Skip to main content

At the earlier stage of crack deceleration, dot(KID) is positive and linear relation with crack tip velocity (Nishioka, 2001)

Submitted by chaumcor on

I am reading the paper of Prof. Nishioka (2001) (Int. Jour. of Solid and Fracture, Vol. 38, 5273-5301). He said that "At the earlier stage of crack deceleration, dot(KID) is positive and linear relation with crack tip velocity". I do not understood that meaning. This is from mathematical, right? If after the earlier stage of crack deceleration, which relation between dot(KID) and crack tip velocity?

CMIS2009 5th Contact Mechanics International Symposium, April 28-30 2009, Chania, Greece

Submitted by GEStavroulakis on

CMIS09

5th Contact Mechanics International Symposium

April 28-30, 2009, Chania, Greece

 

www.cmis2009.tuc.gr

 organized by

Prof. G.E. Stavroulakis

Technical University of Crete

 

Fatigue Crack Propagation Analysis by means of ANSYS

Submitted by Sanam Saebi on

HI Every Body

 I am postgraduate student of NavalArchitecture, My thesis is Fatigue Crack Propagation in ship Industry, I want to use Ansys Software for this purpose, at first I generated a plate with a central Crack and did fine mesh around crack and saw the results, for next step I should propagate the crack, my questions are as below:

1. How we can predict the Crack path?

2. how should I growth the crack? shall I clear mesh and extend the crack or.....???? I don't know?

3. How Can I use from Interface Elements?

Surface Energies? Continuum Molecular Dynamics?

Submitted by Mike Graham on
Choose a channel featured in the header of iMechanica

I recently encountered the research of Phil Attard and others, in which the contact problem is solved, relaxing the restrictions of the traditional contact models (Hertz, JKR, DMT) and solving based on a formulation where the governing equations are derived using finite-range surface forces and calculated numerically, self-consistently.

Model Overconstraints

Submitted by gprinz on

Hello all,

I have created a 3-d dynamic model in ABAQUS using shell elements.  When I run the analysis I get several warning messages indicating that I have zero pivot nodes.  When I locate where these nodes are, I find that they are in the middle of my beam (modeled with shell elements) away from any boundary conditions.  Does anyone know why ABAQUS is indicating these inconsistent overconstraints in the middle of my model???  The analysis fails to converge when NLGEOM=yes but has no problems converging when NLGEOM is removed.

Thanks in advance

ABAQUS damaged plasticity model

Submitted by gprinz on

I am trying, quite unsuccessfully, to model a composite steel frame under dynamic loads.  The problem is nonconvergence brought upon by the concrete tensile strains (i think).  Apparently ABAQUS kills the analysis once cracks form in the concrete.  Has anyone had any success using the "Concrete damaged plasticity model" under cyclic loads and large strains.  I have found that researchers use many different concrete properties to get convergence, but I am more interested in a better concrete representation.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.