Simulation of 3D Crack Growth

Thin Shells 3D Solids

NONLINEARITIES:Predicted Curvilinear Fatigue Crack Growth

Early Damage Tolerance Testing on B-707 Fuselage

Single Bay Flaps

Life Prediction in Transmission Gears

Project: NASA Lewis NAG3-1993 Allison 250-C30R Engine

U.S. Army OH-51 Kiowa

Fatigue Cracks in Spiral Bevel Power Transmission Gear

Geometry Update for Crack Growth

1) based on the stress intensity factors and a growth model, new crack front points are determined

2) a best-fit polynomial space curve is fit through the new crack front points

3) edges and faces are added to connect the old crack front to the new front

Geometry Update for Crack Growth: some difficult cases

crossing patch boundaries

reentrant corners along the crack mouth

new crack front points
fitted curve

reentrant corners along the crack front

predicted fronts old crack front that do not intersect surfaces

intersection point

circular cutting plane

Geometry for the Demonstration Analysis

p 11.54 kips, R = 0.214
projection onto Section A - A
1.5"

3"

Crack Tip 1
A

.508"
Crack Tip 2

2.412"
side view

2"
A
12"
0.25R" EDM flaw

a1

a3

view 2 view 1

a2
initial notch

45 angle

bottom view

crack

Solid Geometry Models

OSM Geometry Model

Inserted Initial Flaw

Initial Boundary Element Mesh

Flaw Mouth

Initial Flaw

Full Beam

Predicted and Observed Crack Fronts

a
Predicted Transition into Corner a Predicted Transition into Corner b

Final Fatigue Crack Front

a b
Observed Fatigue Crack Shape

Final Predicted Crack Shape

Deformed Solid

Comparison of computed and observed crack trace on the surface

Experiment FRANC3D

initial crack side bottom face side

A Computed SIF History and Comparisons to Observations

a1
Event a-Corner (cycles) b-Cor ner (cycles) Last Fr ont (cycles) a1 (in.) a2 (in.)

a2
Observed 106, 800 171, 000 175, 000 1. 26 1. 38 FRANC3D 140,000 170,000 190,000 1.42 1.34 % Difference 32 -0.5 8.5 12.7 -2.8

Countersunk Rivet-hole
Comparison of boundary element computed and experimentally observed results. Assumed circular crack front
4 3.5 3 2.5 F 2 1.5 1 G
r h = 0.005"

50

0.09" 0.045"

nh

Experimental G J G G BES, applied stress JG G G J BES, applied displacements G G J G G G G G J G G J G G J G G H G J G G G H G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G K = S a F a = a / cos(20) r 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 a/r 0.5 a 0.6 0.7 0.8

Crack location

0.5 0

Thermal fatigue in a housing

A Cylindrical Shell with an Arbitrarily Oriented, ThroughCrack Subjected to Internal Pressure: Comparison of BEM and FEM Solutions
P=1 R = 10 t=1 a=2 = 20 degrees = 0.3

t
P

2a

Boundary Element and Finite Element Models of a Cracked Tube

BEM

FEM

8,696 3-noded triangular elements: 17,061 10-noded tetrahedral elements: 24 SP processors, 7 hours wall clock time 1 SP processor, 2.5 hours wall clock time

Mode-I Stress Intensity Factors

Mode-I StressIntensit Intensity Factor Mode I Stress y Factor
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

2D Analytical solution

BEM FEM

Normalized Distance Along Crack Front