Issue 75

R. Ince et alii, Fracture and Structural Integrity, 75 (20YY) 435-462; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.75.30

of the 3D SNCB specimens were calculated using the J-integral and the CCI technique for each   and s/d ratio selected above. These values were determined for each finite element at the crack tip in the model with 20 nodes, whereas they were computed at the side surface of each finite element at the crack tip in the model with 8 nodes. In the crack analysis based on the CCI approach, Eqns. (12) and (14) were employed for the models with 8-noded and 20-noded solid elements, respectively. In Fig. 6a, the Y values computed for   =0.5 are illustrated for s/d =0.5, 0.6, and 0.8 according to each solid element type. It is observed from Fig. 6a that there is a very close coincidence between both calculation methods, except for finite elements at the boundary of the specimen. The mean values, excluding the boundary values of the CCI technique, were also plotted according to both crack analyses in Fig. 6a. Based on this, it can be concluded that the solutions with 8-node elements are sufficiently compatible with those of 20-node elements.

Figure 6: a) Y distribution along the section in 3D SNCB specimens with  =0.5 b) Comparison of 2D and 3D FEA for SNCB specimen.

443