AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK

EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK

EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS
James J. Kosloski

Senior Engineering Manager - CAE Associates

Dr. Michael Bak

Senior Engineering Manager - CAE Associates

Thomas Meyer

Associate - CAE Associates

THEME

Structural Analysis - Durability, Fatigue & Fracture.

KEYWORDS

fracture mechanics, crack growth, mesh morphing, life prediction, fatigue,

stress intensity factor, finite element.

SUMMARY

The durability of aging aerospace components is compromised by the existence

and continued growth of cracks due to cyclic loading conditions. Fracture
mechanics provides accepted analytical and numerical approaches for
predicting the remaining fatigue life for a known existing crack in a known
cyclic loading environment. Fracture mechanics can be used to predict how the
cracks will grow as a function of cyclic loading, the path they will take, and at
which point the crack will propagate to failure.
In this paper we present an automated method for modelling the extension of a
crack in a finite element analysis. Typical procedures for calculating crack
growth life involve determining the stress intensity factor (K) at the crack tip as
a function of crack length and applied loading. This data can then be used with
an initial flaw size, the material fracture toughness, and Paris law constants to
determine how many cycles it will take to grow a crack to failure. To obtain
the stress intensity factor as a function of crack length, the finite element model
must be updated to include the extended crack. The typical procedure for
AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

extending a crack involves manually modifying the underlying geometry using

CAD tools, re-meshing the model, and reapplying boundary conditions and
loads. This procedure is tedious and time consuming. An automated method
for extending a crack in a finite element model has been developed using User
Programmable Features (UPF) in the ANSYS finite element code. In this
method the existing mesh of the model is morphed so that the edge of an
element lies along the predicted crack growth direction. This element is then
separated from its neighbouring element, thus incrementally extending the
crack by one element length. The model is reanalyzed and a new stress
intensity factor is calculated. The procedure is automatically repeated,
extending the crack by one element length and recalculating K until the desired
crack length is obtained. Upon completion of a series of such analyses of the
structure with increasingly large cracks, the fracture life-time can be obtained
by using material crack growth data.
 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

1: Introduction

Understanding how cracks will grow in a complicated structure is a major

challenge. This must be well understood for safe operation and for setting safe
inspection intervals to detect the presence and growth of unexpected cracks.
There are two parts in such predictions: 1) determining the Stress Intensity
Factor (SIF) for a crack in a complex part & 2) determining the rate of cyclic
crack growth which is controlled by the SIF. This paper reports a new
innovative method for the first part; obtaining SIFs for an arbitrary structure. It
has the advantage of using existing CAD or finite element files and eliminates
the need to include crack geometry in the finite element mesh.

Currently there are several techniques available to predict SIF (KI) for a given
cracked geometry using general purpose finite element codes such as
ANSYS. These include special crack-tip elements, J-integral calculations
around the crack tip and curve-fitting to theoretical infinite stresses at crack tip.
Each of these techniques requires that the crack be modelled and included in
the finite element mesh. Two existing methods for including a crack in a finite
element model are:

1. Model distinct element edges along the entire crack path using
coupled, coincident nodes. A crack can then be extended by de-coupling nodes
along the crack boundary. The disadvantage here is that the crack path must be
fully known before hand, as no update of the crack direction can be included
after meshing. Load redistribution must be done by hand if the crack affects the
overall compliance of the structure.

2. Regenerate the model after each crack growth increment. The existing
model must be modified, usually by changing the CAD geometry, to include a
longer crack. This method has the advantage of not having to predetermine the
crack path and can more easily account for load redistribution. However,
considerable effort is required on each crack increment to develop new CAD
file with a crack, re-mesh the model and, re-apply boundary conditions. .

This paper describes a method developed by CAE Associates which eliminates

the aforementioned disadvantages. In this method, a crack is inserted and
automatically extended without changing element numbering in the finite
element model. There is no need to include the crack in the CAD or FEA file,
no need to predetermine the crack path, and no need to re-mesh or reapply
loads or boundary conditions. The output of the analysis is a file of SIF versus
crack length which can then be used in crack growth utility codes such as
nCode DesignLife(TM), NASGRO and AFGROW. Figure 1 illustrates the
overall method, which will be discussed below. This new method will greatly
increase the efficiency of crack propagation analyses. It is particularly relevant
for application in overhaul and repair procedures as well as setting subsequent
AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

inspection intervals. We refer to this new method as the Automated Crack

Extension or ACE.

The desired output of the automated procedure is to obtain the stress intensity
factor (SIF) at the crack tip as a function of the crack length, a. Such
information can subsequently be used as input for cyclic crack growth codes.

Figure 1: Pictorial Representation of Automated Crack Extension (ACE) Method

Key features of the ACE method.

The ACE procedure automatically predicts crack growth direction,

extends the crack in the finite element model, and performs analysis
until a specified crack length is reached.

o By default the crack grows perpendicular to the maximum

principal stress, but other crack growth directions can easily be
incorporated.

o The crack path is calculated and advanced internally. There is

no need to pre-determine the crack path.

o KI is automatically calculated based on the J integral approach

and output to a text file.

The output is SIF versus the crack length which is compatible with
fracture mechanics codes to calculate cyclic crack life.

Only one baseline CAD geometry is needed. There is no need to model

any crack explicitly in the CAD model.
 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

Only one finite element mesh is needed. There is no need for manual re-
mesh of the structure as the crack advances.

Node and element numbers of the original mesh are maintained.

ACE includes the effect of load redistribution due to the crack.

The procedure is automated and efficient - no manual interaction is

required. Mesh-morphing and crack extension add negligible time to
analysis procedure.

The initial crack location, orientation and length can be arbitrarily

defined without explicitly including it in the mesh.

The procedure allows the same global mesh and boundary conditions to
be used with cracks at any location.

It can be used to evaluate the severity of cracks found during inspection.

2: Overall Methodology

ACE utilizes the ANSYS general purpose finite element code to perform
stress analyses of a cracked structure. The ACE process consists of the
following four steps:

1. Definition of the un-cracked structure and loading.

The model of structure is created in the normal manner using either a CAD file
or an existing FE model. At this step, the structure has no crack and the FE
mesh need not anticipate the location or path of the crack.

2. Initial Crack Definition

The starting and ending locations of the initial crack are specified by
coordinate location. ACE inserts the crack in the un-cracked FE mesh. A
straight line is assumed between the start and end points of the crack. Figure 2
shows the original mesh and the mesh with the initial crack inserted.
AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

Figure 2: Initial Crack Insertion

The element connectivity is modified and new nodes are added on one side of
the crack so that elements no longer share nodes on the crack faces. The
coordinate locations of the crack face nodes are modified so they lie directly
along the initial crack. The node location modification and element
redefinition is performed using the user programmable feature (UPF)
capabilities of ANSYS. A user routine was developed to perform these
modifications quickly, without requiring a full re-mesh of the geometry.

3. Structural analysis & SIF calculation

Structural analysis of the cracked body is performed to obtain and save the SIF
versus crack length. This analysis includes the crack and will capture load
redistributions due to its presence.

The ANSYS CINT command is used to calculate the J-integral at the crack
tip. The crack tip node number and a coordinate system representing the crack
normal direction is stored by the routine and the J-integral calculation is done
without any user intervention. The SIF (K) is calculated from the J-integral
and the element material modulus. The SIF and present crack length is saved
to a file for post processing in a cyclic crack growth code.

4. Crack Extension & mesh morphing along the new crack front.

The cracked-body stress field is evaluated and the crack is advanced by a

prescribed amount in a direction perpendicular to the cracked body maximum
principal stress.

As with the initial crack, the elements are separated along the crack boundary
by generating duplicate nodes and redefining the element connectivity on one
side of the crack. The nodes are moved so that they lie exactly on the new
crack face. The routine checks the new element shapes. If an element will
become too distorted by moving its nodes to the crack face, that element is
automatically split into 2 triangles. Figure 3 illustrates the crack advance
algorithm after the first increment.
 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

Figure 3: First Crack Extension Increment

The process is repeated during each increment of crack extension until the final
defined crack length is reached. Figure 4 shows the crack advance algorithm
after the final increment.

Figure 4: Final Crack Extension Increment

During each increment of crack advance, the SIF and crack length are
appended to a text file. This file of crack length vs. SIF can then be used to
calculate the number of cycles it takes to grow a crack using a crack growth
code.

3: Theory

The crack extension routine in ANSYS consists of two parts. An APDL

macro [1] and a user programmable feature (UPF) of a custom ANSYS
command (usr4) [2]. The macro sets up the model for the call to the custom
command. It determines the nodes and element edges that will represent the
crack face, defines a coordinate system that points in the crack growth
direction, splits elements into 2 triangles if required, and performs additional
node smoothing if required. The macro also tracks the crack tip nodes, calls
AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

the ANSYS CINT command [3] to calculate the J-integral, and outputs the
crack length and SIF to a text file. The crack direction for the initial crack is
determined by the input locations for the crack start and crack end. For
subsequent increments the macro calculates the principal stress direction a
small distance ahead of the crack tip and l creates a new coordinate system
aligned with this principal direction. If desired, the macro can generate a series
of plots of the crack extension.

The custom command takes the next node along the crack face, as determined
by the macro, and moves it so that it lies directly on the newly calculated crack
surface. Duplicate nodes are created and elements are redefined based on these
newly created nodes. Smoothing of nearby elements is performed to make sure
the elements retain reasonable shapes. Any temperatures that were applied on
the original nodes are copied to the newly created nodes by this routine.

The inputs to the macro are:

1. Node number for crack starting point.

2. Coordinates of initial crack end point.

3. Desired crack extension length.

4. Radius around crack for smoothing of nodes.

5. Number of contours to be used with the CINT command.

6. Decay coefficient, that determines how quickly the transition

from moved nodes to non-moved nodes occurs.

7. Number of additional smoothing passes to use to improve

element shapes.

The custom command is called by the macro with the following inputs:

8. Radius from input number 4 above.

9. Node at the start of crack at this increment. This node will be

duplicated and attached elements on one side redefined.

10. Node at the end of crack for this increment. This node will be
moved by the custom command.

11. Crack increment length.

 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

The macro will determine how many elements must be modified to achieve the
desired input crack extension and it will call the custom command once for
each element.

4: Examples

The automated procedure was verified using a model of a plate with a hole
under tension, which has a known theoretical solution for KI vs. a [4]. See
Figure 5.

Figure 5: Verification analysis of a plate with cracked hole.

A half symmetry model was built in ANSYS for use in validating the ACE
method. The loading was applied and an initial mesh was generated. As with
any finite element analysis, a reasonably fine mesh is required for accurate
results. Therefore, local mesh refinement was used to generate a fine mesh in
the expected crack growth region. Figure 6 shows the original un-cracked
mesh.

Figure 6: Example Model Mesh

AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

For comparison, an additional 1/4 symmetry model was created in which the
crack was advanced manually by incrementally deleting symmetry constraints
along the boundary.

Stress intensity factor versus crack length data calculated from these two
analyses were compared to a theoretical value. The theoretical solution is valid
only for a << width of plate. Figure 7 shows that ACE matches the theoretical
solution, as well as the manual method.
400

350

300

250
StressIntensity(K)

Theory
200
Manualmethod

AutomatedMethod

150

100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

CrackLength(a)

Figure 7: SIF vs. Crack Length for Example Problem.

Airframe structural beam example

The problem of a crack in structure similar to an airframe beam was used as a

second example of the ACE method. Such problems are of critical importance
when cracks are discovered during maintenance operations on aircraft. Figure
8 shows a prototypical airframe beam section that was used to demonstrate the
new ACE method.

Figure 8: Prototypical Airframe Beam Section

 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

Using ANSYS, the un-cracked geometry was meshed, loads and boundary
conditions applied, and analyzed as a 2D plane stress representation. Again a
refined mesh was used in the region of expected crack propagation. Figure 9
shows the 2D plane stress model used for this example.

Figure 9: 2D Finite Element Model of Airframe Example

The ACE procedure was used to advance the crack more than 20 times. This is
equivalent to conducting 20 independent analyses if the previously mentioned
classical methods were used. Total run time for a crack advance from 0.15
inches to 2 inches was about 30 seconds. There was no user intervention during
the analysis. Figure 10 shows the initial crack. Figure 11 shows the final crack
extension. In each of these figures the crack is annotated in red.

Figure 10: Initial Crack in Airframe Example

AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

Figure 11: Final Crack in Airframe Example

The redistribution of loads during the crack advance can be seen in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Redistribution of Stress During Crack Extension.

Figure 13 shows the resulting SIF along the crack path which can be used in a
crack growth simulation program.
 AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT MODELS

35000

30000

25000

20000

KI 15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 13: Stress Intensity vs. Crack Length for Airframe Example

5: Conclusions and Future Work

When a crack is discovered in a service part during routine inspections or

otherwise, it is necessary to understand how, and at what rate, the crack will
grow and how its presence affects the compliance of the structure. The time
required to provide these answers using the traditional methods is often very
long and can significantly delay the parts return to service. The new ACE
method offers the ability to quickly evaluate such cracks by using existing
CAD or FE models.

The use of the ACE method provides an automated technique for inserting and
extending a crack in an existing FE mesh. The starting crack can be inserted at
any location in a model without prior definition in the CAD file or re-meshing.
J-integral fracture mechanics calculations are used to extract stress intensity
factors at the crack tips at each increment. No special crack tip elements are
required for the J-integral calculations.

The ACE method has been developed for 2D finite element models with a
single crack. Future enhancements to the ACE method would include
extending the capability to 3D, where the crack boundary would be a surface,
and the capability to have multiple cracks growing simultaneously.

Additional enhancements would involve automatically passing the SIF vs. a

data into a fracture life code such as nCode DesignLife(TM), NASGRO, or
AFGROW.
AUTOMATED METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING CRACK
EXTENSION IN FINITE ELEMENT

REFERENCES

[1] ANSYS Parametric Design Language Guide, ANSYS Release 12.1,

November 2009. ANSYS, Inc, Canonsburg, PA.

[2] ANSYS Programmer's Manual for Mechanical APDL, ANSYS Release

12.1, November 2009. ANSYS, Inc, Canonsburg, PA.

[3] ANSYS Commands Reference, ANSYS Release 12.1, November 2009.

ANSYS, Inc, Canonsburg, PA.

[4] Dowling, Norman E., 1993, Mechanical Behavior of Materials :

Engineering Methods for Deformation, Fracture & Fatigue, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.