0
Research Papers

Peri-Ultrasound Modeling of Dynamic Response of an Interface Crack Showing Wave Scattering and Crack Propagation OPEN ACCESS

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohammad Hadi Hafezi, Tribikram Kundu

Department of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics,
University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721

Manuscript received May 10, 2017; final manuscript received July 18, 2017; Assoc. Editor: Henrique Reis.

ASME J Nondestructive Evaluation 1(1), 011003 (Sep 14, 2017) (6 pages) Paper No: NDE-17-1024; doi: 10.1115/1.4037515 History: Received May 10, 2017; Revised July 18, 2017

A cracked structure made of two different elastic materials having a Griffith crack at the interface is analyzed when it is subjected to pure shear loading and ultrasonic loading. The waves generated by the applied load and the crack propagation resulted from the shear loading are investigated. Peri-ultrasound modeling tool is used for this analysis. A comparison between experimental results and numerical predictions shows a very good matching between the two. Furthermore, the increase in nonlinear ultrasonic response in presence of the interface crack could also be modeled by this technique. The computed results show that when the interface crack propagates, then it breaks the interface at one end of the crack and breaks the material with lower elastic modulus at the other end. The unique feature of this peridynamics-based modeling tool is that it gives a complete picture of the structural response when it is loaded—it shows how elastic waves propagate in the structure and are scattered by the crack, how the crack surfaces open up, and then how crack starts to propagate. Different modeling tools are not needed to model these various phenomena.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>

Interface cracks frequently appear in engineering structures during its production or when in service. Crack initiation at the interface can result in the failure of mechanical components made of multilayered materials [1,2]. Debonding of adhesive joints and decohesion of thin films from substrates are good examples of structures with interface cracks [3,4]. The weak bonding and stress concentration occurring at the interface with mismatched material properties are the main causes of interface cracks [59]. Thus, macroscopic cracks at the interface are created, and it plays an important role in any failure analysis of bimaterial structures.

Many research works use fracture mechanics principles to understand crack growth. Most common approaches for studying crack growth phenomenon require calculating strain energy release rate and stress intensity factor at the crack tip [10].

With our current state of knowledge, the key challenge that still remains today is the proper understanding of the true nature of material behavior at the crack tip. It is now established that the existence of the oscillatory behavior of the singular stress field at the tip of an interface crack predicted by some analytical models are not realistic. Achenbach et al. [11] introduced a cohesive model which allowed the near crack tip region to yield under high stresses. This approach completely removes the singularities at the crack tips. This solution is antisymmetric for the case of remote shear loading. Antisymmetric solution predicts overlapping of crack faces. Knowles and Sternberg [12] argued that the solution is not antisymmetric for the case of remote shear load, and the crack opens smoothly at least in the neighborhoods of both crack tips which is consistent with the finite element analysis [13]. Measurement of the displacement field around an interface crack in a bimaterial thin plate was conducted by Chiang and Hua [14] to see what really happens under pure shear loading.

Numerous contributions have been made after the work by Williams [15] on cracks at the interface of a bimaterial structure. Williams' solution predicted unrealistic oscillating singularity in the stress field near a crack tip. Readers can find detailed discussions on analytical solutions and its assumptions on boundary condition along the crack faces in various publications [1618]. Note that all analytical solutions failed for interfacial cracks loaded remotely in pure shear. For this reason, numerical analysis of the displacement field at the interface of a bimaterial structure is of interest to many authors.

Nonlocal theories are often used to solve problems that classical continuum mechanics cannot handle. Therefore, peri-ultrasound modeling tool that uses a bond-based version of nonlocal peridynamic theory [19] is an ideal tool for modeling crack propagation and detection. This analysis helps us to understand the mixed mode behavior at the interface. The damage was incorporated in the elastic constitutive model [20], and thus it can handle the spontaneous crack growth. It is generally a difficult task to identify and extract the failure modes for the shear deformation in a bimaterial structure. The primary objective of this paper is to extend an original peridynamic model to two dissimilar materials where the material properties are different on two sides of the interface. The crack is placed along the interface. The bimaterial is subjected to a pure shear load. The peri-ultrasound modeling technique [21] is utilized for investigation of the wave propagation and the nonlinear behavior of the bimaterial structure in presence of a crack at the interface. The basics of the peri-ultrasound modeling and the excitation function are described in Sec. 2. The excitation function is identical to the one considered in Ref. [21]. However, the problem solved here is new. In Ref. [21], a crack in a homogeneous material was considered, and the effect of the crack thickness was investigated, while in this paper an interface crack that has no reliable analytical solution is investigated.

For developing the peri-ultrasound modeling tool, we follow Ref. [22], where the peridynamic model was introduced. The equation of motion at a point x in the reference configuration at time t is given by Display Formula

(1)ρu¨(x,t)=Hxf(u(x,t)u(x,t),xx)dVx+b(x,t)

where Hx denotes a neighborhood of x, u is the displacement vector field, b is a prescribed body force density field, ρ is the mass density in the reference configuration, and f is a paired function whose value is the force density per unit volume that the particle located at x (in the reference configuration) exerts on the particle located at point x (also in reference configuration). The relative position ξ of these two particles in the reference configuration is given by ξ=xx and their relative displacement η by η=u(x,t)u(x,t). Note that η+ξ is the relative position vector between two particles in the deformed configuration. The interaction force between two particles is called a bond. A degree of nonlocality was defined for nonlocal interaction between particles in peridynamic model based on the concept of horizon Display Formula

(2)f(η,ξ)=0ηwhenever|ξ|>δ

where ξ is shown in Fig. 1, and η is relative displacement. It simply means that there is no interaction between x beyond this horizon (see Fig. 1). The pairwise force interaction f is required to be antisymmetric. The function f which plays a fundamental role in the peridynamic theory has dimensions of force per unit volume squared

Display Formula

(3)f(η,ξ)=f(η,ξ)η,ξ

which assures conservation of angular momentum. Equation (3) means the force vector between two particles is parallel to their current relative position vector.

A material is said to be micro-elastic if the pairwise force function can be derived from a scalar micropotential wDisplay Formula

(4)f(η,ξ)=wη(η,ξ)η,ξ

The micropotential is the energy in a single bond and has dimensions of the energy per unit volume squared. The energy per unit volume in the body at a given point is therefore given by Display Formula

(5)W=12Hxw(η,ξ)dVξ

The factor 1/2 appears because each endpoint of a bond owns only half of the energy of the bond. Peridynamic body is composed of a micro-elastic material. A linearized peridynamic mode for a micro-elastic material takes the form Display Formula

(6)f(η,ξ)=C(ξ)ηη,ξ

where C, the micromodulus function for the material, is a second-order tensor given by Display Formula

(7)C(ξ)=fη(0,ξ)ξ

A micro-elastic material is said to be a proportional material if and only if pairwise force function is proportional to the stretch, s(ξ,η)Display Formula

(8)s(ξ,η)=|η+ξ||ξ||ξ|
Display Formula
(9)C(ξ)=cξξ|ξ|3,i.e.,Cij(ξ)=cξiξj|ξkξk|32

In a Cartesian coordinate frame, c denotes a constant. For example, in two dimension, c=9E/2πεδ3 where E is the elastic modulus. δ and ε are the radius of horizon and the thickness of the structure, respectively. The determination of c is discussed in detail in Ref. [23].

For peri-ultrasound modeling, the excitation wave packet is constructed by taking a sinusoidal carrier wave that is multiplied by the Gaussian function Display Formula

(10)A(t)=asin(ωt)ept2

Equation (10) represents an oscillating motion that decays exponentially. To duplicate a typical experiment, the following values are taken—amplitude a = 59.3 × 106, angular frequency ω = 2.2305 × 106 rad/s, and p = 9.147 × 1010; p is a parameter that controls the width of the Gaussian function and t is time. Note that pt2 should be dimensionless.

Local continuum theory-based analytical framework and predictive tool for the simulation of guided Lamb wave propagation in a plate and its interaction with damages are available in the literature [24]. The peri-ultrasound computing tool that is developed here uses a new approach to specify the exciting waveform. Here, we set the frequency of the carrier wave in the wave packet. This can be modified easily in the peri-ultrasound tool. Number of cycles of the signal within the wave packet is defined. Gaussian shaped envelope of the wave packet is used here. The developed tool box has several choices for the envelope such as rectangular, triangular, tapered, and so on. The propagation distance is then set for the simulation. The carrier signal is taken as a sine function in this analysis. This can be changed to a cosine function as well if the user wants it. Figure 2 shows the input exciting signal with the central frequency of 355 kHz and having five peaks.

A good number of ultrasonic measurement systems use contact-type transducers, like surface mounted lead zirconate titanates (PZTs) [25] to excite the structure and get the response at a distance. The applied voltage produces vibratory motion of the transducer that generates displacement on the contact surface. A stacked device can produce a displacement Δh=n×d33×V. Here, n is the number of stacks, and d33 is piezoelectric constant with unit (meter/Volt); it is the electric displacement component for V=1 V and n = 1 in the direction of polling axis [26]. The schematic of PZT is shown in Fig. 3. The input displacement signal for the peridynamic simulation is expressed in the form of a function of time D(t). This function controls the movement of particles around the PZT particle within its horizon. The input function D(t) can be constructed by multiplying the wave packet function A(t) by a calibration coefficient as follows:

Display Formula

(11)D(t)=c¯A(t)

where the carrier wave A(t) is a function of time, and the calibration coefficient c¯ is used to match the simulated result amplitude with the experimental data if necessary. A schematic of radial excitation of particles is shown in Fig. 4.

Normalized spectral plots are obtained by taking fast Fourier transform of the horizontal velocity time history that can be written as Display Formula

(12)Fj=k=0N1Vjei2πkj/N,j=0,...,N1

where F is the fast Fourier transform, V is the velocity, and N is the total number of steps.

From the normalized spectral plot of the received signal, the degree of material nonlinearity can be measured by extracting a feature called sideband peak count (SPC) [27]. Material nonlinearity increases with the initiation of fatigue cracks. Figure 5 illustrates the concept of SPC. Different peaks in the left diagram of Fig. 5 indicate waves propagating through the medium with different frequency. If the material is nonlinear, then waves of different frequency interact with one another and generate additional peaks due to frequency modulation. These additional peaks have small amplitudes and appear on one or both sides of the main peaks. Small peaks around the main peaks are called the sideband peaks. Number of these sideband peaks is an indirect measure of the degree of material nonlinearity [27]. Strength or energy associated with the sidebands can also be an indicator of the degree of material nonlinearity [2831].

To quantify the extent of material nonlinearity in a damaged structure, the received signal can be analyzed in the following manner. The normalized SPC is defined as the ratio of the number of sideband peaks above a moving threshold to the total number of sideband peaks above the zero line. For example, one can set 0.1 as the threshold value for identifying the dominant peaks. Any peak above 0.1 times or 10% of the highest peak value can be counted as a dominant peak, while all peaks smaller than 10% of the highest peak are then counted as sideband peaks. The moving threshold is then increased from 0% to 10% of the highest peak value. The peri-ultrasound tool counts the number of sideband peaks above the moving threshold and divides that number by the total number of sideband peaks (above the zero threshold value but below the 10% of the highest peak value) as shown below: Display Formula

(13)SPCth=NpeaksthNtotal

Figure 6 shows the problem geometry or the model used for the computation. A square domain having several thousand particles distributed uniformly in x and y directions in one layer is analyzed. In z or the thickness direction, the model is only one particle deep. This model solves plane strain problem where all motions are confined in one plane.

How the bond constants are assigned to the particles in the region close to the interface affects the material behavior. Bond constants can be assigned using a weight function. The weight function can be defined based on the magnitude of the initial bond length in the reference configuration. The weight function is written as follows: Display Formula

(14)c=αc1+βc2whereα=|ξa|/|ξ|andβ=|ξb|/|ξ|
Display Formula
(15)|ξ|=|ξa|+|ξb|

Explicit Verlet time integration scheme (Δt = 0.014 μs and 10,000 time steps) is used to find the velocity and displacement of every particle. The position Verlet integration method can be implemented as Display Formula

(16)un+1/2=un+(Δt2)u˙nu˙n+1=u˙n+(Δt)u¨n+1/2un+1=un+1/2+(Δt2)u˙n+1

The grid spacing of 0.5 mm was decreased to increase the number of material points from about 65,000 to 258,000. It is shown in Fig. 7 that with almost 300% increase of the material points the solution does not change significantly. Therefore, it can be stated that 65,000 material points are sufficient for this analysis.

The variation of the horizontal displacement u (which is the y-component of displacement, see Fig. 6) between the two crack faces is shown in Fig. 8. Note that y direction is perpendicular to the crack surface. The crack runs in the x-direction along the interface of the bimaterial structure. Figure 8 shows that the predicted results are in very good agreement with the experimental data. This matching is better than the matching between the experimental and analytical results [32]. Thus, the reliability of the developed peri-ultrasound modeling scheme is verified from the good matching between the predicted results and the experimental data. The computed results are also compared with the available closed-form global solution [33,34]. Clearly, the analytical solution is not very accurate.

The variation of the vertical displacement v (which is the x-component of displacement, parallel to the crack, see Fig. 6) between two crack surfaces along the crack axis (x-axis) is then computed for the bimaterial specimen subjected to pure shear. The experimental results [32] for the crack opening displacement in the sliding direction (parallel to the crack surface) were not close to the analytical solution and were not reliable. Hence, peri-ultrasound predicted results were compared with the available analytical solution only [32]. Figure 9 shows that the predicted result is in good agreement with the analytical solution away from the crack tips. There is a discrepancy between analytical solution and peri-ultrasound predictions near the crack tips. Analytical solution has two parts. First, the global solution describes the far field behavior, and the asymptotic solution describes the region near the crack tip. The relative sliding displacement approaches zero at the crack tips for the peri-ultrasound solution, which is more realistic than the analytical solution that predicts nonzero value at the crack tip.

The interaction between elastic waves and crack is the driving force for the crack propagation. This driving force determines in which direction crack should propagate. Figure 10 shows that the crack propagates from the upper crack tip into the material with lower elastic modulus. On the other crack tip, the crack shows a self-similar propagation along the interface. It should be noted here that no additional assumption for opening and closing of crack faces was made in this model. This has an advantage over other finite element method) or extended finite element method-based simulation techniques, since such assumptions are required for finite element method/extended finite element method analyses.

Figure 11 shows the wave motion generated by the transducer in the cracked bimaterial structure at different times starting from 14 μs and ending at 126 μs with an interval of 14 μs. Wave transmission through the interface, and wave reflections from the crack, interface, and boundaries are clearly visible in these images. The shadow generated behind the crack is also clearly visible in these images. Figure 12 shows the displacement time history at the receiver position in presence and absence of the crack. Significant decrease in the signal amplitude at the receiver position due to the presence of the crack is obvious in both Figs. 11 and 12.

Figure 13 compares the normalized spectral plots generated from the velocity time histories. Figure 14 shows the SPC variation as a function of the threshold value generated from the spectral plots of Fig. 13. SPC is an indication of the degree of the material nonlinearity. The higher value for the SPC implies higher nonlinearity [27]. Therefore, Fig. 14 indicates that the material nonlinearity is slightly increased when the interface crack is considered. This observation is consistent with our expectation that the damaged structure should be more nonlinear than the undamaged structure.

In this paper, a cracked structure made of two different elastic materials having a Griffith crack at the interface is analyzed. The structure is subjected to pure shear loading and ultrasonic transducer induced loading. Peri-ultrasound modeling tool is used for this analysis. Pure shear loading is considered because an interface crack subjected to pure shear is yet an unsolved problem analytically. The classical analytical solution of an interface crack shows unrealistic oscillating stress singularity near the crack tips. The nonlocal theory-based peri-ultrasound modeling tool appears to produce a better solution. The crack opening displacement predicted by this modeling tool showed a closer match with the experimental data compared to the analytical solution. Furthermore, slight increase in the nonlinear ultrasonic response in presence of the interface crack could also be modeled by this technique. This investigation shows that peri-ultrasound modeling tool works like a universal tool for material modeling because without any special consideration it can help us to visualize how elastic waves propagate in a cracked structure, how the crack surfaces open up, and how crack starts to propagate along an interface or into a material.

Cao, H. C. , and Evans, A. G. , 1989, “ An Experimental Study of the Fracture Resistance of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Mech. Mater., 7(4), pp. 295–304. [CrossRef]
Hutchinson, J. W. , and Suo, Z. , 1991, “ Mixed Mode Cracking in Layered Materials,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 29, pp. 63–191. [CrossRef]
Ye, T. , Suo, Z. , and Evans, A. G. , 1992, “ Thin Film Cracking and the Roles of Substrate and Interface,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 29(21), pp. 2639–2648. [CrossRef]
Beuth, J. L. , 1992, “ Cracking of Thin Bonded Films in Residual Tension,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 29(13), pp. 1657–1675. [CrossRef]
Evans, A. G. , Rühle, M. , Dalgleish, B. J. , and Charalambides, P. G. , 1990, “ The Fracture Energy of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 126(1–2), pp. 53–64. [CrossRef]
Shih, C. F. , and Asaro, R. J. , 1988, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces—Part I: Small Scale Yielding,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 55(2), pp. 299–316. [CrossRef]
Stott, F. H. , 1988, “ Methods of Improving Adherence,” Mater. Sci. Technol., 4(5), pp 431–438.
Shih, C. F. , Asaro, R. J. , and O'Dowd, N. P. , 1991, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces—Part III: Large Scale Yielding,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 58(2), pp. 450–462. [CrossRef]
Renshaw, C. E. , and Pollard, D. D. , 1995, “ An Experimentally Verified Criterion for Propagation Across Unbounded Frictional Interfaces in Brittle, Linear Elastic Materials,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 32(3), pp. 237–249. [CrossRef]
Hadi Hafezi, M. , Nik Abdullah, N. , Correia, J. F. , and De Jesus, A. M. , 2012, “ An Assessment of a Strain-Life Approach for Fatigue Crack Growth,” Int. J. Struct. Integr., 3(4), pp. 344–376. [CrossRef]
Achenbach, J. D. , Keer, L. M. , Khetan, R. P. , and Chen, S. H. , 1979, “ Loss of Adhesion at the Tip of an Interface Crack,” J. Elasticity, 9(4), pp. 397–424. [CrossRef]
Knowles, J. K. , and Sternberg, E. , 1983, “ Large Deformations Near a Tip of an Interface-Crack Between Two Neo-Hookean Sheets,” J. Elasticity, 13(3), pp. 257–293. [CrossRef]
Shih, C. F. , and Asaro, R. J. , 1989, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces: Part II: Structure of Small-Scale Yielding Fields,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 56(4), pp. 763–779.
Chiang, F. P. , and Hua, L. , 1992, “ Measurement of Displacement Field Around an Interfacial Crack in a Bimaterial Sheet,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 41(6), pp. 939–949. [CrossRef]
Williams, M. L. , 1959, “ The Stresses Around a Fault or Crack in Dissimilar Media,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 49(2), pp. 199–204. http://authors.library.caltech.edu/47557/1/199.full.pdf
Erdogan, F. , 1963, “ Stress Distribution in a Nonhomogeneous Elastic Plane With Cracks,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 30(2), pp. 232–236. [CrossRef]
England, A. H. , 1965, “ A Crack Between Dissimilar Media,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 32(2), pp. 400–402. [CrossRef]
Comninou, M. , 1977, “ The Interface Crack,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 44(4), pp. 631–636. [CrossRef]
Silling, S. A. , 2000, “ Reformulation of Elasticity Theory for Discontinuities and Long-Range Forces,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 48(1), pp. 175–209. [CrossRef]
Silling, S. A. , and Lehoucq, R. B. , 2010, “ Peridynamic Theory of Solid Mechanics,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 44, pp. 73–168. [CrossRef]
Hafezi, M. H. , Alebrahim, R. , and Kundu, T. , 2017, “ Peri-Ultrasound for Modeling Linear and Nonlinear Ultrasonic Response,” Ultrasonics, 80, pp. 47–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Silling, S. A. , Epton, M. , Weckner, O. , Xu, J. , and Askari, E. , 2007, “ Peridynamic States and Constitutive Modeling,” J. Elasticity, 88(2), pp. 151–184.
Emmrich, E. , and Weckner, O. , 2007, “ Analysis and Numerical Approximation of an Integro-Differential Equation Modeling Non-Local Effects in Linear Elasticity,” Math. Mech. Solids, 12(4), pp. 363–384. [CrossRef]
Shen, Y. , and Griugiutiu, V. , 2014, “ WaveFormRevealer: An Analytical Framework and Predictive Tool for the Simulation of Multi-Modal Guided Wave Propagation and Interaction With Damage,” Struct. Health Monit.—Int. J., 13(5), pp. 491–511. [CrossRef]
Arnau, A. , ed., 2004, Piezoelectric Transducers and Applications, Vol. 2004, Springer, Berlin. [CrossRef]
Uchino, K. , 1997, Piezoelectric Actuators and Ultrasonic Motors, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Eiras, J. N. , Kundu, T. , Bonilla, M. , and Payá, J. , 2013, “ Nondestructive Monitoring of Ageing of Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement (GRC),” J. Nondestr. Eval., 32(3), pp. 300–314. [CrossRef]
Bermes, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2008, “ Nonlinear Lamb Waves for the Detection of Material Nonlinearity,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 22(3), pp. 638–646. [CrossRef]
Bermes, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2007, “ Experimental Characterization of Material Nonlinearity Using Lamb Waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 90(2), p. 021901. [CrossRef]
Pruell, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2007, “ Evaluation of Plasticity Driven Material Damage Using Lamb Waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 91(23), p. 231911. [CrossRef]
Shui, G. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , Wang, Y. S. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2008, “ A New Technique for Measuring the Acoustic Nonlinearity of Materials Using Rayleigh Waves,” NDT&E Int., 41(5), pp. 326–329. [CrossRef]
Lu, H. , and Chiang, F. P. , 1991, “ Photoelastic Study of Interfacial Fracture of Bimaterial,” Opt. Lasers Eng., 14(3), pp. 217–234.
Rice, J. , 1988, “ Elastic Fracture Mechanics Concepts for Interfacial Cracks,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 55(1), pp. 98–103. [CrossRef]
Rice, J. R. , and Sih, G. C. , 1965, “ Plane Problems of Cracks in Dissimilar Media,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 32(2), pp. 418–423.
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
View article in PDF format.

References

Cao, H. C. , and Evans, A. G. , 1989, “ An Experimental Study of the Fracture Resistance of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Mech. Mater., 7(4), pp. 295–304. [CrossRef]
Hutchinson, J. W. , and Suo, Z. , 1991, “ Mixed Mode Cracking in Layered Materials,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 29, pp. 63–191. [CrossRef]
Ye, T. , Suo, Z. , and Evans, A. G. , 1992, “ Thin Film Cracking and the Roles of Substrate and Interface,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 29(21), pp. 2639–2648. [CrossRef]
Beuth, J. L. , 1992, “ Cracking of Thin Bonded Films in Residual Tension,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 29(13), pp. 1657–1675. [CrossRef]
Evans, A. G. , Rühle, M. , Dalgleish, B. J. , and Charalambides, P. G. , 1990, “ The Fracture Energy of Bimaterial Interfaces,” Mater. Sci. Eng., A, 126(1–2), pp. 53–64. [CrossRef]
Shih, C. F. , and Asaro, R. J. , 1988, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces—Part I: Small Scale Yielding,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 55(2), pp. 299–316. [CrossRef]
Stott, F. H. , 1988, “ Methods of Improving Adherence,” Mater. Sci. Technol., 4(5), pp 431–438.
Shih, C. F. , Asaro, R. J. , and O'Dowd, N. P. , 1991, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces—Part III: Large Scale Yielding,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 58(2), pp. 450–462. [CrossRef]
Renshaw, C. E. , and Pollard, D. D. , 1995, “ An Experimentally Verified Criterion for Propagation Across Unbounded Frictional Interfaces in Brittle, Linear Elastic Materials,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., 32(3), pp. 237–249. [CrossRef]
Hadi Hafezi, M. , Nik Abdullah, N. , Correia, J. F. , and De Jesus, A. M. , 2012, “ An Assessment of a Strain-Life Approach for Fatigue Crack Growth,” Int. J. Struct. Integr., 3(4), pp. 344–376. [CrossRef]
Achenbach, J. D. , Keer, L. M. , Khetan, R. P. , and Chen, S. H. , 1979, “ Loss of Adhesion at the Tip of an Interface Crack,” J. Elasticity, 9(4), pp. 397–424. [CrossRef]
Knowles, J. K. , and Sternberg, E. , 1983, “ Large Deformations Near a Tip of an Interface-Crack Between Two Neo-Hookean Sheets,” J. Elasticity, 13(3), pp. 257–293. [CrossRef]
Shih, C. F. , and Asaro, R. J. , 1989, “ Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Cracks on Bimaterial Interfaces: Part II: Structure of Small-Scale Yielding Fields,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 56(4), pp. 763–779.
Chiang, F. P. , and Hua, L. , 1992, “ Measurement of Displacement Field Around an Interfacial Crack in a Bimaterial Sheet,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 41(6), pp. 939–949. [CrossRef]
Williams, M. L. , 1959, “ The Stresses Around a Fault or Crack in Dissimilar Media,” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 49(2), pp. 199–204. http://authors.library.caltech.edu/47557/1/199.full.pdf
Erdogan, F. , 1963, “ Stress Distribution in a Nonhomogeneous Elastic Plane With Cracks,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 30(2), pp. 232–236. [CrossRef]
England, A. H. , 1965, “ A Crack Between Dissimilar Media,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 32(2), pp. 400–402. [CrossRef]
Comninou, M. , 1977, “ The Interface Crack,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 44(4), pp. 631–636. [CrossRef]
Silling, S. A. , 2000, “ Reformulation of Elasticity Theory for Discontinuities and Long-Range Forces,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 48(1), pp. 175–209. [CrossRef]
Silling, S. A. , and Lehoucq, R. B. , 2010, “ Peridynamic Theory of Solid Mechanics,” Adv. Appl. Mech., 44, pp. 73–168. [CrossRef]
Hafezi, M. H. , Alebrahim, R. , and Kundu, T. , 2017, “ Peri-Ultrasound for Modeling Linear and Nonlinear Ultrasonic Response,” Ultrasonics, 80, pp. 47–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Silling, S. A. , Epton, M. , Weckner, O. , Xu, J. , and Askari, E. , 2007, “ Peridynamic States and Constitutive Modeling,” J. Elasticity, 88(2), pp. 151–184.
Emmrich, E. , and Weckner, O. , 2007, “ Analysis and Numerical Approximation of an Integro-Differential Equation Modeling Non-Local Effects in Linear Elasticity,” Math. Mech. Solids, 12(4), pp. 363–384. [CrossRef]
Shen, Y. , and Griugiutiu, V. , 2014, “ WaveFormRevealer: An Analytical Framework and Predictive Tool for the Simulation of Multi-Modal Guided Wave Propagation and Interaction With Damage,” Struct. Health Monit.—Int. J., 13(5), pp. 491–511. [CrossRef]
Arnau, A. , ed., 2004, Piezoelectric Transducers and Applications, Vol. 2004, Springer, Berlin. [CrossRef]
Uchino, K. , 1997, Piezoelectric Actuators and Ultrasonic Motors, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Eiras, J. N. , Kundu, T. , Bonilla, M. , and Payá, J. , 2013, “ Nondestructive Monitoring of Ageing of Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber Reinforced Cement (GRC),” J. Nondestr. Eval., 32(3), pp. 300–314. [CrossRef]
Bermes, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2008, “ Nonlinear Lamb Waves for the Detection of Material Nonlinearity,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 22(3), pp. 638–646. [CrossRef]
Bermes, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2007, “ Experimental Characterization of Material Nonlinearity Using Lamb Waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 90(2), p. 021901. [CrossRef]
Pruell, C. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2007, “ Evaluation of Plasticity Driven Material Damage Using Lamb Waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett., 91(23), p. 231911. [CrossRef]
Shui, G. , Kim, J. Y. , Qu, J. , Wang, Y. S. , and Jacobs, L. J. , 2008, “ A New Technique for Measuring the Acoustic Nonlinearity of Materials Using Rayleigh Waves,” NDT&E Int., 41(5), pp. 326–329. [CrossRef]
Lu, H. , and Chiang, F. P. , 1991, “ Photoelastic Study of Interfacial Fracture of Bimaterial,” Opt. Lasers Eng., 14(3), pp. 217–234.
Rice, J. , 1988, “ Elastic Fracture Mechanics Concepts for Interfacial Cracks,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 55(1), pp. 98–103. [CrossRef]
Rice, J. R. , and Sih, G. C. , 1965, “ Plane Problems of Cracks in Dissimilar Media,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 32(2), pp. 418–423.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Every point x in the body interacts directly with all other points in the sphere Hx through bonds (Adapted from Hafezi et al. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Displacement time history considered for ultrasonic wave propagation modeling (Adapted from Hafezi et al. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Schematic of PZT (Adapted from Hafezi et al. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Radial movement of particles surrounding the PZT particle (Adapted from Hafezi et al. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Illustration of the linear and nonlinear wave modulation, dominant peaks are above some threshold value, shown by dotted line, and sidebands are typically below this threshold (Adapted from Hafezi et al. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Problem geometry—a bimaterial structure with a crack at the interface. Material 2 has lower elastic modulus. The square structure (12.7 cm × 12.7 cm) is subjected to a pure shear loading. A transmitter and a receiver are placed on two sides of the interface crack. Problem boundaries are then extended to (20 cm × 20 cm) for peri-ultrasound modeling for wave propagation study in the structure (with ux = uy = 0 on boundaries).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Convergence study. Crack opening displacement computed with 65,000 (dashed line) and 258,000 (continuous line) material points.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Variation of y-displacement between two surfaces of the crack (or crack opening displacement), plotted along the x-axis between two crack tips. Note that the peri-ultrasound predicted results match better with the experimental data than the analytical solution.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Variation of x-displacement between two surfaces of the crack plotted along the x-axis between the two crack tips

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Plot of propagation of a central crack at the interface, at t = 80 μs (time step Δt = 0.01 μs, plot after 8000 time steps, computed with 65,025 material points)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Wave motions in the cracked bimaterial structure at different times 14, 28, 42, 56, 70, 84, 98, 112, and 126 μs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Displacement time history at the receiver position for the bimaterial structure containing a crack at the interface (dashed line) and in absence of the crack (continuous line)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Normalized spectral plots of the time histories shown in Fig. 12—for crack-free (solid line) and cracked (dashed line) structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

SPC variation as a function of the moving threshold value for crack-free (solid line) and cracked bimaterial structure (dashed line)—higher SPC values indicate more nonlinearity

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In