PSI - Issue 28

8

Domenico Ammendolea et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1981–1991 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1988

Fig. 5. Case 1: (a) Comparison of crack paths obtained by using the present method and experimental data in (Sumi and Kagohashi (1983)), numerical predictions reported in (Ventura et al. (2002), Ooi et al. (2012)) (b) Deformed configuration of the beam at different steps.

Fig. 6. Case 1: a comparison in terms of mesh configurations. (a) Initial meshes. (b) Crack paths

In particular, they have simulated the crack propagation by adopting the SBFEM approach combined with an automatic remeshing algorithm ( i.e. the used for analysing the double cantilever beam discussed in Section 4.1). Assuming the mechanical and fracture properties used by Ooi et. Al , numerical simulations were performed to reproduce the crack path. The main aim was to assess the capability of the proposed method to predict the influence of the hole’s presence on the crack path. The initial mesh configuration used for the analysis is represented in Fig. 7 b and comprises 300 triangular elements arranged fine near the crack tip and coarse elsewhere. In particular, the contour of the hole has been discretized using 20 elements, which provide a good representation of the circle. Fig. 8 depict the snapchats proposed by Rashid and those achieved by the proposed method. In particular, Fig. 8-a and Fig. 8-b compare crack paths corresponding to an intermediate and the last steps of the simulation, respectively. The crack paths predicted by the present method are in good agreement with those reported by Rashid. As expected, at the beginning of propagation, the crack is attracted by the hole and a relevant deflection in the trajectory occurs. as far as the crack propagates, the effect of the hole reduces, and the crack path assumes a horizontal trajectory.