2nd Reading

January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

International Journal of Computational Materials

Science and Engineering
Vol. 4, No. 4 (2015) 1550025 (17 pages)

c Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S2047684115500256

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

under fatigue loading in piezoelectric material
using extended finite element method

S. Bhattacharya∗,§ , G. Pamnani†,¶ , S. Sanyal∗,

Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

and K. Sharma‡,∗∗
∗Department of Mechanical Engineering
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

NIT Raipur, Raipur 492010, India

†Department of Mechanical Engineering

BIT Raipur, Raipur 493661, India

‡Department of Sciences and Humanities

NIT Uttarakhand, Srinagar (Garhwal)

Uttarakhand 246174, India
§[email protected]
¶[email protected]
[email protected]
∗∗[email protected]

Received 25 March 2015

Revised 25 August 2015
Accepted 29 November 2015
Published 14 January 2016

Piezoelectric materials due to their electromechanical coupling characteristics are being

widely used in actuators, sensor, transducers, etc. Considering wide application it is
essential to accurately predict their fatigue and fracture under applied loading condi-
tions. The present study deals with analysis of fatigue crack growth in piezoelectric
material using the extended finite element method (XFEM). A pre-cracked rectangular
plate with crack at its edge and center impermeable crack-face boundary conditions is
considered for simulation. Fatigue crack growth is simulated using extended finite ele-
ment method under plane strain condition and mechanical, combined (mechanical and
electrical) cyclic loading. Stress intensity factors for mechanical and combined (mechan-
ical and electrical cyclic loadings) have been evaluated by interaction integral approach
using the asymptotic crack tip fields. Crack propagation criteria have been applied to
predict propagation and finally the failure.

Keywords: Fatigue crack growth; piezoelectric material; XFEM.

1. Introduction
Piezoelectric materials have found their wide use in actuators, transducers sensors,
etc. because they can convert mechanical energy to electrical response and vice
versa. Many research works and investigation studies on piezoelectric materials and

§ Corresponding author.

1550025-1
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

their behavior under applied mechanical and electrical loadings have been carried
out. Considering their wide use and application, it is essential to understand the
failure behavior of the piezoelectric materials. The major disadvantage with piezo-
electric materials is their brittle characteristics, due to which they are susceptible
to sudden fracture. In addition presence of void, holes, and cracks can lead to stress
concentration and thus causing sudden failure of the piezoelectric materials, hence
this has led to researcher’s attention and fracture and fatigue responses of piezo-
electric materials are widely investigated.
In the recent past significant research has been focused on analysis of cracks in
the piezoelectric materials. Issues on brittle fracture of piezoelectric materials have
been reviewed [Freiman and White, 1995] for smart ceramics. Problems on near tip
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

stress field and stress intensity factors have been explored [Ou and Chen, 2004].
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

Cracks have also been analyzed for impact loading [Hu et al., 2007]. Linear elastic
fracture mechanics of piezoelectric material has been addressed [Bui and Zhang,
2012]. Both homogenous and nonhomogenous piezoelectric materials with cracks
have also been analyzed [Yu et al., 2012]. Interface and sub interface cracks have also
been addressed for piezoelectric materials [Beom and Atluri, 1996]. Investigation has
also been carried out to develop fracture criteria for piezoelectric materials [Fand
et al., 2004]. These Fracture criteria have been developed based on generalized or
equivalent stress intensity factor and energy release rate.
Most of the work addressed above has used one or the other numerical methods
for carrying out the analysis. Numerical methods have found wide application in
solving the fracture problems. Different numerical methods, i.e., boundary element
method (BEM), finite difference method (FDM), finite element method (FEM) have
been applied in fracture mechanics simulation and analysis of cracks in piezoelectric
materials.
Recently, extended finite element method (XFEM) [Moes et al., 1999] has been
developed using partition of unity enrichment technique in finite element method.
XFEM has proven to be an efficient tool in solving crack problems without remesh-
ing, as compared to conventional finite element method. In XFEM enrichment func-
tions are used to model discontinuities. XFEM has been widely used in analysis of
crack in fracture mechanics. It has been used for fatigue life estimation of func-
tionally graded materials (FGM) [Bhattacharya et al., 2013]. XFEM has also been
applied to simulation of crack in piezoelectric materials [Bechet et al., 2009]. Sub
interface crack for piezoelectric bimaterials has been analyzed using XFEM [Sharma
et al., 2013].
However, there has been limited research work done on the fatigue crack growth
of piezoelectric materials. Considering the wide potential application of piezoelectric
materials, numerical methods as XFEM can be applied for fatigue simulation of
piezoelectric materials.
In the present work, XFEM has been applied for analysis of crack propagation in
two-dimensional (2D) for piezoelectric materials. Edge crack and center crack prob-
lems have been considered for the analysis. Six-fold enrichment functions formulated

1550025-2
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

[Bechet et al., 2009] have been used for piezoelectric materials together with the
crack fracture criteria for predicting failure. Problems of mechanical and combined
(mechanical and electrical) cyclic loading are evaluated for crack propagation in
piezoelectric materials.

2. XFEM Formulation for Piezoelectric Materials

For piezoelectric materials the field variables are displacement vector ui and electric
potential χj mechanical strain tensor εij and electric field vector Ei are deduced as
[Kuna, 1998]
1
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

εij = (ui,j + uj,i ); Ei = −χj . (1)

2
Figure 1 shows the piezoelectric domain with a crack.
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

In the absence of body forces, σij Cauchy stress tensor, Di is the electric dis-
placement vector are given by
σij,j = 0, Di,j = 0 on domain Ω (2)
and are subjected to boundary condition on surface Γ
σij nj = t0j D j nj =  0 uj = u0j χ = χ0 . (3)
Superscript 0 stands for known value.
There are mainly three boundary conditions on crack face taken in literature
[Hao and Shen, 1994; Dunn, 1994] namely impermeable, permeable and semi-
permeable as shown in Fig. 2. These crack face boundary conditions are represented
mathematically as
(i) Impermeable boundary conditions
Crack faces ΓC are assumed to be traction-charge free, i.e., electrically
impermeable,
σij nj = 0 and Dj nj = 0 on ΓC . (4)

Y 0
t
Γt
ΓD

Γc
Ω

Γχ
Γu

Fig. 1. Physical model of piezoelectric domain with crack.

1550025-3
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

(a) Impermeable (b) Semipermeable (c) Permeable

Fig. 2. Electric flow lines for crack in piezoelectric material.

(ii) Permeable boundary conditions

In this case, crack is traction-free and does not obstruct any electric field,
σij nj = 0 and χ+ = χ− , D2+ = D2−
= 0. (5)
(iii) Semi-permeable boundary conditions
Semi-permeable boundary conditions proposed [Hao and Shen, 1994] for
piezoelectric ceramics are more realistic boundary conditions and are given as
∆χ(x1 )
σij nj = 0 and χ+ = χ− , D2+ = D2− = D2c = −κc , (6)
∆u2 (x1 )
where “+” and “−” represent the upper and lower crack surfaces, ∆χ(x1 ) is the
electrical potential jump, and ∆u2 (x1 ) is the crack opening displacement; κc is the
permittivity of medium between crack faces.
One can reduce semi-permeable boundary conditions to impermeable one when
κC = 0, and to permeable one when the jump in electric potential vanishes.
In case of impermeable crack face boundary conditions, electric lines of forces
are not permitted to pass through the crack surfaces whereas partially allowed in
semi-permeable and complete in permeable case of crack face conditions as shown
in Fig. 2.
In the present work crack faces are assumed to be electrically impermeable Γc
considered to be traction-charge free as in Eq. (4).
For homogeneous piezoelectric material constitutive relations are given by
σij = Cijks εks − ξsij Es and Di = ξiks εks + zis Es . (7)
Above relations and boundary conditions are used to determine the displacement
vector ui and electric potential χj .

1550025-4
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

2.1. Enriched approximation

Applying XFEM for enrichment, mechanical displacement and electric potential are
given can be derived as



uh (x) = Si (x)ui + Sj (x)(h(eh (x)) − h(ej ))λcj
i∈tn j∈sn

6


+ Sl (x) (Af (r, θ, ωkre , ωkim ) − Af (x, ωkre , ωkim ))λtl , (8)
l∈tipn k=1



χh (x) = Si (x)χi + Sj (x)(h(eh (x)) − h(ej ))γjc
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

i∈tn j∈sn

6


by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

+ Sl (x) (Akf (r, θ, ωkre , ωkim ) − Akf (x, ωkre , ωkim ))γlt , (9)
l∈tipn k=1

where Si is the shape function associated with node i and Akf , the asymptotic crack
tip enrichment functions. λc , λt , γ c , γ t are the enriched degree of freedom associated
with the crack elements. (r, θ) polar coordinate system at the crack tip and ωk , ωkre ,
ωkim , complex number, real and imaginary parts.
h(f ) is heavy side function and is given as

1 if e > 0
h(f ) = e(x) is a level set. (10)
−1 otherwise
The standard finite element equation
Kd = f. (11)
K is global stiffness matrix, d is global displacement vector.
Element stiffness matrix for enriched element is given by
 µµ µν µη 
kij kij kij
e  νµ νν νη 
kij = kij kij kij . (12)
ηµ ηµ ηη
kij kij kij
For nonenriched elements
e µµ
kij = kij (13)
Element force vector for nonenriched elements is
fie = fiµ and for enriched elements fie = {fiµ fiν fiη }T , (14)
where

T
T
T
µ= u χ , ν = λci γic , η = λti γit

rs
and kij = (Bir )T C(Bjs )dΩ; r, s ∼
= µ, ν, η (15)
Ωe

1550025-5
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

 
fiµ = Si t̃dΓ + Si f˜dΩ (16)
∂Ωe Ωe
 
fiν = h
Si (h(e (x)) − h(ei ))t̃dΓ + Si (h(eh (x)) − h(ei ))f˜dΩ (17)
∂Ωe Ωe

fiη = Si (Akf (r, θ, ωm
re im
, ωm ) − Akf (x, ωm
re im
, ωm ))t̃dΓ
∂Ωe

+ Si (Akf (r, θ, ωm
re im
, ωm ) − Akf (x, ωm
re im ˜
, ωm ))f dΩ (18)
Ωe

t̃ and f˜ represents prescribed extended traction and extended forces per unit volume,
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

respectively.
Shape function derivative matrix is Biµ and Biν are defined as
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

 
Ñi,x 0 0
 
 0 Ñi,y 0 
 
  ∼ µ, ν.
Bis = Ñi,y Ñi,x 0 . s = (19)
 
 0 0 
Ñi,x 

0 0 Ñi,y

Ñ = S when

Bis = Biµ and Ñ = Si (h(f (x)) − h(f (xi ))), (20)

when Bis = Biν .

While shape function derivative matrix for Biη contains six components given
by

Biη = [Biη1 Biη2 Biη3 Biη4 Biη5 Biη6 ] (21)

in which each Biηk has same form as the matrices Biµ and Biν but

Ñ = S(Akf (r, θ, ωm
re im
, ωm ) − Akf (x, ωm
re im
, ωm )). (22)

2.1.1. Enrichment functions

In the present study, six-fold functions are used for enrichment, which are proposed
[Bechet et al., 2009] and are derived from general solution of semi-infinite crack in
infinite domain and are given as
√
Akf (r, θ, ωkre , ωkim ) = r{a1 (θ), a2 (θ), a3 (θ), a4 (θ), a5 (θ), a6 (θ)}. (23)

For arbitrary poling direction, angle ψ = θ − φ (φ being the orientation of material

axis with crack line). Functions am (θ) are given by

1550025-6
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

  re im
 

 βm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) 
 re im
ρm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) cos if ωm > 0
im


2
am (θ) =
  re im
 
, (24)

 re im βm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) im 

ρm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) sin if ωm ≤ 0 
2
re im
where ω = ωm + iωm are the six roots of the characteristic equations as derived
re im
from Sharma et al. [2013] also the modified angle βm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) and modified
re im
radius ρm (ψ(θ, φ), ωm , ωm ) are determined.

2.2. Interaction integral and stress intensity factors

Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Interaction integral formulation is used to calculate mechanical stress intensity fac-

tors (KI , KII ) and electrical stress intensity factors (KIV ). For this, path indepen-
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

dent J integral for piezoelectric material is applied [Kuna, 2006]. Equivalent domain
for J integral is obtained using divergence theorem with arbitrary weight function
w [Bechet et al., 2009]
  
∂ui ∂χ ∂w
J= σij + Dj − Q̃δ1j dA, (25)
A ∂x 1 ∂x 1 ∂xj

δ1j is Kronecker delta function, A is area or arbitrary contour enclosing crack tip
and Q̃ = 12 (σij εij − Dj Ej ) is electrical enthalpy density.
Interaction integral considering two equilibrium states of cracked body is used.
The first state is the actual state (1) while the second one is the auxiliary state (2).
Superposition of the two gives
J = J (1) + J (2) + I (1,2) , (26)
where J (1) and J (2) are the electromechanical J integrals for states 1 and 2 and
  (2) (2) (1) (1)

(1) ∂u (1) ∂χ (2) ∂u (2) ∂χ ∂w
I (1,2) = σij i
+ Dj + σij i
+ Dj − Q̃(1,2) δ1j dA
A ∂x 1 ∂x 1 ∂x 1 ∂x 1 ∂xj

(27)
in which
1 (1) (2) (1) (2) (2) (1) (2) (1)
Q̃(1,2) = (σ ε − Dj Ej + σij εij − Dj Ej ), (28)
2 ij ij
Near tip asymptotic electromechanical fields of homogeneous piezoelectric mate-
rial are determined by Stroh’s formulism described in Kuna [2010]. Electromechan-
ical fields in polar coordinates are given as
1
1

σij (r, θ) = √ KN fijN (θ); Di (r, θ) = √ KN giN (θ), (29)
2πr N 2πr N
 
2r
N 2r

ui (r, θ) = KN di (θ) χ(r, θ) = KN ν N (θ), (30)
π π
N N

1550025-7
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

where KN = {KI , KII , KIII , KIV }T is vector of stress intensity factors, KIII = 0
for 2D case and KIV stands for electrical intensity factor and Summation over N =
{I , II , III , IV } comprises the fracture opening modes. Angular functions fijN , giN , dN
i
and ν N depends on material properties and are determined by Stroh’ formalism.
Angular functions are expressed [Kuna, 2010] as

4  
N MM i NN N X
fi1 =− Re √
=1
cos θ + X sin θ
4   (31)

MM i NN N
N
fi2 = Re √
=1
cos θ + X sin θ
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

4

 
MM 4 NN N X
g1N = − Re √
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

=1
cos θ + X sin θ
  (32)

4
MM 4 NN N
g2N =− Re √
=1
cos θ + X sin θ
4

  
dN
i = Re Yi NN N cos θ + X sin θ
=1
(33)
4

  
νiN = Re Y4 NN N cos θ + X sin θ .
=1

Re denotes real part, Complex material Eigen values X and Eigen vectors Ym
are determined by following equation [Kuna, 1998]:
   
Ci1k1 ξi11 Ci2k1 + Ci1k2 ξi21 + ξi12
 + X
ξ1k1 −z11 ξ2k1 + ξ1k2 −z12 − z21
   
Ci2k2 ξi22 Yi
+ X 2 = 0. (34)
ξ2k2 −z22 Y4

Matrices NN N , MM M are determined by

 
−1
(Ci2k1 + Ci2k2 X )Yk (ξi12 + ξ2i2 X )Y4
MM M = NN N = (35)
(ξ2k1 + ξ2k2 X )Yk (−z21 − z22 X )Y4
for linear piezoelectric material electromechanical J integral under mixed mode
loading can be determined by [Sharma et al., 2013]
1 T
J= K LNM KM . (36)
2 N
LNM is Irwin matrix and determined by

LNM = −Im{Ym NN N }. (37)

1550025-8
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

Im is the imaginary part of the quantity in brackets, the J integral substituted back
into Eq. (26). The interaction integral in 2D becomes
(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
I (1,2) = KII KII L11 + KI KI L22 + KIV KIV L44
(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
+ (KI KII + KII KI )L12 + (KI KIV + KIV KI )L24 . (38)

For determining individual fracture parameters for the actual state, auxiliary state
(2)
is chosen appropriately [Sharma et al, 2013]. For fracture opening mode KI = 1
(2) (2)
and KII = KIV = 0 then
(1) (1) (1)
I (1,I) = KI L22 + KII L12 + KIV L24 . (39)
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Extended intensity factors are obtained by solving following system of equations:

 (1,II )   (1) 
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

I KII
 (1,I)   (1) 
I 
 = L KI  . (40)
I (1,IV ) (1)
KIV

2.3. Fatigue crack growth criteria

The extended intensity factor obtained above are used to find out generalized or
equivalent stress intensity factor [Fang et al., 2004]
(1) (1)
Keq = A KI + B  KIV , (41)

where A and B  depends on material and can be find out as per Fang et al. [2004].
Crack propagation will takes place till Keq < KIC fracture toughness.
Crack growth direction θc is determined on the basis on normal stress theory
and is given by
 $ 
(1) (1) 2 (1) 2
K I − (K I ) − 8(K II )
θc = 2 tan−1  (1)
. (42)
4KII

3. Problem Description, Result and Discussion

In the present work 2D problems of edge crack and center crack has been consid-
ered as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) and are investigated for crack propagation of
piezoelectric materials considering different loading condition. Fracture criteria of
generalized intensity factor Keq established in Fang et al. [2004] have been consid-
ered for propagation of cracks.
Loading conditions considered for crack propagation are

• Mechanical (mode-I) cyclic loading.

• Combined (mechanical and electrical) cyclic loading.

1550025-9
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

L=0.1m L=0.1m

D=0.2 m D=0.2 m
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3. (a) Edge crack geometry with enriched nodes and (b) Center crack geometry with enriched
nodes.

Table 1. Pzt-4 material properties [Fang et al., 2004].

Material properties PZT4

c11(N/m2 ) 13.9e + 10
c12(N/m2 ) 7.78e + 10
c13(N/m2 ) 7.43e + 10
c33(N/m2 ) 11.3e + 10
c44(N/m2 ) 2.56e + 10
c66(N/m2 ) 3.06e + 10
e31(C/m2 ) −6.98
e33(c/m2 ) 13.8
e15(c/m2 ) 13.4
z11C/Vm 6e−09
z33C/Vm √ 5.47e−09
Fracture toughness KIC MPa m [Kuna, 2010] 2

XFEM together with level set method has been applied for modeling of crack
without remeshing and finding out the enriched nodes. Six basis enrichment func-
tions are used for enriched nodes as formulated above. Crack extension of 1/5th
initial crack length been taken at each step to evaluate stress intensity factor.
Piezoelectric material properties shown in Table 1 for PZT4 [Fang et al., 2004]
has been considered for 2D edge crack and center crack bodies.

3.1. Edge crack propagation

A rectangular plate of length, L = 0.1 m and height D = 0.2 m, with initial crack
length of a = 0.02 m has been considered for the analysis, a uniform mesh of 100
nodes in X-direction and 180 nodes in Y -direction is applied. Below loads have been

1550025-10
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

applied on edge crack body. At each step crack extension of 1/5th of initial crack
length has been considered for evaluating stress intensity factor
(i) Mechanical load of 4 MPa during mechanical load analysis.
(ii) Electrical 1 e-08 C/m2 during combined loading together with the mechanical
load of 4 MPa.
√
Fracture toughness considered for analysis KIc = 2MPa m as described in Kuna
[2010].

3.1.1. Mechanical loading on edge crack body

Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Figure 4(a) as shown for edge crack body is the variation of stress σyy acting along
the y-direction during the 1st step with the mechanical load. It is observed that
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

the maximum stress obtained is 30 MPa near the crack tip. Figure 4(b) shows the
variation of stress intensity factor Keq with the crack extension. It is observed that
the crack extends by 0.012 m before the ultimate fracture of the body. Crack path
for edge crack under mechanical loading is as shown in Fig. 4(c).

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 4. (a) Stress plot of σyy (MPa) during mechanical loading for edge crack. (b) Plot of stress
intensity factor vs. crack extension of edge crack for mechanical loading and (c) Crack path for
edge crack during mechanical loading.

1550025-11
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

3.1.2. Combined (mechanical and electrical) loading on edge crack body

With the application of electrical loading along with mechanical load, i.e., combined
loading, Fig. 5(a) shows the variation of stress σyy acting along the y-direction
during the 1st step. The maximum stress obtained is near about the same magnitude
as 30 MPa near the crack tip however compressive stress of nearly 5 MPa is obtained
on the free surface of edge crack. Figure 5(b) shows variation of stress intensity factor
Keq for edge crack with crack extension in combined loading. In this case also the
crack extends by near about 0.012 m before the ultimate fracture of the rectangular
body. Thus, it is observed that with the electrical loading of 1e-08 C/m2 together
with mechanical load of 4 MPa there is no significant effect on the crack propagation
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

for edge crack body as compared to purely mechanical load of 4 MPa. Figure 5(c)
represents the final crack path under combined loading for edge crack body.
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

Further analysis has been carried out to by varying electrical load but keeping
mechanical load constant of 4 MPa. Figure 5(d) shows the effect of varying electrical
loading, it is observed that the for edge crack body stress intensity factors increases
with the increase in electrical loads. It is also observed that the effect of electrical
loading increases as the crack propagates.
An edge crack body was further analyzed by changing the mechanical load and
keeping the electrical load constant of 1e-08 C/m2 . Figure 5(e) shows that with
increase in mechanical load, stress intensity factor increases for edge crack body
and this increase is nearly constant throughout crack propagation.

3.2. Center crack propagation

For center crack body same dimension of the body has been considered as shown
in Fig. 3(b) length, L = 0.1 m and height D = 0.2 m with initial crack length of
a = 0.02 m with a uniform mesh of 100 nodes in X-direction and 180 nodes in Y -
direction. Same loads have been applied on center crack body. At each step crack
extension of 1/5th of initial crack length has been considered for evaluating stress
intensity factor

(i) Mechanical load of 4 MPa during mechanical load analysis.

(ii) Electrical 1e-08 C/m2 during combined loading together with the mechanical
load of 4 MPa.
√
Fracture toughness considered for analysis KIc = 2MPa m as described in Kuna
[2010].

3.2.1. Mechanical loading

Figure 6(a) shows the stress plot of σyy acting along the y-direction during the 1st
step. Maximum stress of 12 Mpa is observed near the crack tip with the mechanical
loading of 4 Mpa.

1550025-12
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

(c)

(d) (e)
Fig. 5. (a) Stress plot of σyy (MPa) during combined loading for edge crack. (b) Plot of stress
intensity factor vs. crack extension of edge crack for combined loading. (c) Crack propagation for
edge crack during combined loading. (d) Variation in stress intensity factor with varying electrical
loading for combined loading and (e) Variation in stress intensity factor with varying mechanical
loading for combined loading.

1550025-13
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

(c)
Fig. 6. (a) Stress plot of σyy (MPa) during mechanical loading for center crack. (b) Plot of stress
intensity factor vs. crack extension of center crack for mechanical loading and (c) Crack path for
center crack during mechanical loading.

Figure 6(b) shows variation of stress intensity factor Keq for center crack with
crack extension during mechanical loading. Crack extends by near about 0.027 m
before stress intensity factor reaching the fracture toughness value and thus causing
the ultimate fracture of the body. Crack path under mechanical loading is as shown
in Fig. 6(c).

3.2.2. Combined (mechanical and electrical) loading on center cracked body

Figure 7(a) shows the plot of σyy acting along the y-direction on the center crack
body at the 1st step of combined loading. Maximum stress observed is above 15 Mpa,
i.e., 25% increased as compared to purely mechanical loading. Figure 7(b) shows
variation of stress intensity factor for center with crack extension in combined load-
ing. Crack extension observed to be 0.027 m is nearly the same as in case of center
crack body with pure mechanical loading. Figure 7(c) shows the crack path during
combined loading.
Figure 7(d) shows the effect of changing electrical loading and keeping mechan-
ical load constant of 4 MPa. It is observed that for the center crack body during

1550025-14
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

(a) (b)
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

(c)

(d) (e)
Fig. 7. (a) Stress plot of σyy (MPa) during combined loading for center crack. (b) Plot of stress
intensity factor vs. crack extension of center crack for combined loading. (c) Crack path for center
crack during combined loading. (d) Variation in stress intensity factor with varying electrical
loading for combined loading and (e) Variation in stress intensity factor with varying mechanical
loading for combined loading.

1550025-15
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

S. Bhattacharya et al.

initial stage, stress intensity factors due to higher electrical load is high but as the
crack propagates higher electrical loading has lower intensity factor as compared to
lower electrical load case. It may be due to the following reasons:
(i) Keq depends on KI and KIV as per the relation defined in Eq. (41).
(ii) No effect on intensity factor KI whereas KIV decreases w.r.t increase in elec-
trical loading [Liu, 2009; Bhargava and Sharma, 2012].
(iii) Intensity factors increase w.r.t the crack extension length.
Thus, considering points (ii) and (iii), one may conclude that electromechanical
coupling effect also increases w.r.t the crack extension length. Hence, mainly due
to electromechanical coupling effects, Keq initially increases w.r.t electrical loading
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

and after the increase in crack extension length from 0.012 m it decreases.
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

Further, Similar to edge crack body, center crack body has been also analyzed
by changing the mechanical load and keeping the electrical load constant of 1e-
08 C/m2 , Fig. 7(e) shows that with increase in mechanical load, stress intensity
factor increases for center crack body.

4. Conclusion
In the present work fatigue crack growth analysis of the piezoelectric material PZT 4
is performed using XFEM for 2D edge crack and center crack bodies. Problems of
mechanical and combined (mechanical and electrical) loading has been considered
in the analysis. On the basis of results in the present analysis it is observed that
under mechanical loading, for the same crack length and same rectangular body
center cracks has lower stresses at the crack tip and also low stress intensity factor
as compared to edge crack body. It can be also found that edge crack body will
fail early as compared to center crack body of the same dimension. Under the case
of combined loading similar comparison was found for edge crack and center crack
body.

References
Bechet, E., Scherzer, M. and Kuna, M. [2009] “Application of the X-FEM to the fracture
of piezoelectric materials,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 77, 1535–1565.
Beom, H. G. and Atluri, S. N. [1996] “Near-tip fields and intensity factors for interfacial
cracks in dissimilar anisotropic piezoelectric media,” Int. J. Fract. 75, 163–183.
Bhargava, R. R. and Sharma, K. [2011] “A study of finite size effects on cracked 2D
piezoelectric media using extended finite element method,” Comput. Mater. 50, 1834–
1845.
Bhargava, R. R. and Sharma, K. [2012] “X-FEM simulation for two-unequal-collinear
cracks in 2D finite piezoelectric specimen,” Int. J. Mech. Mater. Des. 8, 129–148.
Bhattacharya, S., Singh, I. V. and Mishra, B. K. [2013] “Fatigue-life estimation of func-
tionally graded materials using XFEM,” Eng. Comput. 29, 427–448.
Bui, T. Q. and Zhang, C. [2012] “Extended finite element simulation of stationary dynamic
cracks in piezoelectric solids under impact loading,” Comput. Mater. Sci. 62, 243–257.

1550025-16
 2nd Reading
January 13, 2016 10:26 WSPC-277-IJCMSE S2047-6841 1550025

Numerical simulation of crack propagation

Dunn, M. L. [1994] “The effects of crack face boundary conditions on the fracture mechan-
ics of piezoelectric solids,” Eng. Fract. Mech. 48, 25–39.
Fang, D., Zhang, Z.-K., Soh, A. K. and Lee, K. L. [2004] “Fracture criteria of piezoelectric
ceramics with defects,” Mech. Mater. 36, 917–928.
Freiman, S. W. and White, G. S. [1995] “Intelligent ceramic materials: Issues of brittle
fracture,” J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 6, 49–54.
Hao, T. H. and Shen, Z. Y. [1994] “A new electric boundary condition of electric fracture
mechanics and its applications,” Eng. Fract. Mech. 47, 793–802.
Hu, S., Shen, S. and Nishioka, T. [2007] “Numerical analysis for a crack in piezoelectric
material under impact,” Int. J. Solids Struct. 44, 8457–8492.
Kuna, M. [1998] “Finite element analyses of crack problems in piezoelectric structures,”
Comput. Mater. Sci. 13, 67–80.
Int. J. Comp. Mat. Sci. Eng. 2015.04. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

Kuna, M. [2006] “Finite element analyses of cracks in piezoelectric structures: A survey,”

Arch. Appl. Mech. 76, 725–45.
Kuna, M. [2010] “Fracture mechanics of piezoelectric materials–where are we right now?,”
by FLINDERS UNIVERSITY on 02/01/16. For personal use only.

Eng. Fract. Mech. 77, 309–26.

Liu, T. J. C. [2009] “Anomalies associated with energy release parameters for cracks in
piezoelectric materials,” Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 51, 102–110.
Moes, N., Dolbow, J. and Belytschko, T. [1999] “A finite element method for crack growth
without remeshing,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng. 46, 131–150.
Ou, Z. C. and Chen, Y. H. [2004] “Near-tip stress fields and intensity factors for an interface
crack in metal/piezoelectric bimaterials,” Int. J. Eng. Sci. 42, 1407–1438.
Rao, B. N. and Kuna, M. [2008] “Interaction integrals for fracture analysis of functionally
graded magnetoelectroelastic materials,” Int. J. Fract. 153, 15–37.
Sharma, K., Bui, T. Q., Zhang, C. and Bhargava, R. R. [2013] “Analysis of a subinterface
crack in piezoelectric bimaterials with the extended finite element method,” Eng. Fract.
Mech. 104, 114–139.
Sosa, H. A. [1992] “On the fracture mechanics of piezoelectric solids,” Int. J. Solids Struct.
29, 2613–2622.
Yang, M. and Kim, K. S. [1993] “The behavior of subinterface crack with crack-face con-
tact,” Eng. Fract. Mech. 44, 155–165.
Yu, H., Wu, L., Guo, L., Ma, J. and Li, H. [2012] “A domain-independent interaction
integral for fracture analysis of nonhomogeneous piezoelectric materials,” Int. J. Solids
Struct. 49, 3301–3315.

1550025-17