Comparison of Various Criteria Determining the Direction of Crack Propagation Using the UDMGINI User Procedure Implemented in Abaqus
Clicks: 234
ID: 270082
2021
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
30.0
/100
234 views
40 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #504 of 812 articles by views in Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 812 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
This paper describes a method of predicting the direction of crack propagation implemented by user subroutines in the Simulia-Abaqus FEA system with the use of the extended finite element method (X-FEM). This method is based on displacements and stresses according to Westergaard’s solution of Griffith’s crack problem. During the calculations, in each crack increment, the algorithm reads the stresses and displacements in the model around the crack tip, calculates the criterion values at the read points, reduces them to a unit distance from the crack tip, fits a polynomial to these points, and finds the minimum of the function closest to the last propagation angle. The algorithm also decides when the crack grows, depending on a chosen criterion. Four criteria have been implemented to predict the direction of failure propagation: the maximum principal stress criterion, the Ottosen–Podgórski criterion, the new criterion described here based on the minimum component values of the displacement vector, and the maximum circumferential tensile stress (MTS). These criteria were verified in two tests: the three-point bending test of the notched beam and the anchor pull-out test. For these tests, the criterion built into Simulia Abaqus does not correctly define the crack path, which causes the crack propagation direction to “rotate” when simulating the fracture. The criteria developed here, in most cases, determine the crack path and the maximum force very well compared to real laboratory tests.
| Reference Key |
gontarz2021materialscomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Jakub Gontarz;Jerzy Podgórski;Gontarz, Jakub;Podgórski, Jerzy; |
| Journal | Materials (Basel, Switzerland) |
| Year | 2021 |
| DOI |
10.3390/ma14123382
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.