Proceedings of GT2006

ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power

for Land, Sea
and Air
Proceedings
of GT2006
May Power
8-11, 2006,
Barcelona,
Spain
ASME Turbo Expo 2006:
for Land,
Sea and
Air

May 8-11, 2006, Barcelona, Spain

GT2006-90599

GT2006-90599
FRACTURE ANALYSIS OF CRACKS IN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIALS USING ANSYS
A.O. Ayhan1, A.C. Kaya2, A. Loghin2, J.H. Laflen1, R.D. McClain1, D. Slavik1
1

GE Aviation, One Neumann Way, MD: T207, Cincinnati, OH 45215

GE Global Research Center, One Research Circle, Niskayuna, NY 12309

ABSTRACT

presented in the literature. Using the analytical displacement

field [1, 2], enrichment of a two-dimensional quadratic finite
element was developed by Foschi and Barrett [4] while Heppler
and Handsen [5] implemented it into a cubic element. The
usage of displacement correlation technique in orthotropic
materials is presented by Boone et. al. [6] along with several
two-dimensional solutions. Dhondt [7] used quarter point
element stress (QPES) method to study mixed mode fracture
behavior of a three-dimensional crack in an anisotropic
material. Pan and Yuan [8] and Denda [9] provided boundary
element formulations to address mixed mode fracture in
anisotropic materials for three-dimensional cracks and under
generalized plane strain conditions respectively. In the most
recent study, Banks-Sills et. al. [10] presented three finite
element based approaches to evaluate stress intensity factors for
special anisotropic cases (orthotropy and monoclinic materials
where crack plane is normal to the symmetry plane).
Anisotropic crack tip fields are required when a two or threedimensional crack in an orthotropic material is not aligned with
principal material directions or when the material is anisotropic.
An example is elliptical surface crack in an orthotropic material
whose normal to the crack plane may or may not be aligned
with one of the material principal axes. Other examples can be
two or three-dimensional inclined cracks in an orthotropic
material. On the other hand, for a surface or corner crack in a
transversely isotropic material whose normal direction is
aligned with the transverse material direction, i.e., crack plane
is parallel to the isotropic planes in the material, orthotropic
crack tip fields can still be used. This is because, in the
perpendicular planes to the crack front, the material still
exhibits orthotropic behavior.

A methodology for performing two and three-dimensional

fracture analyses in orthotropic materials using ANSYS
software (ANSYS) is presented. The methodology makes use
of analytically known crack tip fields in orthotropic materials
and is implemented into a general purpose ANSYS macro. The
ANSYS analysis, which takes into account the material
orthotropy is performed in a regular manner by including the
quarter point elements near the crack front. Then, in the postprocessing module, the developed macro is run to associate the
crack tip displacements with the orthotropic crack tip
displacement fields to compute the mixed-mode stress intensity
factors. Numerical examples are also presented that
demonstrate application and validation of the procedure. These
examples include an edge crack in an orthotropic strip and a
surface crack in a transversely isotropic plate. The results show
how the orthotropic fracture results may differ from those of
isotropic fracture analysis. It is also shown that this difference
can be dramatically big when the stress analysis is done using
the orthotropic properties, whereas the fracture calculations are
performed considering the crack tip fields for a crack in an
isotropic material.
INTRODUCTION
Single crystal (SC) and directionally solidified (DS)
materials are very widely used in practical applications.
Examples include blades and vanes in gas turbines and aircraft
engines. To predict the fracture conditions for a crack contained
in these types of components and materials, accurate estimation
of stress intensity factors requires orthotropic and in some cases
anisotropic crack tip fields. The crack tip stress and
displacement fields in anisotropic media were initially
addressed by Sih et. al. [1], Sih and Liebowitz [2] and later by
Hoenig [3] under more general conditions. Several methods to
compute stress intensity factors in anisotropic materials are

In this study, a methodology for performing orthotropic

fracture analysis using ANSYS is presented. The methodology
makes use of crack tip displacement fields in orthotropic
materials and is implemented into an ANSYS macro. The
ANSYS macro developed and included in Ayhan et. al. [11]

ANSYS is a registered trademark of SAS IP, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of ANSYS Inc.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

In equations (1)-(3), u and v represent the in-plane

displacements and w gives the out-of-plane displacements in
the vicinity of the crack tip in a perpendicular plane to the crack
front. r and are measured relative to the crack plane as shown
in Figure 1. s1 and s2 are the roots of the 4th order characteristic
polynomial equation obtained from the compatibility equation
and can be either purely imaginary or complex depending on
the material properties [2]. Defining,

uses a similar procedure as the KCALC function in ANSYS.

KCALC command was used to validate the macro for cracks in
isotropic media before it was extended to include the
orthotropic crack tip fields (the implementation of the
procedure is presented in the next section). Numerical examples
are also presented to demonstrate and test the methodology.
These examples include an edge-cracked orthotropic strip and a
surface crack in a transversely isotropic plate. In the first
example, the methodology is compared with analytically
known solution, whereas in the second example orthotropic
fracture solutions are generated for different material cases and
they are compared to fracture solution for the same crack
configuration in an isotropic material. It is also demonstrated
that one can compute significantly erroneous stress intensity
factors, if the analysis is performed using orthotropic material
properties and that the fracture calculations are carried out
using isotropic material properties associated with one of the
principal material axes, i.e., an isotropic fracture calculation is
performed by post-processing the orthotropic stress analysis
solution. A similar methodology is also being developed for
cracks in anisotropic materials including the orthotropic case
where cracks are misaligned relative to material principal axes.
This work will be published in a future paper.

2 =

s1 =

s1 =

v = KI

Ex

+ K II

2r

(c

2
c c45

44 55

1 / 2

Im (cos + s3 sin )

1/ 2

(7)

a22 =

1
Ey

, a = xy = yx and a = 1 ,
66
12
Ex

(8)

G12

Ey

ai 3 a j 3
a33

(9)

, i, j = 1,2

i 3 3i
=
Ei
E3

and a = 1 .
33

(10)

E3

For the out-of-plane component of the near tip displacements

[2], the shear constants cij are defined as,

1
1/ 2
1/ 2
Re
q 2 (cos + s 2 sin ) q1 (cos + s1 sin )

s
s
1 2

w = K III

1
Ex

ai 3 =

(6)

where

(1)

a12 si2 + a22 , p = a s 2 + a .

i
11 i
12
si

bij = aij

1
1/ 2
1/ 2
Re
s1q 2 (cos + s 2 sin ) s 2 q1 (cos + s1 sin ) (2)

s1 s 2

2r

(5)

where Ei is the Youngs modulus in the i-principal direction,

Gxy is the shear modulus in the x-y plane, and ij is the
Poissons ratio defining the extensional strain in the j direction
when the material is compressed by a unit strain in the i
direction. In the case of plane strain conditions including the
interior of a three-dimensional straight crack front aligned with
one of the material principal axes in an orthotropic material, the
aij are replaced by bij and, the rest of the formulation for the inplane displacements remains the same. The compliance
constants, bij, under plane strain conditions are given by,

1
1/ 2
1/ 2
Re
s1 p2 (cos + s2 sin ) s2 p1 (cos + s1 sin )
s1 s2

2r 1
1/ 2
1/ 2
Re
p2 (cos + s2 sin ) p1 (cos + s1 sin )

s1 s2

2r

1
1
1
1
1
( ) 2 + i( + ) 2 , s2 = 1 ( ) 2 + i( + ) 2
2
2

a11 =

The in-plane and out-of-plane displacements, u, v and w,

associated with this type of crack are given by [2],

+ K II

For plane stress, the compliance constants, aij, are given as,

Figure 1: A planar crack in an orthotropic material.

qi =

2r

for > and < , respectively. In equations (1) and (2), qi

and pi are defined through material compliance constants aij and
si as follows:

u = KI

1
1
1
1
i
( + ) 2 ( ) 2 , s2 = i ( + ) 2 + ( ) 2
2
2

and

In Fig. 1, a planar crack aligned with the material principal

axes in an orthotropic material is shown. As can be seen in the
figure, the crack front is straight and parallel to one of the
material principal axes.

Ez

(4)

2a11

the roots of the characteristic equation are given by,

CRACK TIP FIELDS IN AN ORTHOTROPIC MATERIAL

Ey

and = 2a12 + a66 ,

a22
a11

c44=Gyz , c55=Gxz , c45=0.

s3 is given by,

(3)

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

(11)

s3 = 3 + i 3 , where = c45 and = 1 (c c c 2 )1/ 2 . (12)

3
44 55
45
3
c44
c44

The above equations provide the full field displacements near

the crack tip. As explained in the next section, to compute the
corresponding stress intensity factors using the quarter point
element method, only the near tip displacements at the crack
faces are evaluated, i.e., = 180o.

ORTHOTROPIC
ANSYS

FRACTURE

ANALYSIS

Figure 2: Crack tip nodes on quarter-point elements on the

crack faces.

USING

In Figure 2, the nodes belonging to the first row crack tip

elements on the crack faces are shown. Note that the mid-side
nodes, node 2 and 4, are moved to the quarter point locations
along the elements edge. Assume that the x-direction
displacements with respect to the crack tip local coordinate
system is given by [16],

For performing fracture analysis, ANSYS uses the socalled quarter-point elements, in which the mid-side nodes on
the element edges perpendicular to the crack front are moved to
the quarter points [12]. It is well known that the procedure of
moving the mid-side nodes of a quadratic isoparametric
element to the quarter points introduces the r-1/2 singular
behavior to the elements strain field [13-15]. Although this
method embeds the singularity in the cracks strain field, it does
not necessarily enforce the analytically known behavior of the
near-tip displacements and strains with respect to the angular
position, i.e., the terms in equations (1)-(3). Therefore, when
the quadratic wedge elements are used, refinement in the
angular direction is needed for better representation of the
crack-tip fields in the angular direction.

u
= A + Br
r

u 24 = u2 u 4 , u35 = u3 u5

v+ = KI

r f (s1 , s 2 , p1 , p 2 )

r g (s1 , s 2 , q1 , q 2 )

w + = K III r

where

where

h(c44 , c55 )

u 24
and u35
= A + Br2
= A + Br3
r2
r3

(18)

Solving the equations in (18) for A and B and using the relation
r3 = 4r2, we obtain,
A=

i( p p1 ) (13)
f (s1 , s2 , p1 , p2 ) = Re 2

s1 s2

4u 35 8u 24
8u 24 u35 and
B=
3r33 / 2
3 r3

(19)

As r approaches the crack tip, the first term in Equation (16)

becomes dominant. Therefore, Equation (16) can be rewritten
as,

i (s q s q ) (14)
g (s1 , s2 , q1 , q2 ) = Re 1 2 2 1
s1 s2

where h(c44 , c55 ) = (c44c55 )1/ 2

(17)

Rewriting Equation (17) in the form of (16) we have,

It can easily be proven that, when evaluated at the upper

crack face, i.e., = +, the orthotropic crack tip displacements
given in Equations (1)-(3) reduce to the following form.

(16)

where A and B are unknown constants. The displacement

differences between corresponding nodes across from each
other can be written as,

Fracture analysis of a crack in homogeneous and isotropic

medium can be performed using the KCALC command in the
post-processing module of ANSYS. Details of the methodology
and procedures for KCALC command are explained in [16].
Here the methodology of calculating stress intensity factors in
ANSYS is summarized and extended for the analysis of cracks
in orthotropic media.

u + = K II

lim
r 0

(15)

u
= A = 2 K II
r

f ( s1 , s2 , p1 , p2 )

(20)

Then, the mode II stress intensity factor becomes,

Similarly, displacements at the bottom crack face can also be

obtained as u-, v- and w-. Notice that in equations (13-15) mode
I and II stress intensity factors are uncoupled when the
displacement fields are evaluated at the crack faces. As stated
in the previous section, this is applicable only when the
orthotropic material and crack coordinate axes coincide or in
the case of a curved crack which lies in a transversally isotropic
plane.

K II =

A
2

f ( s1 , s 2 , p1 , p 2 )

(21)

Similarly, the same methodology can be applied to v and w

displacements as given below.
v
= C + Dr
r

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

(22)

w
= E + Fr
r

a)

(23)

Mode I and mode III stress intensity factors, then, become,

KI =

K III =

where,
C=

(24)

C
2

g ( s1 , s2 , q1 , q2 )

(25)

E
h
(
s
3 , c44 , c55 )

b)

8v 24 v35 and
8w24 w35
E=
3 r3
3 r3

(26)

Figure 4: ANSYS two-dimensional FE Model (plane stress).

a) Global view, b) Close-up view of crack region.
NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
In analyzing this problem, a two-dimensional plane stress
model was generated in ANSYS. The FE mesh shown in Figure
4 consisted of 568 nodes and 175 8-node quadrilateral
(PLANE82) elements having 12 6-node wedge elements
located at the crack tip. As can be seen in the figure, only half
of the geometry was modeled due to symmetry in y direction.

Edge Crack in An Orthotropic Strip

In this section, a numerical example is presented that deals
with an edge crack in an orthotropic strip. As shown in Figure
3, the orthotropic strip contains an edge crack (a/b=0.5) and is
loaded by uniform tensile load at the far ends. The height of the
strip is taken as h=10a so that the results generated using the
described methodology are comparable to those of Kaya and
Erdogan [17], which assumes the strip to be infinitely long.

For the material properties, 6 different cases (isotropic and

orthotropic) are considered (Table 1). The isotropic and
orthotropic material properties cases are identical to the ones
used by Kaya and Erdogan [17]. The last two cases are for SC
and DS materials.

Table 1: Material properties used in analysis of edge-cracked

orthotropic strip.

Ey

Material

Ex
h

Isotropic I
Isotropic II
Orthotropic I
Orthotropic II
SC
DS

Ex (psi)

Ey (psi)

xy

Gxy (psi)

2.475E+07
8.000E+06
8.000E+06
2.475E+07
1.871E+07
2.505E+07

2.475E+07
8.000E+06
2.475E+07
8.000E+06
1.871E+07
1.773E+07

0.0360
0.1114
0.0360
0.1114
0.3799
0.3700

7.000E+05
7.000E+05
1.846E+07
1.807E+07

As can be seen from Table 2, the stress intensity factors

obtained using ANSYS and the developed macro are in good
agreement with those of Kaya and Erdogan [17].

0
Figure 3: Edge Crack in An Orthotropic Strip.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Table 2: Edge cracked orthotropic strip fracture analysis results

using ANSYS.

K1 (psi-in^0.5) K1 (psi-in^0.5)
% Error
[17]
ANSYS Macro

Isotropic I

5.0086

4.9716

-0.7387

Isotropic II

5.0086

4.9717

-0.7367

Orthotropic I

4.8209

4.9213

2.0827

4.8209

4.8361

0.3154

SC

5.0830

DS

4.9700

Orthotropic II

2b
a

Ey

2c

h
y

Ex

Ez

t
Surface Crack in A Transversely Isotropic Plate

In this section, a surface crack in a transversely isotropic

(TI) plate is analyzed (Figure 5). As can be seen in Figure 5, the
transverse isotropy plane is parallel to the crack plane.
Therefore, the following conditions must be satisfied:
Ex=Ez=Ep, Ey=Et, yx=yz=tp, xy=zy=pt, Gxy=Gyz=Gt and
Gxz=Gp=Ep/(2(1+p)), where p and t represent in-plane
and transverse directions, respectively. p is the in-plane
Poissons ratio and equal to xz. It is important to note that
although the problem analyzed involves curved crack front, the
orthotropic fracture conditions still hold. This is due to the fact
that the material properties at every point in planes
perpendicular to the crack front represent orthotropic behavior,
as the material is transversely isotropic. Therefore, the
described methodology, which makes use of analytically
known crack tip displacement fields in an orthotropic material,
is still valid for this problem. On the other hand, in the case of
an orthotropic plate containing a semi-elliptical surface crack,
this methodology cannot be used, except the depth and free
surface locations. This is due to the fact that although the
material is globally orthotropic, it exhibits anisotropic behavior
in planes perpendicular to the crack front in the interior region.

Figure 5: A semi-elliptical surface crack in a transversely

isotropic plate (Ex=Ez, etc.).
Due to symmetry in the problem, only a quarter of the
model is analyzed (Figure 6) by imposing displacement
boundary conditions on x=0 plane and the uncracked ligament
on the crack plane.
The stress intensity factors presented for this problem
are normalized with respect to KR, which is given by,
KR = 0

(27)

where
Q = 1 + 1.464(a / c)1.65

Table 3: Material properties used in analysis of surface crack

in a transversally isotropic plate.

A surface crack in a transversely isotropic plate with

a/c=0.2 and a/t=0.4 is analyzed (Figure 5). The size of the plate
is chosen to be h=b=5c. As can be seen in the figure, the plate
is loaded by uniform pressure loads acting at the ends. To
investigate the effect of material properties on the mode I stress
intensity factor, the orthotropic material properties used in the
edge cracked orthotropic strip problem are considered. An
isotropic case is also included in the analyses, to identify the
difference in the stress intensity factors between the same crack
in an isotropic material and the analyzed orthotropic materials.
The material properties used for this example are given in
Table 3.

Isotropic

Orthotropic I Orthotropic II

Ex (psi)

8.000E+06

8.000E+06

2.475E+07

Ey (psi)

2.475E+07

8.000E+06

Ez (psi)

8.000E+06

2.475E+07

xy

0.3000

0.0360

0.1114

yz

0.1114

0.0360

xz

0.0360

0.1114

Gxy (psi)

7.000E+05

7.000E+05

Gyz (psi)

7.000E+05

7.000E+05

Gxz (psi)

3.861E+06

1.114E+07

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

a)

NW=12
NL=4

NW=4
NL=4

b)
NW

NL

c)
NW=5
NL=4

SE

NW=6
NL=4

Crack Front

S1
S2

Figure 7: Crack front meshes with different NW value setting.

Figure 6: ANSYS FE Model Surface Crack (a/c=0.2, a/t=0.4)
in a transversely isotropic plate, a) Global view, b)
Close-up view of crack region, c) Detail of crack front
mesh.

KI values for Orthotropic I material

1.4

NW = 6
NW = 12

1.2

Normalized KI

Near the crack front, tunnel mesh, which contains singular

wedge elements at the crack front, is used (Figure 6 and 7). The
outer layers in the tunnel contain quadratic hexahedral
elements. The tunnel mesh is connected to quadratic tetrahedral
elements in the rest of the structure via quadratic pyramid
elements.

1.0
NW = 4
NW = 5

0.8
0.6

S1=a/100
S2=a/10
SE=a/40
NL=4

0.4
0.2

The sensitivity of fracture solutions to different mesh

refinement parameters near crack front is studied. In Figure 6
and 7, the parameters controlling the near-tip mesh refinement
are shown. These parameters are: S1 width of the singular
wedge, S2 radius of the tube, SE length of the wedge
element along the crack front, NW number of wedge
elements around the crack front, NL number of element
layers perpendicular to the front.

0.0
0

30

Theta (Deg.)

60

90

Figure 8: Mode I stress intensity factors along crack front for

different NW values (Orthotropic I material).
Four different SE values were used to assess the effect of
uniform mesh refinement along the crack front. These SE
values are a/10, a/20, a/40 and a/80, while the other parameters
were kept constant (S1=a/100, S2=a/10, NW=12 and NL=4).
The results are shown in Figure 10 (Orthotropic II material). It
is observed that the stress intensity factor distribution remains
almost unchanged in the interior region. On the other hand, the
stress intensity factor is mostly affected near the free surface
due to element size along the crack front. This behavior is
expected, since the crack considered has a high aspect ratio and
that the crack front curvature changes more rapidly near the
free surface than in the interior region. Also, it is seen that the
solutions for SE=a/80 and a/40 are very close to each other.
Therefore, a/40 is selected for assessment of S1 effect and in
the final solution.

First, the dependence of the fracture solution on the

number of wedges (NW) is addressed. To evaluate the
influence of this parameter, four NW values are considered {4,
5, 6, 12} while all other parameters are maintained constant:
S1=a/100, S2=a/10, SE=a/40, NL=4 (Figure 7).
The normalized mode I stress intensity factor distributions
along the crack front as a function of the parametric angle are
plotted in Figure 8 and 9 for Orthotropic I and Orthotropic II
cases, respectively. As can be seen from these figures, the stress
intensity factor solution for Orthotropic I material presents a
larger dependence on NW parameter than for Orthotropic II
material. However, for both material cases, the solution shows
convergence for an NW>6 therefore, a value of NW=12 is used
to evaluate other mesh control parameters.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

From the mesh refinement study presented, the following

settings are chosen for the final solution: S1=a/100, S2=a/10,
SE=a/40, NL=4, NW=12. Using these mesh parameters and the
material properties in Table 3, mode I stress intensity factor
distributions along the crack front are plotted in Figure 12. For
comparison purposes, the Newman and Raju [18] solution is
also included. Based on [17], the fracture solutions for
Orthotropic I and II (transversely isotropic) materials should be
the same. As can be seen in Figure 12, the presented method
also produces same mode I stress intensity factor distributions
along the crack front for the two cases.

KI values for Orthotropic II material

1.4

NW = 4

Normalized KI

1.2
1.0
0.8

NW = 5
NW = 6
NW = 12

0.6

S1=a/100
S2=a/10
SE=a/40
NL=4

0.4
0.2
0.0

1.6

30

Theta (Deg.)

60

90

1.2

Normalized KI

Figure 9: Mode I stress intensity factors along the crack front

for different NW values (Orthotropic II material).
KI for Orthotropic II case

1.4

1.0
Orthotropic I (NW = 12)
Orthotropic II (NW = 12)

0.8
0.6

S1=a/100
S2=a/10
SE=a/40
NL=4

0.4

1.2

SE=a/80
Normalized KI

Newman and Raju solution [15]

Isotropic (NW = 12)

1.4

0.2

1.0

S1=a/100
S2=a/10
NW=12
NL=4

0.8
0.6

SE=a/40

0.4

0.0
0

30

Theta (Deg.)

60

90

Figure 12: Comparison of mode I stress intensity factors along

the crack front for different material property cases.

SE=a/20
0.2

SE=a/10
0.0
0

30

Theta (Deg.)

60

Comparing the stress intensity factors at the a location

(parametric angle Theta = 90o), it is seen that the results can be
different by as much as approximately 10%, i.e., the difference
between KI values for isotropic and orthotropic cases at the a
location is 10%. Needless to say, the results shown in Figure 12
are for the material properties listed in Table 3 only and will
change for other orthotropic material properties. It should also
be noted that no special attempt was made in this study to
capture the correct behavior of stress intensity factor near free
surface (Theta = 0o). It is well known that the strength of stress
singularity at the free surface is dependent on crack front/free
surface intersection angle and material properties [19, 20].

90

Figure 10: Mode I stress intensity factors along the crack front
for different SE values (Orthotropic II material).
1.4

KIa and KIc for Orthotropic II case

KIa

Normalized KI

1.2
1.0
0.8

KIc

0.6

S2=a/10
SE=a/40
NW=12
NL=4

0.4
0.2
0.0
a/200

a/100

Alternatively, as an approximate solution for a crack in an

orthotropic material, one may want to solve the problem by
performing the ANSYS stress analysis by taking into account
the orthotropy in the material properties and the fracture
analysis using the isotropic fracture calculation. The KCALC
command in ANSYS does not allow performing stress intensity
factor calculation for a crack in an orthotropic material. But,
one can still define a different isotropic material property set
and perform the fracture calculations. To illustrate the different
results one may run into, this is investigated for the surface
crack problem studied (Orthotropic II case).

S1
a/50

Figure 11: Effect of S1 on KIa (depth) and KIc (free surface)

for Orthotropic II material case.
For a mesh setting of S2=a/10, SE=a/40, NW=12 and
NL=4, the KI solution does not show dependence on the third
analyzed parameter, S1 (width of the singular wedge element).
Figure 11 contains the Orthotropic II KIa and KIc stress
intensity factor solutions for three S1 values: a/50, a/100 and
a/200.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

CONCLUSION

8.0

KI determined with

7.0

A methodology for performing fracture analysis of cracks

in orthotropic materials using ANSYS was presented. The
stress analysis portion of the procedure is done using the
orthotropic material properties. For the calculation of stress
intensity factors, a macro that makes use of analytically known
displacement fields for cracks in orthotropic media was
developed. The macro uses displacement fields on the quarterpoint elements near the crack tip to compute the stress intensity
factors. To validate the methodology, the results were
compared with analytically known solutions for an edge crack
in an orthotropic strip. Another example, a surface crack in a
transversely isotropic plate, was also presented. In this
example, the sensitivity of fracture solution to crack tip mesh
parameters was determined. Then, the stress intensity factor
solutions from the true orthotropic fracture analyses for
different material orthotropy cases were compared to that of a
surface crack in an isotropic material. Of particular interest, the
results from orthotropic fracture analysis were compared to
those of cases in which the stress analysis part of the problem is
done using orthotropic material properties whereas the
computation of stress intensity factors is based on crack tip
fields in an isotropic material (orthotropic stress analysisisotropic fracture calculation). It was concluded based on this
comparison that significant errors can arise if the orthotropicisotropic approach is taken to obtain fracture solution for a
crack in an orthotropic material.

KCALC using Ex

Normalized KI

6.0
5.0

KI determined with
Ortho_Kcalc.mac

4.0

KI determined with

3.0

KCALC using Ey

2.0
1.0
0.0
0

30

Theta (Deg.)

60

90

Figure 13: Comparison of normalized stress intensity factors

using crack tip fields in an isotropic material.
The ANSYS stress analysis results, which takes into
account the orthotropic material properties, are used and
isotropic fracture calculation is performed by considering two
cases. As the elastic modulus of the material (E) in these two
cases, Ex and Ey of Orthotropic II material are used. Also, in
both cases, xy of Orthotropic II material is taken as the
isotropic Poissons ratio () for fracture calculations. In Figure
13, the results of this study are shown, where the normalized
stress intensity factors are plotted for each case including the
orthotropic fracture analysis for the same material. As can be
seen from this figure, although the material orthotropy is taken
into account in the stress analyses for both cases, there are
significant differences in the outcome of isotropic fracture
solutions when compared to the true orthotropic fracture
solution. Depending on which elastic modulus is used in the
isotropic fracture calculation, which makes use of the
displacement solution from an orthotropic stress analysis, the
stress intensity results can differ dramatically. For example, if
Ex of the same material is used as the elastic modulus in the
stress intensity factor calculations, the results (KCALC using
Ex) are higher by a factor of 5.5 along the whole crack front
when compared to the orthotropic solution (given by
Ortho_Kcalc.mac). On the other hand, if the elastic modulus in
the loading direction, which is perpendicular to the crack plane,
is considered (Orthotropic II - Ey), the stress intensity factor
results from such a calculation are 79% higher compared to the
Orthotropic II case. Even though the elastic modulus in the
loading direction is considered in the latter case, this difference
is significantly high. Therefore, it is very important to perform
the fracture analysis of cracks in orthotropic materials in a
correct manner where the material orthotropy is properly taken
into account in both stress analysis and post-processing (K
calculation).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors used MeshSim (software by Simmetrix Inc.) for
generating the 3D finite element meshes used in this study. The
authors also acknowledge the financial support of this work by
GE Aviation.
REFERENCES
[1] Sih, G. C., Paris, P. C. and Irwin, G. R., On cracks in
rectilinearly anisotropic bodies, International Journal of
Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 1, pp. 189-203, 1965.
[2]
Sih, G. C. and Liebowitz, H., Rectilinearly Anisotropic
Bodies with Cracks, Fracture An Advanced Treatise, Vol. II,
Liebowitz, H. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 108-131,
1968.
[3]
Hoenig, A., Near-tip behavior of a crack in a plane
anisotropic elastic body, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 16, No: 3, pp. 393-403, 1982.
[4] Foschi, R. O. and Barrett, J. D., Stress intensity factors
in anisotropic plates using singular isoparametric elements,
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering,
Vol. 10, pp. 1281-1287, 1976.

The ANSYS macros used in this study are included in [11].

The crack tip displacement fields used for computation of stress
intensity factors are implemented into a computer program,
Ortho_disps.f, which is called from the main ANSYS macro,
Ortho_Kcalc.mac.

[5]
Heppler, G., Hansen, J. S., Mixed mode fracture
analysis of rectilinear anisotropic plates by high order finite
elements, International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 445-464, 1981.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

[6]
Boone, T. J., Wawrzynek, P. A., and Ingraffea, A. R.,
Finite element modeling of fracture propagation in orthotropic
materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp. 185-201, 1987.

[19] Benthem, J. P., State of stress at the vertex of a quarterinfinite crack in a half-space, International Journal of Solids
and Structures, Vol. 13, pp. 479-492, 1977.
[20] Bazant, Z. P. and Estenssoro, L. F., Surface singularity
and crack propagation, International Journal of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 15, pp. 405-426, 1979.

[7]
Dhondt, G., Mixed-mode K-calculations in anisotropic
materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 69, pp. 909922, 2002.
[8]
Pan, E., Yuan, F. G., Boundary element analysis of
three-dimensional cracks in anisotropic solids, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 48, pp.
211-237, 2000.
[9]
Denda, M., Mixed Mode I, II and III analysis of
multiple cracks in plane anisotropic solids by the BEM: a
dislocation and point force approach, Engineering Analysis
with Boundary Elements, Vol. 25, pp. 267-278, 2001.
[10] Banks-Sills, L., Hershkovitz, I., Wawrzynek, P. A.,
Eliasi, R., Ingraffea, A. R., Methods for calculating stress
intensity factors in anisotropic materials: Part I z = 0 is a
symmetric plane, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 72,
pp. 2328-2358, 2005.
[11] Ayhan, A. O., Kaya, A. C., Laflen, J. H., McClain, R. D.
and Slavik, D. Fracture Analysis of Cracks in Orthotropic
Materials Using ANSYS, GE Global Research Center
Class-I Technical Report, 2003GRC370, December, 2003.
[12] ANSYS Basic Analysis Procedures Guide, ANSYS
Version 6.0.
[13] Barsoum, R. S., Application of quadratic finite
elements in linear fracture mechanics, International Journal of
Fracture, Vol. 10, pp. 603-605, 1974.
[14] Barsoum, R. S., On the use of isoparametric finite
elements in linear fracture mechanics, International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 10, pp. 25-37,
1976.
[15] Dhondt, G., General behaviour of collapsed 8-node 2-D
and 20-node 3-D isoparametric elements, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 36, pp.
1223-1243, 1993.
[16] Fracture Mechanics, ANSYS Revision 4.4 Tutorial,
1989.
[17] Kaya, A. C. and Erdogan, F., Stress intensity factors
and COD in an orthotropic strip, International Journal of
Fracture, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 171-190, 1980.
[18] Newman, J. C., Jr and Raju, I. S., Stress-intensity factor
equations for cracks in three-dimensional finite bodies,
Fracture Mechanics: Fourteenth Symposium-Volume I: Theory
and Analysis, ASTM STP 791, J. C. Lewis and G. Sines, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. I-238-I-265,
1983.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/03/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use