Thus far, each of our simulations used a 500 time step interval between new cohesive
element insertions. This value was chosen arbitrarily and can be changed to best fit
the given problem. Varying this interval effects both the simulation time and the accuracy
of the solution. Table 4.7 presents the solution times for the
L-angle case, using stress insertion of at
intervals of
,
,
,
and
time steps. As the interval decreases, the total solution
time increases. This time increase is a result of the increased number of selections as
well as a greater number of file outputs, which currently occur after every insertion.
Furthermore, the accuracy of the solution also increases with a smaller interval since the
the local stresses are not able to vary significantly between the cohesive insertions.
We have deduced this through observation of the distribution of failing cohesive elements;
there are many more failing elements, representing greater instabilities, as the
insertion interval increases ( as seen in Figures 4.38 through 4.39 ). In fact, in part b of Figure 4.39,
there are many failing cohesive elements around the crack but very few cohesive elements
directly ahead of the crack tip. The 10000 time step insertion interval does not allow the
program to insert enough cohesive elements ahead of the crack tip so account for the speed
of the crack. As a result, the crack reaches the end of the cohesive region prior
to the next insertion, causing it to stop abruptly. As new elements are inserted ahead
of this crack tip, it is once again able to continue propagating through the system.
Unfortunately, the periodic crack arresting results in an inaccurate solution as
presented in the figure.
Overall, the number of cohesive elements
present over time is also slightly decreased
for the larger insertion intervals, as seen in Figure 4.40.
This possibly effects the accuracy of the solution since fewer elements are present
in the system, although the difference are only about
.
|
|