative Agreement 04-C-AM-PU. Damage Tolerance and Durability of Adhesively Bonded Composite Structures Technical Monitor: Curt Davies Cost share: Purdue University Additional Funding: Catterpillar Inc.
    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Research Accomplishements
    Compare cohesive zone model approach to XFEM. Implement fatigue crack growth in XFEM Study contact fatigue failure

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    XFEM-ABAQUS
    eXtended Finite Element Method Extension of conventional FEM based on the concept of partition of unity;

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    XFEM-ABAQUS
    u = N I ( x ) [ u I + H ( x )a I ]
    I =1 N

    N I shape function u I conventional nodal dispalcement a I enriched nodal displacements

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Traction-Sparation Law
    Tn,0 K 0 = Tt ,0 0 0 n K0 t =1

    Tn,0 Tt ,0 max , max,0 max,0

    Tn = (1 D )Tn,0 ,Tt = (1 D )Tt ,0 Teff d m Dm = 0 m T. Siegmund, Purdue 0 el


    m

    Example: CZM vs. XFEM


    Plate with a central hole Remote displacements CZ elements along several radial lines XFEM enrichment throughout

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Damage Accumulation Rule


    Damage accumulation starts if a deformation measure, accumulated or current, is greater than a critical magnitude. There exists an endurance limit which is a stress level below which cyclic loading can proceed infinitely without failure. The increment of damage is related to the increment of absolute value of deformation as weighted by the ratio of current load level relative to strength.

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Damage Accumulation Rules


    T m eff CZM : dDc = Cf max , Dc = dDc

    p1 p1 Cf , Dc = dDc XFEM : dDc = max

    f..cohesive endurance limit .cyclic cohesive length

    K0 = E0

    f..cohesive endurance limit cyclic reference strain

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Fatigue Damage Model


    Cyclic damage variable: DC = = Effective tractions: T n Since: Adamaged A0

    F Tn = A0 (1 DC ) (1 DC ) =T ( T n n max,0 , 0 )

    Tn = Tn max,0 (1 DC ), 0 Current Cohesive Properties:

    max = max,0 (1 DC ) , n = max 0 = max,0 (1 DC ) 0

    , , T , T ... ) =D (D , Need to define : D C C C n t n t


    T. Siegmund, Purdue
    10

    Monotonic Loading
    1.4E+07 1.2E+07 1.0E+07 ELASTIC XFEM

    22 [Pa]

    8.0E+06 6.0E+06 4.0E+06 2.0E+06 0.0E+00 0 0.002 0.004

    CZM

    0.006

    0.008

    E22

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Cyclic Loading: Damage Evolution in Mode I


    1

    Cyclic Damage [ ]

    0.8

    0.6

    0.4

    0.2

    0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    the first three elements of the row of elements emerging from the hole at . --- 1st element CZM (both integration points shown), - - 1st element XFEM, ---- 2nd element CZM (lagging integration point shown), - - 2nd element XFEM, ---- 3rd element CZM (lagging integration point shown), - - 3rd element XFEM.
    Normalized Time [ ]

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Cyclic Loading: Mixed Mode

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Contact Fatigue
    Multiaxial Fatigue Criteria:

    Critical Plane Approach E.g.: Findley Criterion: max { a + f n ,max } = f

    a shear stress amplitude on a plane n ,max max. normal stress on that plane
    T. Siegmund, Purdue
    14

    Contact Fatigue
    Multiaxial Fatigue Criteria:

    Critical Plane Approach E.g.: Findley Criterion: max { a + f n ,max } = f

    a shear stress amplitude on a plane n ,max max. normal stress on that plane
    T. Siegmund, Purdue
    15

    Example Result

    Provides location of crack initiation but not: -- number of cycles to failure -- not applicable to variable amplitude loading T. Siegmund, Purdue
    16

    CZM Approach
    Cohesive Zone Model
    LE CE CE LE LE CE CE LE

    LE CE LE CE LE CE LE CE LE LE

    Mesh generator available Tie CZ mesh to main model T. Siegmund, Purdue

    CE

    CE LE CE LE

    17

    Redefine: Effective Traction


    Common Fatigue Crack Growth Contact Fatigue

    T =

    (Tn )

    + (Tt )

    T =

    ( Tn )

    + ( Tt )
    2

    T =

    0.64 2 T + T ( ) t n 3 if Tn > 0 T = 0.64 T n + Tt 3 if Tn < 0

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    18

    Pmax = 16800 N at Failure


    Contact Radius

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    19

    Damage Evolution

    Subsurface Crack Initiation Site

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Contact Radius

    20

    Damage Evolution Pmax = 2800 N

    Subsurface Crack Initiation Site Contact Radius

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    21

    Comparison
    Damage Accumulation Rate

    0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000


    Load
    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    Subsurface Surface

    Summary
    CZM vs. XFEM:
    Provide close results if correctly calibrated CZM is mesh dependent, XFEM less

    Contact Fatigue:
    Multifacet CZM Effective traction Variable amplitude loading or tilted geometry

    T. Siegmund, Purdue

    23

    You might also like