Energy consistent framework for continuously evolving 3D crack propagation

This paper presents an enhanced theoretical formulation and associated computational framework for brittle fracture in elastic solids within the context of configurational mechanics, building on the authors’ previous paper, Kaczmarczyk et al. (2014). The local form of the first law of thermodynamics provides an equilibrium condition for the crack front, expressed in terms of the configurational forces. Applying the principle of maximal energy dissipation, it is shown that the direction of the crack propagation is given by the direction of the configurational forces. In combination with a fracture criterion, these are utilised to determine the position of the continuously evolving crack front. This exploitation of the crack front equilibrium condition leads to a completely new, implicit, crack propagation formulation. A monolithic solution strategy is adopted, solving simultaneously for both the material displacements (i.e. crack extension) and the spatial displacements. The resulting crack path is resolved as a discrete displacement discontinuity, where the material displacements of the nodes on the crack front change continuously, without the need for mesh splitting or the use of enrichment techniques. In order to trace the dissipative loading path, an arc-length procedure is adopted that controls the incremental crack area growth. In order to maintain mesh quality, smoothing of the mesh is undertaken as a continuous process, together with face flipping, node merging and edge splitting where necessary. Hierarchical basis functions of arbitrary polynomial order are adopted to increase the order of approximation without the need to change the finite element mesh. Performance of the formulation is demonstrated by means of three representative numerical simulations, demonstrating both accuracy and robustness.

[1]  Christian Miehe,et al.  Thermodynamically consistent phase‐field models of fracture: Variational principles and multi‐field FE implementations , 2010 .

[2]  Jonathan Richard Shewchuk,et al.  What Is a Good Linear Finite Element , 2002 .

[3]  J. D. Eshelby Energy Relations and the Energy-Momentum Tensor in Continuum Mechanics , 1999 .

[4]  Ralf Müller,et al.  A continuum phase field model for fracture , 2010 .

[5]  It Informatics,et al.  Portable, Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation , 2012 .

[6]  Anthony Duncan Jefferson,et al.  Three dimensional finite element simulations of fracture tests using the craft concrete model , 2004 .

[7]  Ted Belytschko,et al.  A finite element method for crack growth without remeshing , 1999 .

[8]  Ercan Gürses,et al.  A computational framework of configurational-force-driven brittle fracture based on incremental energy minimization , 2007 .

[9]  Gérard A. Maugin,et al.  Configurational Forces: Thermomechanics, Physics, Mathematics, and Numerics , 2010 .

[10]  J. Shewchuk What Is a Good Linear Finite Element? Interpolation, Conditioning, Anisotropy, and Quality Measures , 2002 .

[11]  B. Bourdin,et al.  Numerical experiments in revisited brittle fracture , 2000 .

[12]  Mohaddeseh Mousavi Nezhad,et al.  Three‐dimensional brittle fracture: configurational‐force‐driven crack propagation , 2013, 1304.6136.

[13]  Paul Steinmann,et al.  Modeling three‐dimensional crack propagation—A comparison of crack path tracking strategies , 2008 .

[14]  Chris J. Pearce,et al.  Mesh improvement methodology for 3D volumes with non-planar surfaces , 2013, Engineering with Computers.

[15]  J. Wiebesiek,et al.  Comparison of predictions by mode II or mode III criteria on crack front twisting in three or four point bending experiments , 2008 .

[16]  Ted Belytschko,et al.  Discontinuous enrichment in finite elements with a partition of unity method , 2000 .

[17]  Gérard A. Maugin,et al.  Material Inhomogeneities in Elasticity , 2020 .

[18]  J. Oliver MODELLING STRONG DISCONTINUITIES IN SOLID MECHANICS VIA STRAIN SOFTENING CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS. PART 1: FUNDAMENTALS , 1996 .

[19]  Morton E. Gurtin,et al.  Configurational forces and the basic laws for crack propagation , 1996 .

[20]  Timothy J. Tautges,et al.  MOAB : a mesh-oriented database. , 2004 .

[21]  P. Steinmann,et al.  On a solution strategy for energy-based mesh optimization in finite hyperelastostatics , 2008 .

[22]  Paul Steinmann,et al.  Application of material forces to hyperelastostatic fracture mechanics. II. Computational setting , 2001 .

[23]  SmoothingLori A. FreitagMathematics Tetrahedral Mesh Improvement Using Swapping and , 2007 .

[24]  J. Oliver MODELLING STRONG DISCONTINUITIES IN SOLID MECHANICS VIA STRAIN SOFTENING CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS. PART 2: NUMERICAL SIMULATION , 1996 .

[25]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  An eigenerosion approach to brittle fracture , 2012 .

[26]  Ercan Gürses,et al.  A computational framework of three-dimensional configurational-force-driven brittle crack propagation , 2009 .

[27]  Mark Ainsworth,et al.  Hierarchic finite element bases on unstructured tetrahedral meshes , 2003 .

[28]  A. Huespe,et al.  Continuum approach to the numerical simulation of material failure in concrete , 2004 .

[29]  Paul Steinmann,et al.  Application of material forces to hyperelastostatic fracture mechanics. I. Continuum mechanical setting , 2000 .

[30]  J. D. Eshelby,et al.  The force on an elastic singularity , 1951, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[31]  Matthew G. Knepley,et al.  petsc: Portable, Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation , 2016 .

[32]  Gilles A. Francfort,et al.  Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem , 1998 .