PSI - Issue 39

Arturo Pascuzzo et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 39 (2022) 649–662 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

658 10

X 2 (mm)

Young’s modulus (MPa)

Poisson’s ratio

Fracture Toughness (MPa m 1/2 )

0

1780 2890

0.41

0.99 1.09 1.19

30 60

0.4

400

0.39

Figure 5. (a) A schematic of a FGM beam under three-point loading. (b) Initial mesh configurations adopted for the fracture analysis

Figure 5-b reports zoomed view of the crack tip region to illustrate the discretization used for the stretching segment. Figures 6-a and b compare the crack trajectories, and the Load (P) versus Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (CMOD) curves predicted through the proposed method with the predictions achieved by Kim and Paulino. The results show that the proposed modeling strategy is in good agreement with Kim and Paulino. However, it is worth noting that the best accuracy occurs by using the mesh set M1. This can be explained because of the highly refined mesh region around the crack tip region that contributes to improving the precision of the M -integral calculations.

Figure 6. Comparisons in terms of (a) crack trajectories and (b) load-Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (CMOD) curve (F-CMSD) between the proposed method and the numerical approach proposed by Kim and Paulino (FEM) (Kim and Paulino (2004b))