DOI 10.

1007/s10778-016-0741-y
International Applied Mechanics, Vol. 52, No. 2, March, 2016

A MODIFIED METHOD FOR EVALUATING THE INVARIANT J-INTEGRAL

IN FINITE-ELEMENT MODELS OF PRISMATIC BODIES

V. A. Bazhenov1, A. S. Sakharov2, Yu. V. Maksimyuk1, and A. A. Shkryl’1

Numerical experiments are performed to analyze the invariance and reliability of the results of
evaluation of the J-integral by the modified method of reactions in problems of mixed fracture. Bodies
with cracks undergoing elastoplastic deformation under static loading are considered. To demonstrate
the universality of the method to finite-element schemes, prismatic bodies are considered. This allows
using not only conventional finite-element schemes, but also the semi-analytical finite-element method

Keywords: elastoplastic problem, fracture mechanics, invariant J-integral, path of integration, finite-element
method, modified method of reactions

Introduction. A wide range of problems of fracture mechanics are solved in [4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19] to determine the
stress–strain state and load-bearing capacity of bodies with cracks. To use numerical methods such as the finite-element method
(FEM) to solve problems of mechanics, it is necessary to develop special approaches and algorithms for determining the
parameters of fracture mechanics, of which the Cherepanov–Rice J-integral is the most popular [1–3, 8, 10, 12, 15–17, 20]. In
[1–3, 8], it was shown that it is highly effective to evaluate the J-integral from nodal reaction forces and displacements in
finite-element models (the method of reactions), unlike the conventional approach that uses stresses and strains (the method of
stresses), and it was theoretically proved that in the elastic case, the J-integral evaluated by the method of reactions is invariant to
FEM models, i.e., is equal to zero when evaluated along a closed path. This allows modifying the conventional way of evaluating
the J-integral by integrating along some path around the crack tip.
Our objective here is to perform numerical experiments to prove the invariance and reliability of the results of
evaluating the J-integral by modified method of reactions in problems of mixed fracture.
To demonstrate the universality of the method to finite-element schemes, the problem formulation is restricted to
prismatic bodies, which makes it possible to use not only conventional FEM schemes [6, 7], which apply to any configuration of
modeled objects, but also the semianalytic finite-element method (SFEM) [4].
Thus, we will address elastic problems of fracture mechanics involving the determination of the invariants of the
J-integral using the FEM for two- and three-dimensional prismatic bodies with mode I cracks undergoing mixed fracture under
static loading.
1. Modified Method of Reactions for Evaluating the J-integral. Let us consider a fragment of a finite-element model
of the cross-section of a body with a crack (Fig. 1). According to [4], the finite-element mesh around the crack tip is refined.
Let us draw a path around the crack tip such that its sides parallel to the crack faces (sections S2 and S4) are aligned with
the edges of finite elements (FEs) and its sides perpendicular to the crack faces (sections S1 and S3) go through the middle of FEs
(Fig. 1). As shown in [8], the J-integral along such a path can be expressed in terms of the displacement vectors {u} j and nodal
reaction forces {R} j of the jth FE:
N3 N1
1 1
J =å {u}Tj {R} j - å {u}Tj {R} j
2¢ ) 2¢ )
j =1 2( Ds j j =1 2( Ds j

1
Kyiv National University of Construction and Architecture, 2Research Institute of Structural Mechanics, 31
Vozdukhoflotskii Av., Kyiv, Ukraine 03680, e-mail: s_piskunov@ua.fm. Translated from Prikladnaya Mekhanika, Vol. 52,
No. 2, pp. 46–54, March–April, 2016. Original article submitted March 27, 2015.

140 1063-7095/16/5202-0140 ©2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

 Crack x1 S1 S2 x1
S1 S2
x2 x2
S3

x1¢ x1¢

Ds j
x 2¢ x 2¢ S4 S3
Ds j
S4 Crack tip

Fig. 1 Fig. 2

N1 N2
æ ({u k ¢ }3 + {u k ¢ }4 ) - ({u k ¢ }1 + {u k ¢ }2 ) ö æ {u } - {u k ¢ }2 ö
- å çç R k ¢ ÷÷ - å çç R k ¢ k ¢ 4 ÷÷
2 ¢ 2Ds 2 ¢
j =1è 2Ds ø j j =1è øj

N3 N4
æ ({u k ¢ }3 + {u k ¢ }4 ) - ({u k ¢ }1 + {u k ¢ }2 ) ö æ {u } - {u k ¢ }2 ö
- å çç R k ¢ ÷÷ - å çç R k ¢ k ¢ 4 ÷÷ . (1.1)
2 ¢ 2Ds 2 ¢
j =1è 2Ds ø j j =1è øj

According to the property of invariance proved in [8], this expression evaluated along a closed path must be equal to
zero.
If the stress–strain state near the crack tip is symmetric, it is sufficient to evaluate the J-integral along half the path and
to multiply the result by 2. In this connection, we will consider a Ï-shaped path around the crack tip (sections S1–S3) closed by a
straight line passing along the crack surface (section S4, Fig. 2).
In formula (1.1) for an integral along a closed path S1–S4 shown in Fig. 2, we can group the first five terms
corresponding to the integral along the Ï-shaped part of the path (sections S1–S3) denoted by J Ï and a term corresponding to the
integral along the line passing through the crack tip and closing this path (section S4):
N4
æ {u } - {u k ¢ }2 ö
J L = å çç R k ¢ k ¢ 4 ÷÷ . (1.2)
j =1è 2Ds 2 ¢ øj

As proved earlier, the J-integral along a closed path JO is equal to zero:

J O = J Ï + J L = 0.

Then the J-integral along the Ï-shaped part of the path can be expressed in terms of the J-integral along the line along
the crack surface:

J Ï = -J L .

Since all reactions on section 4 along the crack are zero and all displacements on the section behind the crack tip are
zero, on the section S4 in (1.2) there remains only the product of the displacements u k ¢ in the directions k ¢ of the node adjoining
the crack tip and the nodal reaction force R k ¢ at the crack tip:

R k ¢u k ¢
J =JÏ =- , (1.3)
2Ds 2 ¢

where R k ¢ is the nodal reaction force at the crack tip; u k ¢ are the displacements of the node that is the nearest to the crack tip and is
on the line along the crack.
To validate this approach, we will evaluate the J-integral in a prismatic body with a lateral notch (Fig. 3). Let it be a
mode I crack (the crack surface is perpendicular to the applied load).

141
 3
100 J×10 , N/m 1
90
2

3
q 70
x1¢ 4
60 q
2a 50
40
30
x 2¢
20
a
q
10 x 3¢
2a

–25 –12.5 0 12.5 25 z3¢, mm

Fig. 3

x1 x1 x2 x1
x2 x2
B
S2 D
S1
D¢ R2V
K A V R1V V R2V ¢
S V¢ u2S V¢
K¢ S¢ B¢ R1V ¢
S3 u1S S
C
x1¢ C¢ u1S ¢ u2S ¢
S4 x1¢
S¢
x1¢ A¢
x 2¢ Dl
Dl
x 2¢ x 2¢
Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6

As can be seen, the results obtained using the method of reactions for different paths (curve 4) are identical and in
agreement with the reference (curve 3, triangles). The results obtained using the method of stresses for different paths (curves 1
and 2) differ from the reference not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. Thus, the modified method of reactions is clearly
advantageous over the method of stresses [8].
It should be noted that formula (1.3) has been derived using a symmetric design model and, hence, contains components
of nodal reaction forces and displacements of nodes located on one of the crack faces. The value of the J-integral obtained in this
way corresponds to its value for the part of the path located on one side of the crack. To find the total value of the J-integral, the
result calculated by formula (1.3) should by multiplied by 2.
Since there is no symmetry in the case of mixed fracture, the J-integral should be evaluated using a discrete model of the
whole body and a path around the crack tip that has a discontinuity on the crack surface. A fragment of such a finite-element
model of the cross-section of a body with a crack oriented arbitrarily relative to the direction of the external load is shown in
Fig. 4.
In the specific case of elastic deformation and mixed fracture, the total value of the J-integral is the sum of the values JI
and JII corresponding to modes I and II: J = J I + J II .
To evaluate the J-integral from the nodal reaction forces and displacements in the case of mixed fracture, we will
consider the path ÑÀÂDD¢B¢A¢Ñ¢ around the crack tip that has a discontinuity on the crack surface (Fig. 5).
This path can be represented as the sum of two Ï-shaped parts of closed paths on both sides of the crack. Then we have

142
 x1¢ x1¢
q

b b

x 2¢ x 2¢
l b
lcr

b Crack

a b
Fig. 7

J CABDDB ¢A ¢C ¢ = J CABD + J C ¢A ¢B ¢D ¢.

The J-integral along each of these closed paths (CABDVSC and C ¢A ¢B ¢D¢V ¢S ¢C ¢) can be represented as the sum of the
values of the J-integral J Ï along the Ï-shaped parts (CABD and C ¢A ¢B ¢D¢, respectively) and along the line J L closing them.
Since the J-integral along each of the closed path is equal to zero, we obtain the equalities

J Î (CABDVSC ) = J Ï + J L = J CABD + J CSVD = 0,

J Î (C ¢A ¢B ¢D ¢V S¢ C¢ ¢) = J Ï + J L = J C ¢A ¢B ¢D ¢ + J C ¢S V¢ D
¢ ¢
= 0,

J CABDD ¢B ¢A ¢C ¢ = J CABD + J C ¢A ¢B ¢D ¢ = -J CSVD - J C ¢S V¢ D

¢ ¢
. (1.4)

Using formula (1.3) and considering the equilibrium of nodes, we can represent the J-integral along the line as a product
of the reactions of the node V at the crack tip and the displacements of the node S before the crack tip:

{R}V {u}S {R}V ¢ {u}S ¢

J CSVD = , J C ¢S V¢ D
¢ ¢
= , (1.5)
2 Dl 2 Dl

T T
ìR ü ìR ü
where {R}V = í 1 ý and {R}V = í 1 ý are the vectors of total nodal reaction forces of the FEs located on both sides of the
¢
î R2 þ V î R2 þ V ¢
ìu ü ìu ü
crack tip in the directions of the local coordinate system; {u}S = í 1 ý , {u}S = í 1 ý are the vectors of nodal
¢
î u2 þ î u2 þ S S¢
displacements; Dl is the pitch of the finite-element mesh in the direction of crack propagation (axis Dx 2 ; Fig. 6).
Since {R}V = -{R}V ¢ according to the equilibrium of the node at the crack tip, the J-integral along a path is expressed as

1 æç ìï u S - u S ¢ üï ö
J CABDD ¢B ¢A ¢C ¢ = -
{R}V {u}S
2 Dl
-
{R}V ¢ {u}S ¢
2 Dl
=
{R}V ¢
2Dl
({ u}S - { u}S ¢ ) =
2 Dl ç
è
{R V1¢ }
RV ¢ í 1
2
1
ý÷.
ïî u S 2 - u S 2¢ ïþ ÷ø

Thus, the expression of the J-integral consists of two terms: the products of nodal reaction forces and displacements
along the õ1- and õ2-axes, which correspond to JI and JII:

1
J = J I + J II = ( R ( u - u S ¢ ) + RV ¢ ( u S - u S ¢ )). (1.6)
2 Dl V1¢ S 1 1 2 2 2

143
 z1¢

2l z 2¢
2b
Fig. 8

s
s

y1 y1
y2
y2 b b
2l 2l

b b
b

s
s
a b
Fig. 9

2. Testing of the Method by Solving Test Problems. To validate the expression for JI and JII, we will consider, as a
test example, the deformation of an unbounded plate with a mode I or mode II crack. Input data: external load q = 1 kg/cm2;
elastic modulus Å = 1 kg/cm2; Poisson’s ratio n = 0.3.
Two design models are used: (i) for mode I, symmetric design model for a quarter of the plate fragment under normal
load q = 1 kg/cm2 (Fig. 7a) and (ii) for mode II, antisymmetric design model for a quarter of the plate fragment under shear load q
= 1 kg/cm2 (Fig. 7b).
In the cases of modes I and II, the whole plate is considered to be subject to loads qn = 1 kg/cm2 and qs = 1 kg/cm2
(Fig. 8). The crack is specified as boundary conditions for a quarter the plate and as different numbers of nodes on the crack faces
for the whole plate.
The integrals JI and JII evaluated for a quarter the plate by formula (1.6) are in agreement with the reference integrals
calculated in [11] for a mode I crack (J I = 2.859 kg/cm) and a mode II crack (J II = ( K II2 / E )(1- n 2 ) = 2.859 kg/cm
(K II = t pl)).
The difference between the values of the J-integral found for a quarter the plate by formula (1.1) and the values
calculated by formula (1.6) is of the order of 10–17. Thus, the J-integral along a closed path equals zero, which is one of the signs
of its invariance.
The integrals JI and JII evaluated using formula (1.6) for the whole plate coincide with those for a quarter the plate in
either case of fracture.
Thus, formula (1.6) allows finding reliable values of JI and JII for mixed fracture without the need for additional
processing of the finite-element solution.

144
 a b
Fig. 10

To validate the proposed approach applied to mixed fracture using asymmetric (about the crack) design models, we will
consider, as a test example, the tension of an infinite plate with a crack located at an angle b to the line of action of the load
(Fig. 9a, b).
If b = 45°, then loads applied in different ways induce an identical stress–strain state near the crack tip, which
corresponds to mixed fracture. Figures 10a, b show fragments of discrete models near the crack tip in a b´b fragment of the plate.
The values of JI and JII obtained for both design models are also in agreement with the reference ones. If the stress state
is not symmetric, the evaluation of the J-integral in a plate with an inclined crack does not require additional computations as
well.
Thus, we can conclude that the modified method of reactions applied to problems of mixed fracture allows quite
accurate evaluation of the J-integral for various design models of objects under study.
Conclusions. By conducting numerical experiments, we have analyzed the invariance and reliability of the results of
the evaluation of J-integral by the modified method of reactions in problems of elastoplastic fracture. Bodies with cracks
undergoing elastic deformation under static load have been considered. To demonstrate the universality of the method to
finite-element schemes, prismatic bodies have been considered, which allows using not only conventional finite-element
schemes, but also the semianalytic finite-element method (SFEM).

REFERENCES

1. V. A. Bazhenov, A. I. Gulyar, S. O. Piskunov, A. S. Sakharov, A. A. Shkryl’, Yu. V. Maksimyuk, “Solving linear and
nonlinear three-dimensional problems of fracture mechanics by a semi-analytic finite element method. Part 1.
Theoretical background and a study of efficiency of fem procedure for solving three-dimensional problems of fracture
mechanics,” Strength of Materials, 43, No. 1, 15–24 (2011).
2. V. A. Bazhenov, A. I. Gulyar, S. O. Piskunov, A. S. Sakharov, A. A. Shkryl’, Yu. V. Maksimyuk, “Solving linear and
nonlinear three-dimensional problems of fracture mechanics by a semi-analytic finite element method. Part 2. A
procedure for computing the invariant J-integral in fem discrete models,” Strength of Materials, 43, No. 2, 122–131
(2011).
3. V. A. Bazhenov, S. O. Piskunov, O. S. Sakharov, O. O. Shkril’, and D. V. Bogdan, “Effective evaluation of the J-integral
in problems of elastoplastic deformation,” in: Strength of Materials and Theory of Structures [in Ukrainian], Issue 86,
KNUBA, Kyiv (2010), pp. 3–17.
4. V. A. Bazhenov, O. I. Gulyar, S. O. Piskunov, and O. S. Sakharov, Semianalytic Finite-Element Method in Problems of
the Fracture of Solids [in Ukrainian], KNUBA, Kyiv (2005).
5. E. M. Morozov and G. P. Nikishkov, Finite-Element Method in Fracture Mechanics [in Russian], Librokom, Moscow
(2010).

145
 6. O. S. Sakharov, Yu. V. Shcherbina, O. V. Gondlyakh, and V. I. Sivets’kyi, Integrated System for Modeling Processes
and Designing Chemical Equipment [in Ukrainian], Poligraf-Consulting, Kyiv (2006).
7. D. G. Shimkovich, Design of Structures in MSC/NASTRAN for Windows [in Ukrainian], DMK, Moscow (2001).
8. V. A. Bazhenov, A. I. Gulyar, S. O. Piskunov, A. S. Sakharov, and A. A. Shkril’, “Method to evaluate the invariant
J-integral in finite-element models of prismatic bodies,” Int. Appl. Mech., 44, No. 12, 1378–1388 (2008).
9. V. L. Bogdanov, A. N. Guz, and V. M. Nazarenko, “Nonclassical problems in the fracture mechanics of composites with
interacting cracks,” Int. Appl. Mech., 51, No. 1, 64–84 (2015).
10. T. Elguedj, A. Gravouil, and A. Combescure, “Appropriate extended functions for X-FEM simulation of plastic fracture
mechanics,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 195, 501–515 (2006).
11. E. Giner, F. Fuenmayor, L. Baeza, and J. Tarancon, “Error estimation for the finite element evaluation of G I and G II in
mixed-mode linear elastic fracture mechanics,” Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 41, 1104–1079 (2005).
12. Z. Jin and R. Dodds, “Crack growth resistance behavior of a functionally graded material: Computational studies,” Eng.
Fract. Mech., 71, 1651–1672 (2004).
13. A. A. Kaminsky, M. F. Selivanov, and Yu. A. Chernoivan, “Initial fracture of a viscoelastic isotropic plate with two
collinear cracks of equal length,” Int. Appl. Mech., 50, No. 3, 310–320 (2014).
14. L. P. Khoroshun and O. I. Levchuk, “Stress distribution around cracks in linear hardening materials subject to tension:
Plane problem,” Int. Appl. Mech., 50, No. 2, 128–140 (2014).
15. Kim Yun-Jae, J. Kim, Y. Park, and Kim Young-Jin, “Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics method for finite internal axial
surface cracks in cylinders,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 71, 925–944 (2004).
16. Kim Jin-Su, Choi Jae-Boong, Kim Young-Jin, and Park Youn-Won, “Investigation on constraint effect of reactor
pressure vessel under pressurized thermal shock,” Nuclear Eng. Design, 219, 197–206 (2002).
17. Kim Yun-Jae, Huh Nam-Su, Park Young-Jae, and Kim Young-Jin, “Elastic-plastic J and COD estimates for axial
through-wall cracked pipes,” Int. J. Press. Vess. Piping, 79, 451–464 (2002).
18. V. M. Nazarenko and A. L. Kipnis, “Stress concentration near the tip of an internal semi-infinite crack in a
piecewise-homogeneous plane with a nonsmooth interface,” Int. Appl. Mech., 51, No. 4, 443–448 (2015).
19. V. G. Popov, “Stress state of a finite elastic cylinder with a circular crack undergoing torsional vibrations,” Int. Appl.
Mech., 48, No. 4, 430–437 (2012).
20. M. Walters, G. Paulino, and R. Dodds, “Interaction integral procedures for 3-D curved cracks including surface
tractions,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 72, 1635–1663 (2005).

146