Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learn theories for predicting mixed mode interaction, crack trajectory in 2D, and stability of such trajectory: 1st Order, LEFM theories, isotropic material Crack kinking vs crack turning: trajectory stability 2nd Order, LEFM theory, isotropic and orthotropic materials
102
What controls the shape (sometimes called trajectory when 2D idealization is reasonable) of a propagating crack?
Why do some cracks in a symmetric structure with symmetric BCs not propagate symmetrically?
103
105
z,w
z,w
z,w
Mode I
Mode II
Mode III
Basic modes of crack loading. Positive sense shown for each: Mode I = crack opening Mode II = in-plane sliding Mode III = anti-plane tearing
106
z y r
membrane
KI K II
bending
K1 k1
K2 , K3 Reissner theory k2
Kirchhoff theory
107
max
Maximum Energy Release Rate Theory G()max Minimum Strain Energy Density Theory
S()min
We will study only the max theory, here, but will return to the concept of maximum energy release rate theory later. Why, and why?
108
(16)
This theory asserts that, for an isotropic material, a crack will kink into the direction normal to the maximum circumferential (hoop) stress. So maximize (16) wrt , ignoring T-stress, set = c, and rearrange,
y
sin c K II = K I (3 cos c 1)
max max
1 1 + 8(K K )2 II I c = 2tan 4( K K ) II I
1
(65)
109
Equations 65 and 66 comprise a parametric set in c, KI, and KII .These can be solved to produce an interaction diagram that is analogous to a multi-axial yield interaction diagram, or a biaxial bending yield-crushing diagram.
110
= tan-1(KII/KI)
/ c
S min ( = 0.25)
K( ) / K Ic
max
max
max
G max
60 ,
90
(b)
90
112
Comparison of 1st Order, Linear Elastic, Isotropic Crack Kinking Theories: Kink Angle
Mode I
113
2.75
4.0
114
Comparisons between observations and predictions for two different initial crack configurations
115
116
0
2 K II KI
T KI
118
=2 2
T KI
0 =
2 K II KI
Normalized Plot of the Perturbed Crack Path of Cotterell and Rice (1980).
119
Many Materials Exhibit More Complicated Behavior Such as Toughness Orthotropy and Crack Path Sensitivity to Load Level
Objective: develop a theory for crack turning in real materials based on LEFM concepts
120
121
Their work inspired the creation of 2nd order theories for prediction of crack shape.
We will investigate one of these 2nd order theories, and extend our thinking about crack shapes to the more general case of materials with anisotropic toughness.
122
Include the T-term and the maximum hoop stress expression then becomes:
(67)
Kosai, Kobayashi, and Ramulu, Tear straps in aircraft fuselage, Durability of metal aircraft structures: Proc. of Int. Workshop Structural Integrity of Aging Airplanes, Atlanta, GA, 443-457, 1992
123
Normalized Crack Turning Plot for Isotropic Material Based on the Formulation of Kosai et al. (1992).
124
max criterion
tan 1 (K II K I )
0
-20 -40 -60 -80 -4 -3 -2 -1
1o 1o
tan 1 (K II K I ) = 0o
tan 1 (K II K I ) = 90o
8T 3K I
2rc
Pettit, Wang, and Toh, Integral airframe structures (IAS) - validated feasibility study of integrally stiffened metallic fuselage panels for reducing manufacturing cost, Boeing Report CRAD-9306-TR-4542, NASA contract NAS1-20014, Task 34, November, 1998.
125
rc
() evaluated at rc
( K I , K II , E 1 , E 2 , T , rc , ) Maximum = K c ( ) Kc
Vol. 35 (1990) pp. 159-170
critical
(68)
Boone, Wawrzynek, and Ingraffea, Analysis of fracture propagation in orthotropic materials, Engng Fracture Mech,
126
Kp is the stress intensity at which the crack propagates, in the relevant regime of crack growth. Thus, for fatigue crack growth, Kp is the stress intensity at which the crack propagates at a given rate; for stable tearing, Kp represents the fracture toughness.
K p (90) Km K p (0)
127
100 75 50 25
crack oriented at = 0
Kc L T = 1.2 Kc T L
1.0
0
-25 -50 -75 -100 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 8T 2r c 3K I 2 3 4
crack
crack oriented at = 45
100 75 50 25
crack oriented at = 90
0
-25 -50 -75 -100 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 8T 2r c 3K I 2 3 4
0
-25 -50 -75 -100 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 8T 2r c 3K I 2 3 4
128
Normalized Crack Turning Plots for an Elastically Isotropic Material with Fracture Orthotropy Km =1.6, n = -1, Various Crack Orientations.
(a) Crack Oriented at =0, (b) Crack Oriented at =45, (c) Crack Oriented at =90.
129
No T-Stress
T-Stress
Propagation direction
c = 0o
c = 23.5o
c = 45.6o
130
Observed and predicted crack paths for 7050-T7451 DCB specimens, Static Loading
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Horizontal Crack Growth (in) 7 8 9 10 rc=0 , Km = 1.3 rc=.05 inches, Km = 1.3 rc=.1 inches, Km = 1.3 rc-LT-15-5
2.5 Vertical Crack Growth (in) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Horizontal Crack Growth (in) 7 8 9 10
rc-TL-15-5 rc=.05 inches, Km = 1.3 rc=0, Km = 1.3
131
Observed and predicted crack paths for 7050-T7451 DCB specimens, Fatigue Loading
2.5
2.0 1.5 1.0 FRANC2D, Km=1.1, rc=0 0.5 0.0 rc-LT-15-2 rc-TL-15-2
-0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
132
Look only at the test data and the LEFM Max stress, max , information.
133
Predicted Effect of T-Stress on Kink Angle for Mode II Crack According to Maximum Shear Stress Theory, Isotropic Case.
134
Predicted Effect of T-Stress on Kink Angle for Mode II Crack According to Maximum Shear Stress Theory, KII m=1.6, n=-1
135