Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
∆a
= C (∆K eff ) n (1
∆N
)
Figure 3 Finite Element Model of Center Crack Panel
Where C and n are constants of the material and ∆Keff is Newman [ 20 ]
the effective stress intensity factor range.He proposed that
The panel material was assumed to be elastic perfect
plastic with a tensile ( and compressive ) yield stress, σ0,
of 350.0 MN / m2 and a modulus of elasticity of 70000
MN / m 2 these properties are of aluminum alloy. The
released nodes will be done from node A to node F.
∑σ
j =1
ij g ( x i , x j ) = Sf ( x i ) − Li for i = 1 to n (8)
The applied stress level at which the crack surfaces
are fully open ( no surfaces contact), denoted as S0, was
calculated from the contact stresses at Smin. To have no
surface contact, the stress-intensity factor due to applied
One type of constraint is caused by tensile or
stress increment ( S0 - S min ) is set equal to the stress
compressive yielding of the bar elements and the other is
intensity factor due to the contact stresses. Solving for S0
caused separation ( Vj ≥ Lj ) along the crack surface.
gives :
2σ j
[sen ]
n −1
The plastic zone size ( ρ ) for a crack in a finite S0 = S min − ∑ −1
B2 − sen −1 B1 ( 14 )
width specimen was determined by requiring that the j =11 π
finiteness condition of Dugdale be satisfied. This condition
states that the stress intensity factor at the tip of the
plastic zone is zero and is given by:
(K ) s + ( K )σ 0 = 0 (9)
πb element at the crack tip. The length while the crack was
sen K grown under cyclic loading ( cycle-by-cycle ) over the
W length ∆c*. The number of load (∆N ) required to grow the
Where BK = for K = 1 or 2 ( 15 )
π c0 crack an increment ∆c* was calculated from equation ( 16
sen ) and the cyclic load history. When the sum of the crack
W
growth increments (∆c ) equaled or exceeded ∆c*, the
analytical closure model was exercised. If ∆N reached
and c 0 is the current crack length minus ∆c*. The 300 cycles, the model was exercised whether or not ∆c*
increment the width of element n, and its significance is was reached.
discussed in the next section. If σj = 0 for j = 11 to n – 1
at the minimum applied stress, then the crack is already This limits the number of cycles that can be applied
open, and S0 cannot be determined from equation ( before the model is exercised. The increment ∆c* was set
14 ). The stress σj at the crack tip changes from equal to summation of ∆c’s. Thus, ∆c* was less than or
compression to tension when the applied stress level equal to that computed from equation ( 19 ), and the
reaches S0. number of cycles ranged from 1 to 300. During the cyclic
growth computations, the cyclic stress history was
Crack Extension and Approximations monitored to find the lowest applied stress before (
S minb ) and after ( Smina ) the higest applied stress level (
The crack growth equation proposed by Elber [ 2 ] S maxh ). The application of the analytical closure model
states that the crack growth rate is a power function of the consisted of :
effective stress intensity factor range only. Later ,
Hardraht et al. [ 9 ] showed that the power law was • Applying minimum stress Sminb at crack length c
inadequate at high growth rates approaching fracture. The • Applying maximum stress Sminh at crack length c
results presented herein show that is also inadequate at • Extending crack and increment ∆c*
low growth rates approaching threshold. To account for • Applying minimum stress Smina at crack length c
these effects, the power law was modified to : + ∆c*
2
∆K 0 • Calculating cyclic load history
1− • Calculating new ∆c* from equation 19
∆K
dc eff • Repeating process when crack extension reaches
= C1∆K effC2 2 ( 16 ) new ∆c* or reaches 300 cycles.
dN K
1 − max
C5
S0
where : ∆ K 0 = C 3 1 − C 4
( 17 )
S max
K max = S max πc F ( 18 )
and
∆ K eff = (S max − S 0 ) π c F
Where ρ max is the plastic zone caused by the maximum Figure 7 Crack Surface Displace under Constant
applied stress occurring during the ∆c* was calculated Amplitude Loading, Newman [ 37 ]
from equation ( 16 ) and the cyclic load history. Typical
values of ∆c* ranged between 0.004 and 1.0 mm,
depending upon the applied stress level and crack length.
The simulated crack extension (∆c* ) creates a new bar
5. Schijve, J.” Fatigue Crack Growth Closure:
Observations and Technical Significance”, ASTM
STP 982, PP. 5-34, USA, 1988
Dr. Wolf Elber and Dr. Jim C. Newman Jr. from NASA ( 13. Fleck, N.A., “ Finite Element Analysis of Plasticity
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ) at Induced Crack Closure Under Plane Strain
Langley Research Center, Virginia, 23665, USA Conditions” , Eng. Fracture Mechanics, nº 25, pp.
441-449, England, 1986
3. Swedlow, J. L. “ The Effect and Plastic Flow in 16. Sehitoglu, H.;Gall, K. & Garcia, A.M. “ Recent
Cracked Plates “, PhD Thesis, California Institute of Advances in Fatigue Crcak Growth Modeling”, Int.
Technology, Pasadena, USA, 1965 Journal Fracture, nº 80,2,pp. 165-192, USA, 1996
4. Dugdale, D.S. “ Yielding of Steel Sheets Containing 17. McGlung, R.C., & Sehitoglu, H. “ Finite Element
Slits ”, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, pp. 100-104, n.0 8, Analysis of Fatigue Crack Closure – Numerical
USA, 1960 Results”, Eng. Fracture Mechanics, nº 33,
pp. 253 – 272, England, 1989
18. McGlung, R.C “ Finite Element Modeling of Fatigue
Crack Growth” – Theoretical Concepts and 31. Baudin G. & Robert, M. “ Crack Growth Life Time
Numerical Analysis of Fatigue ” In : Blom A, Prediction Under Aeronautic Type Loading “ , ECF5,
Beevers, C. Editors, West Midlands, EMAS, Ltda, pp. Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 779-792, 1984
153-172, England, 1992
32. Seeger, T.” Ein Breitag zur Berechnung von Statisch
19. McGlung, R.C. “ Finite Element Analysis of Specimen und Zyklisch Belasteten Reisscheiben nach dem
Geometry Effects on Fatigue Crack Closure”, Dugdale-Barenblatt Model” , Institut fur Statik und
Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Structures, nº 17 , pp. Stahlbau, Report nº 21, Darmstadt, Germany , 1973
861-872, USA, 1994
33. Dill, H.D & Staff, C. R. “ Spectrum Crack Growth
20. Newman, J.C. Jr, “ A Finite Element Analysis of Prediction Method Based on Crack Surface
Fatigue Crack Closure”, ASTM STP 590, pp. 281- Displacement and Contact Analyses”, ASTM, STP
301, USA, 1976 595, pp. 306-319, USA, 1976
21. Sunder, R. & Dash, P.K. “ Measurement of Fatigue 34. Budianski, B. & Hutchinson, J.W “ Analysis of
Crack Closure Through Electron Microscopy”, Int. Closure in Fatigue Crack Growth ”, J. Appl. Mech.,
Journal of Fatigue, nº 4, pp. 97-105, USA, 1982 nº45, pp. 267-276, USA, 1978
22. Wheeler, O.E. “ Spectrum Loading and Crack 35. Hardrath H.F, Newman, J.C. Jr, Elber, W., Poe, C.C.
Growth”, Journal of Basic Engineering, nº 94, 1, Jr.; “ Recent Developments in analysis of Crack
pp. 181-186, USA, 1972 Propagation and Fracture of Practical Materials”, In:
Perrone, N.; Liebowitz, H. Mulville, D., Pilkey W.,
23. Willenborg, J.D., Engle, R.M. & Wood, H.A. “ A editors, Fracture Mechanics, University of Virginia
Crack Growth Retardation Model Using an Effective Press, pp. 347-364, 1978
Stress Concept”, AFFDL-TM71-1FBR, Dayton, USA,
1971 36. Fuhring, H. & Seeger, T. “ Dugdale Crack Closure
Analysis of Fatigue Cracks under Constant amplitude
24. Chang, J.B. ; Engle, R.M & Stolpestad, J. “ Fatigue Loading”, Eng. Fracture Mechanics, nº 11, pp.
Crack Growth Behavior and Life Predictions for 2219- 99-122, England, 1979
T851 Aluminum Subjected to Variable Amplitude
Loadings” , ASTM STP 743, pp. 3-27, USA, 1981 37. Newman, J.C. Jr. “ A Crack Closure Model for
Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth Under Aircraft
25. Chang, J.B. & Hudson, C.M. “ Methods and Models Spectrum Loading”, ASTM STP 748, pp. 53-84, USA,
for Predicting Fatigue Crack Growth Under Random 1981
Loading”, ASTM STP 748, 1981
38. Wang, G.S. & Blom, A.F. “ A Modified Dugdale-
26. Gallager, J.P. “ A generalized devolpment of Yield Barenblatt Model for Fatigue Crack Growth
Zone Models” , AFFDL-TM-74-28-FBR, USA, 1974 Predictions Under General Load Predictions”, The
Aeronautic Research Institute of Sweden, Report
27. Johnson, W.S. “ Multi-Parameter Yield Zone Model FFA TN 1987-79, 1987
for Predicting Spectrum Crack Growth”, ASTM
STP 748, pp. 85-102, USA, 1981 39. Newman, J.C. Jr. “ FASTRAN II – A Fatigue Crack
Growth Structural analysis Program”, NASA
28. Bell, P.D & Wolfman A. “ Mathematical Modeling of TM-10459, 1992
Crack Growth Interaction Effects”, ASTM STP 595,
pp. 157-171, USA, 1981 CONTACT
29. Schijve, J. “ Prediction Methods for Fatigue Crack Luiz Carlos H. Ricardo, EPUSP, University of Sao Paulo
Growth in Aircraft Material”, ASTM STP 700, email: luiz.ricardo@poli.usp.br
pp. 3 -34, USA, 1980
Paulo de Mattos Pimenta, EPUSP, University of Sao Paulo
email : ppmenta@usp.br
30. de Koning, A.U., “ A simple Crack Closure Model for
Predictions of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates Under Dirceu Spinelli , EESC, University of Sao Paulo
Variable Amplitude Loading”, ASTM STP 743, email : dspinell@sc.usp.br
pp. 63-85 , USA, 1981