Analysis of the Effects of Surface Preparation on Fracture

Crack Propagation

by
Timothy George Andrews
A Project Submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE

Approved:

_________________________________________
Balkrishna Annigeri, Project Advisor

_________________________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete, Project Advisor

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Hartford, Connecticut
April, 2014
(For Graduation May 2014)

1
.

Copyright 2014
by
Timothy George Andrews
All Rights Reserved

ii
 CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
LIST OF SYMBOLS ....................................................................................................... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ix
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1
2. Descriptions of Methods of Applying Residual Stress ................................................ 2
2.1 Shot Peening ...................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Laser Shock Peening .......................................................................................... 4
2.3 Cold Working Holes .......................................................................................... 6
3. Analysis of Surface Treatment Effect on Crack Growth ............................................. 8
3.1 Analysis Method ................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Shot Peening Analysis ....................................................................................... 9
3.3 Laser Shock Peening ........................................................................................ 15
3.4 Cold Hole Working Analysis ........................................................................... 19
4. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 24
5. References.................................................................................................................. 25

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NASGRO and FRANC3D stress intensity results for shot peen analysis. ....... 13
Table 2. NASGRO and FRANC3D Stress intensity results for laser peen analysis. ..... 18

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Schematic of Residual Stress and Operating Tensile Stress. ............................ 1
Figure 2. Schematic of Shot Peening Operation. .............................................................. 2
Figure 3. Residual Stress from a Shot Peening Operation in 2024 Aluminum, based on
experimental data. [1] ........................................................................................................ 3
Figure 4. Schematic of Laser Shock Peening. .................................................................. 5
Figure 5. Residual Stress in Laser Shock Peened IN718. [2] ........................................... 5
Figure 6. Residual Stress in a 4% cold worked hole in 5083 Aluminum. [3] .................. 7
Figure 7. Graphical Representation of the Residual Stress around a Cold-Worked Hole.
[3]....................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 8. Geometry of Cracks used in NASGRO for Shot Peen, and Laser Peen
Analysis. .......................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 9. Stress Applied in Shot Peening Model. ........................................................... 11
Figure 10. Crack growth in unpeened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with test
data. [7] ............................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 11. Crack growth in shot peened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with test
data. [7] ............................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 12. FRANC3D analysis of a 0.050x0.200 corner crack. ................................. 13
Figure 13. FRANC3D Analysis of Shot Peened Al 2024. ............................................. 14
Figure 14. Stress Applied in Laser Peening Model. ....................................................... 15
Figure 15. Crack growth in laser peened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with
test data from Everett. [7] ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 16. Stress intensity in laser peened Al 2024 FRANC3D analysis. ..................... 16
Figure 17. Crack growth analysis using 58% of published residual stress. .................... 17
Figure 18. Crack growth analysis results using FRANC3D with 58% of published
residual stress. .................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 19. FRANC3D analysis of a 0.050"x0.200" crack in a laser peened specimen
with 58% of published residual stress. ............................................................................ 19
Figure 20. ANSYS model of LPB test specimen. .......................................................... 20
Figure 21. Applied and resultant stress in specimen. ..................................................... 21
Figure 22. Crack propagation of cold worked holes. [3] ................................................ 22

v
Figure 23. Crack propagation of cold worked holes, using 75% of residual stress from
[3]..................................................................................................................................... 23

vi
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Symbol Units Description
a inch Crack Depth
C inch-1 Empirically derived material property in Formans model
c inch Crack half-length
f Crack opening function in Formans model
K KSI-root-inch Stress intensity
K KSI-root-inch Stress intensity range
Kth KSI-root-inch Threshold stress intensity
Kc KSI-root-inch Critical stress intensity at which crack becomes unstable
Kmax KSI-root-inch Maximum stress intensity during the load cycle
N Number of elapsed stress cycles
n Empirically derived material property in Formans model
P Empirically derived material property in Formans model
q Empirically derived material property in Formans model
R Stress ratio (min/max)
KSI Stress

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Dr. Balkrishna Annigeri for his guidance and patience. I also thank
Lars Vestergaard for his assistance and training in the use of NASGRO and Dr. Ernesto
Gutierrez-Miravete for his assistance. I thank my wife, Sandra Andrews, for her
patience and encouragement. Finally, I thank United Technologies Corporation for their
assistance throughout my graduate program.

viii
 ABSTRACT
Shot peening and other forms of surface treatment can beneficially affect the crack
propagation properties of materials used in aerospace applications. Shot peening has
been used for many decades as the most common method of surface treatment, but other
methods include laser peening and cold working of holes. These methods all work by
applying a layer of compressive stress on the surface, which acts to counter applied
tensile stress.

The magnitude and depth of the compressive stress layers are publicly available for
many materials in the literature. The effect on crack growth can be analyzed using
commercially available crack growth analysis software, such as NASGRO and
FRANC3D. The analysis of the crack growth is done by using superposition to add the
residual stress in the surface layer to an applied stress. The analysis results are
compared to test results in the literature.

The analytical results did not match the test data well enough for engineering purposes
for the surface treatments using simple NASGRO models. The possible reasons for this
are that the material properties in the software code might not match exactly with the test
specimens, and that the crack propagation might not be semi-elliptical as the NASGRO
code assumes.

In order to match analytical results to the test data, more analysis was required, using
FRANC3D to determine the stress intensity around the crack front. This resulted in a
better match with the shape of the crack curve, but did not accurately predict the crack
growth lives within reasonable margins of error. To better model the crack growth lives,
further analysis was done using reduced residual stress, below the residual stresses
documented in the literature. This analysis showed much closer match with test data.

ix
 1. Introduction
Cracks in aircraft parts can lead to catastrophic failures, and therefore it is important to
reduce crack growth. In order to do this, there are several methods of applying residual
compressive stress to the surfaces of parts where cracks may form, including the
following:
1. Shot peening
2. Laser shock peening
3. Cold hole working

These methods all apply forces to the surfaces of metal parts in order to cause a
compressive plastic stress. The compressive stress acts against applied tensile stress
occurring in operation. Because the plastic stress partially offsets the tensile operating
stress, the crack experiences lower effective tensile stress and grows less quickly,
resulting in longer part life. This is shown schematically in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic of Residual Stress and Operating Tensile Stress.

1
 2. Descriptions of Methods of Applying Residual Stress
2.1 Shot Peening
Shot peening bombards a surface of a part with small spherical shot made of metal,
glass, or ceramic materials, typically in the size range of 0.004 to 0.040 (0.1 mm to 1.0
mm) [1]. These particles hit the surface hard enough to induce a compressive stress to
the surface. The depth of the compressive stress layer is typically about 0.015. This
depth is enough to significantly increase the fatigue life of the part, and to slow the
growth of shallow cracks that are formed. Below the layer of compressive stress, there
is a layer of residual tensile stress, which is caused by the need to balance the layer of
compressive stress. A schematic of the shot peening process is shown in Figure 2. A
typical residual stress pattern in 2024 Aluminum plate caused by shot peening is shown
in Figure 3, from Ludian et al. [1].

Figure 2. Schematic of Shot Peening Operation.

2
Figure 3. Residual Stress from a Shot Peening Operation in 2024 Aluminum, based on experimental
data. [1]

Shot peening can be done at different intensities. The plot in Figure 3 shows residual
stress parallel to the treated surface three different levels: 0.1T coverage, 1T coverage,
and 4T coverage. Coverage at 1.0T refers to peening for the amount of time needed to
cover the entire specimen. Coverage at 0.1T refers to peening for 0.1 times the amount
of time needed to cover the entire specimen, and 4T coverage is four times the amount of
time needed to cover the entire specimen. The plot shows that the specimen can be
peened with significant residual compressive stress at one tenth the time required for full
coverage, which can result in significant cost savings while still retaining much of the
advantage of the surface treatment.

Shot peening is the most common and least expensive process for surface treatment.
This process has been used in industry for decades and is well understood. The process
has some imprecision due to the randomness of the location of the impacts of the shot.

3
Because of this, there is some possibility that some areas will have more residual stress
than other areas, and thus the process will not be as repeatable and predictable as other
forms of applying residual stresses.

2.2 Laser Shock Peening

Laser shock peening is a process that applies a compressive stress layer much deeper
than shot peening [2]. In this process, an ablative layer is applied to the surface of the
part. This layer is usually black paint or black tape. A layer of water is run over the
black ablative layer. A high energy laser is aimed at the part, and the ablative layer
absorbs the energy of the laser, heating the water into plasma. The beam is sent in
pulses of tens of nanoseconds, creating rapid expansion of the ablative layer. This rapid
explosion creates a shock wave that runs through the part, and this creates a compressive
stress layer, analogous to shot peening, but penetrating deeper into the material. The
layer of water contains the explosion and forces the shock wave into the part. A
schematic of laser shot peening is shown in Figure 4.

Laser peening creates a compressive layer about four times deeper than shot peening.
This makes it much more effective at preventing crack growth. Because shot peening
creates a compressive layer only about 0.015 deep, shot peening will greatly improve
the resistance to fatigue cracks forming, and will reduce the growth of very shallow
cracks. However, once a crack grows deeper than the compressive layer, the shot
peening process leads to increased stresses and increased crack growth rates, because the
tensile layer below the compressive layer increases stress, and accelerates crack growth.
Laser shock peening creates a much deeper compressive layer, so cracks up to about
0.060 are slowed due to the compressive layer. Typical residual stress parallel to the
treated surface for laser shock peened 2024 Aluminum, from Dorman et al. [2] is shown
in Figure 5.

4
 Figure 4. Schematic of Laser Shock Peening.

Residual Stress in Laser Peened Al 2024

0

-5
Residual Stress (KSI)

-10

-15
Residual Stress
-20

-25

-30
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Depth (inch)

Figure 5. Residual Stress in Laser Shock Peened IN718. [2]

5
The laser shock peening process is more expensive and much less widely used than shot
peening. The process is slower and not as well understood. However, lasers can be
pointed accurately to ensure full coverage and is more predictable than shot peening.

2.3 Cold Working Holes

Cold working is a process for strengthening the area around holes. This process uses a
split sleeve that is inserted into an existing hole. The split sleeve pushes against the
sides of the hole, and expands the size of the hole, typically about 2% to 4% expansion.
As the hole diameter is increased, the metal surrounding the hole is deformed plastically.
This deformation results in a compressive stress layer around the hole that will resist
fatigue, and reduce the growth of any cracks that form. The depth of the compressive
layer is typically on the order of about 0.100. A typical residual stress profile in the
circumferential direction for a cold-worked hole from Pasta [3] is shown in Figure 6. A
graphical representation of the stress around the hole is shown in Figure 7.

A compressive stress around holes is valuable because there is often high stress on the
surface of holes. Like other forms of surface treatment, cold working holes results in a
tensile residual stress deep into the part. Because stresses in operation of aircraft parts
often are very high around the surface of holes, and the stresses die out quickly a short
distance from the holes, cold-working holes offers a good solution to fatigue and crack
propagation. Thus the residual compressive stress from the cold working exists in the
locations of high operating stress, which results in significantly increased fatigue and
crack propagation life.

6
Figure 6. Residual Stress in a 4% cold worked hole in 5083 Aluminum. [3]

Figure 7. Graphical Representation of the Residual Stress around a Cold-Worked Hole. [3]

7
 3. Analysis of Surface Treatment Effect on Crack Growth

3.1 Analysis Method

For the analysis portion of this project, the different methods of surface treatment were
analyzed using the NASGRO code version 6.2 [4]. Residual stress fields were found in
existing literature, based on test data. These residual stress fields were overlaid on the
applied stress to determine the resultant stress. This stress was mapped onto an
analytical model and run through a NASGRO analysis with a starting crack size in order
to determine the crack propagation life until failure. This crack life was then compared
against crack growth data in existing literature.

NASGRO is a commercially-available code that uses linear elastic fracture mechanics

(LEFM) to analyze crack propagation. LEFM uses the elastic stress and crack length to
determine the rate of crack growth. The method was first developed in 1921 by A. A.
Griffith [5], who observed that the parameter needed for a crack to grow in glass fibers
was proportional to the stress multiplied by the square root of the crack depth. This
method was later improved by G. R. Irwin, who developed the stress intensity factor [5]:

(1)

Where Y is a geometry factor

When the stress intensity factor is greater than the materials threshold of crack
propagation, the crack grows, until the stress intensity equals the materials fracture
toughness, at which point the crack becomes unstable and failure occurs. LEFM can be
used to determine the rate of growth of a crack using the linear elastic stress and the
length of the crack. NASGRO uses this method by determining the crack growth for
every stress cycle, and repeating until the crack becomes unstable, or until the crack no
longer grows, or until the predetermined number of cycles has been completed.

8
The rate of crack growth is determined in NASGRO using Formans model. NASGRO
calculates the crack growth rate as [4]:

(2)

The values of C, n, P, and q are found in commercially available software such as

NASGRO for many commonly used materials. The analysis in this project will use the
available libraries in NASGRO to compare with test data found in the literature. In
commercial applications, a rigorous testing process would be needed to determine these
parameters before an analysis system can be useful for product development.

In order to better correlate the analysis to test, the FRANC3D code version 6.0 [6] was
also used. For this study, FRANC3D was used to model a crack using finite element
modeling in order to determine the stress intensity. This can be more accurate than
NASGRO because FRANC3D can determine stress intensity along the crack front,
rather than just at the crack tip and the crack depth, as NASGRO does.

3.2 Shot Peening Analysis

A crack propagation analysis was done to analyze the effect of shot peening. This
analysis was then compared to test data found in the literature; test data was found for Al
2024 in Everett et al. [7].

Analysis was done in NASGRO for 0.050 initial crack length. The analysis was done
in NASGRO using Al 2024 (NASGRO material ID M2EI11AA11). The geometry of
the specimen was a solid block; dimensions are shown in Figure 8. The loading on the
specimen was in tension, using a cyclic load with a maximum applied stress of 13.3 KSI,
and a minimum applied stress of zero. The stresses applied to the NASGRO model are
shown in Figure 9.

9
Figure 8. Geometry of Cracks used in NASGRO for Shot Peen, and Laser Peen Analysis.

The analysis results were then compared to test data from [7]. Crack growth results of
the analysis are shown in Figure 10 for unpeened specimens and in Figure 11 for peened
specimens. This resulted in a close match between the NASGRO analysis and the test
data for the unpeened specimens. The difference between the analytical results and the
test data could be due to differences in material properties between the analytical model
and the test specimens. The correlation with the test data for the peened specimens was
not close. In both the test data and the analysis, the shot peened specimens showed
significantly more resistance to crack propagation than did the unpeened specimens.

10
 Stress Applied in Shot Peening Model
20

10

0
Residual Stress (KSI)

-10
Residual Stress
-20 Applied Stress
Resultant Stress
-30

-40

-50
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Depth (inch)

Figure 9. Stress Applied in Shot Peening Model.

NASGRO Analysis of Unpeened Al 2024

0.800
0.700
0.600
Crack Depth (inch)

0.500
0.400
NASGRO Analysis
0.300
Test Data
0.200
0.100
0.000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Cycles

Figure 10. Crack growth in unpeened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with test data. [7]

11
 NASGRO Analysis of Shot Peened Al 2024
0.450
0.400
0.350
Crack Depth (inch)

0.300
0.250
0.200 NASGRO Analysis
0.150 Test Data
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Cycles

Figure 11. Crack growth in shot peened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with test data. [7]

Because the correlation between the NASGRO analysis and the test data did not match
within reasonable amounts, a different approach was needed. This approach was to use
FRANC3D to more accurately determine stress intensity. Using FRANC3D, a model
was created of the cross-section of the specimen, with four crack models of sizes
between 0.050x0.050 and 0.050x 0.400. FRANC3D calculated the stress intensity
factors for each crack size. The model and the stress intensity for a crack 0.050x0.200
is shown in Figure 12. The plot on the right shows the stress intensity from the shot-
peened surface (labeled as A on the plot) to the depth of the crack (labeled as B on the
plot).

12
Figure 12. FRANC3D analysis of a 0.050x0.200 corner crack.

For the 0.050x0.200 crack size, FRANC3D showed K(a)=4.132 KSI-root-inch, and
NASGRO showed K(a)=3.226 KSI-root-inch. The maximum stress intensity of 10.479
KSI-root-inch was not at a surface, but in the interior of the specimen. This indicates
that the crack would not grow as a quarter-elliptical crack, as NASGRO would assume,
but rather would grow into the interior of the specimen. Table 1 shows the values of
K(a) and K(max) for the analyzed crack sizes from the FRANC3D analysis, and K(a)
from the NASGRO analysis. The table shows that the maximum stress intensity is close
to or equal the K(a) value for the smaller crack sizes, but for deeper cracks, the
maximum stress intensity is much larger than the K(a) value.

Crack Size K(a) NASGRO K(a) FRANC3D K(max) FRANC3D

.050x.050 3.317 4.192 4.192
.050x.100 3.695 5.773 6.554
.050x.200 3.224 4.132 10.479
.050x.400 2.420 2.659 12.541

Table 1. NASGRO and FRANC3D stress intensity results for shot peen analysis.

13
Using the maximum FRANC3D stress intensity values from Table 1, the crack growth
rate was calculated by scaling the crack growth rate with the K(max) results from the
FRANC3D results to the K(a) values from the NASGRO results. The results of this
analysis are shown in Figure 13. The shape of the crack growth curve using the
maximum stress intensity values closely matched the shape of the test data. The likely
reason for the difference between the NASGRO results and the FRANC3D results is that
the cracks in the test specimens do not likely grow as quarter-elliptical cracks, as
NASGRO assumes, but rather once the cracks grow below the compressive surface
layer, the cracks grow further into the interior of the specimen.

The magnitude of the crack growth using the FRANC3D, however, does not match the
test data. The difference in the magnitude of the crack growth may be due to variation in
the material properties between the test specimens and the analytical material model, and
also due to differences in residual stresses between those in the analytical models,
measured by Ludian et al. [1], and the test specimens used by Everett et al. [7].

NASGRO and FRANC3D Analysis of Shot

Peened Al 2024
0.450
0.400
0.350
Crack Depth (inch)

0.300 NASGRO Analysis

0.250
0.200 Test Data
0.150
0.100 FRANC3D Analysis using
0.050 Kmax
0.000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Cycles

Figure 13. FRANC3D Analysis of Shot Peened Al 2024.

14
3.3 Laser Shock Peening
Laser shock peening analysis was done using the same methodology, specimen size, and
loading as the shot peening analysis in the previous section. The residual, applied, and
resultant stresses used in this model are shown in Figure 14. The results comparing the
test data and the NASGRO analysis are shown in Figure 15.

Stress Applied in Laser Peening Model

25
20
15
Residual Stress (KSI)

10
5
0
Residual Stress
-5
-10 Applied Stress
-15 Resultant Stress
-20
-25
-30
0 0.05 0.1
Depth (inch)

Figure 14. Stress Applied in Laser Peening Model.

The NASGRO analysis showed no crack growth. The maximum stress at the depth of
the crack was in compression and the K was below the threshold for crack growth;
therefore there was no crack growth. A FRANC3D model was run to confirm that the
stress intensity was very low at the initial crack size. The FRANC3D model showed that
the stress intensity was negative; the FRANC3D results are shown in Figure 16. Two
possible reasons for the difference in crack propagation between the test data and the
NASGRO analysis are that there may have been some differences in material properties,
and that the residual stresses may have been different between the specimens measured
by Dorman et al. [2] and those tested by Everett et al. [7]. The residual stresses in the

15
NASGRO model were taken from [2], and the test specimens in [7] may have had
different residual stresses.

NASGRO Analysis of Laser Peened Al 2024

0.500
0.450
0.400
Crack Depth (inch)

0.350
0.300
0.250
NASGRO Analysis
0.200
0.150 Test Data
0.100
0.050
0.000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Cycles

Figure 15. Crack growth in laser peened Al 2024, comparing NASGRO analysis with test data from
Everett. [7]

Figure 16. Stress intensity in laser peened Al 2024 FRANC3D analysis.

16
The test specimens could have had less residual stress than was measured in [2]. Lower
residual stress was modeled using NASGRO; the NASGRO model was modified so that
the residual stress was reduced to 58% of the published residual stress. The results are
shown in Figure 17. While these results do show some crack growth, the crack growth
does not match the test data.

NASGRO Analysis of Laser Peened Al 2024

Using 58% of Published Residual
0.500
0.450
0.400
Crack Depth (inch)

0.350
0.300
0.250 Baseline NASGRO Analysis
0.200 Test Data
0.150
0.100 58% Residual NASGRO
0.050
0.000
0 200000 400000 600000 800000
Cycles

Figure 17. Crack growth analysis using 58% of published residual stress.

In order to more accurately analyze the lower residual stress, FRANC3D was used to
model four different crack sizes, as was done for the analysis of the shot peened
specimens in the previous section. The FRANC3D stress intensities are listed in Table 2.
The crack growth was then calculated by scaling the crack growth rate with K(max)
from the FRANC3D results to the K(a) values from the NASGRO results. The crack
growth using this approach, using 58% of the published residual stress, is shown in
Figure 18. This much more closely matches the test data. The likely reason for the
difference between the NASGRO results and the FRANC3D results is that the cracks in
the test specimens do not likely grow as quarter-elliptical cracks, as NASGRO assumes.
The stress intensities listed in Table 2 show that for larger crack sizes, the K(max) is
much greater than the K(a), so the maximum stress intensity is not at the depth of the

17
crack, but rather in the interior of the specimen. Figure 19 shows the FRANC3D stress
intensity for the 0.050x0.200 crack size. For this crack size, the maximum stress
intensity is not at the depth of the crack. This indicates that a crack would grow more
into the interior of the specimen than the K(a) value would imply, and that the crack
would grow much faster, because the K(max) is much higher than the K(a).

Crack Size K(a) NASGRO K(a) FRANC3D K(max) FRANC3D

.050x.050 1.197 2.522 2.522
.050x.100 3.547 5.089 5.089
.050x.200 3.166 4.095 9.524
.050x.400 2.371 2.660 12.219

Table 2. NASGRO and FRANC3D Stress intensity results for laser peen analysis.

NASGRO Analysis of Laser Peened Al 2024

Using 58% of Published Residual Stress
0.500
0.450
0.400
Crack Depth (inch)

0.350
0.300
0.250 Baseline NASGRO Analysis
0.200 Test Data
0.150
0.100 58% Residual FRANC3D
0.050
0.000
0 40000 80000 120000 160000 200000
Cycles

Figure 18. Crack growth analysis results using FRANC3D with 58% of published residual stress.

18
Figure 19. FRANC3D analysis of a 0.050"x0.200" crack in a laser peened specimen with 58% of
published residual stress.

3.4 Cold Hole Working Analysis

In order to analyze cold hole working and compare the results to test data, a literature
search was done. A study was done by S. Pasta [3] in 2006 on cold worked holes in
specimens of 5083-H321 aluminum. These specimens were 200mm x 50mm
(7.874x1.969) samples with a 5 mm (0.197) circular cold worked hole in the center,
pulled in tension in an Instron machine at different force levels: 30 kN , 32 kN, and 35
kN, with holes worked to 2.5% and 4% expansion. For the purposes of this project, the
30 kN (6,740 pounds) force was analyzed, using the holes worked to 4% expansion. The
holes were tested for crack propagation, with a through crack applied to the side of the
hole in the specimens tested. The specimen was modeled in NASGRO in order to
determine the crack propagation life of the part, for both the unworked and worked
holes. The crack propagation life was then compared to tests that had been done by
Pasta [3].

In order to analyze this specimen in NASGRO for this project, it was necessary to
determine the stress in the specimens. This was done using a finite element model in

19
ANSYS [8]. The model measured one quarter of the specimen, with symmetrical
boundary conditions. The model is shown in Figure 20. The stresses from this model
were taken from the edge of the hole to the edge of the specimen.

Figure 20. ANSYS model of LPB test specimen.

In Pasta [3], the cold worked hole residual stress was measured. This residual stress was
added to the stress from the ANSYS model, and this stress is shown in Figure 21. The
applied stress from the ANSYS model (green curve in Figure 21) was used to model the
untreated hole, and the resultant stress (blue curve) was used to model the cold-worked
hole. Theses stresses were applied to a NASGRO model of a through crack. It was
necessary to adjust the material properties because the NASGRO library did not
specifically have properties for 5083-H321 aluminum; the closest material the NASGRO
library was 5083-O. Test data obtained from Wu [9] show Paris Law values for Al

20
5083-H321 of c=7.87e-8 inch, and n=1.719, and these values were used in the NASGRO
model.

Stress in Cold Work Hole NASGRO Analysis

80

60

40

20
Stress (KSI)

0 Residual Stress
Applied Stress
-20
Resultant Stress
-40

-60

-80
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Depth (inch)

Figure 21. Applied and resultant stress in specimen.

The results of the NASGRO analysis are shown in Figure 22, compared with test results
from Pasta [3]. The crack propagation life for the untreated hole in the test data was
30,000 cycles before the crack became unstable, but the NASGRO model show only
9,800 cycles. This difference is likely due to material property differences.

The cold-worked hole test data shows a crack propagation life of 109,000 cycles, but the
NASGRO model showed infinite life. The crack did not grow in the NASGRO analysis
because the stress intensity was below the threshold.

21
 Analysis and Test Results for Cold-Worked
Holes
0.6
0.5
Crack Depth (in)

Untreated (Test)
0.4
0.3 Cold Worked 4% (Test)

0.2
Untreated (NASGRO)
0.1
0 Cold Worked 4%
0.00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05 (NASGRO)
Cycles

Figure 22. Crack propagation of cold worked holes. [3]

While the NASGRO analysis and the test in Pasta [3] showed that cold working the hole
had a significant effect on the crack propagation life, the absolute numbers appear
significantly different between the NASGRO model and the test results. A possible
reason that the crack growth analysis does not match the test data is that the published
residual stress measurements might not accurately represent the actual residual stress.
The analysis was run using residual stress multiplied by a factor of 0.75. The results are
shown in Figure 23. The crack growth matched much more closely to the test using this
adjusted residual stress.

22
 Analysis and Test Results for Cold-Worked
Holes
Using 75% of Published Residual Stress
0.6
Crack Depth (in)

0.5 Untreated (Test)

0.4
0.3 Cold Worked 4% (Test)
0.2
Untreated (NASGRO)
0.1
0
Cold Worked 4%
0.00E+00 5.00E+04 1.00E+05
(NASGRO)
Cycles

Figure 23. Crack propagation of cold worked holes, using 75% of residual stress from [3].

23
 4. Conclusions

Surface treatment has a significant effect on the rate of crack growth in metal specimens.
In order to improve the life of aircraft parts, surface treatment is an effective tool.
Specifically, the analysis has shown the following:
Shot peening results in an improved crack propagation life, but not as much as
some other treatment methods. Because other treatments can be more
expensive, shot peening is often the most cost effective way to improve crack
propagation life.
Laser shock peening and cold-working holes are more effective than shot
peening. These processes are more expensive, and in some cases are more
difficult than shot peening.
Material properties in the commercially available NASGRO library might not
necessary correlate well with test data. For this reason, rigorous testing must be
done in order to develop material property libraries before analysis can be used
for engineering of aircraft parts.
Material properties that have been correlated to test data for untreated
specimens do not necessarily correlate well to treated specimens. Therefore, in
order for these processes to be useful for engineering aircraft parts, fracture
mechanics testing must be done on treated specimens in order to have correlated
crack growth data libraries.
Analytical models using residual stress from measured specimens may not
closely match crack growth test data. Residual stress fields must be correlated
to test data before analysis can be used for engineering purposes.

24
 5. References

1. Ludian, T. and Wagner, L., Coverage Effects in Shot Peening of Al 2024-T4,

Proceedings 9th International Conference of Shot Peening (ICSP9), Sept 6-9,
2005, Paris, France, pp 296-301.
2. Dorman, M.; Toparli, M. B.; Smyth, N.; Cini, A.; Fitzpatrick, M. E. and Irving,
P. E. (2012). Effect of laser shock peening on residual stress and fatigue life of
clad 2024 aluminum sheet containing scribe defects, Materials Science and
Engineer: A, 548 pp. 142-151.
3. Pasta, S., Fatigue Crack Propagation from a Cold-Worked Hole, Engineering
Fracture Mechanics, June 2007, pp 1525-1538.
4. Beek, Joachim M, et al, NASGRO Fracture Mechanics and Fatigue Crack
Growth Analysis Software Reference Manual Version 6.21 Final, January
2012.
5. Neal-Sturgess, C.E., A Direct Derivation of the Griffith-Irwin Relationship
using a Crack tip Unloading Stress Wave Model, arXiv 0810.2218 Volume,
DOI, 2008.
6. Fracture Analysis Consultants, FRANC3D ANSYS Tutorial Version 6,
November 2011.
7. Everett, Jr, R. A.; Matthews, W. T.; Prabhakaran, R.; Newman, Jr., J. C.;
Dubberly, M. J., The Effects of Shot and Laser Peening on Fatigue Life and
Crack Growth in 2024 Aluminum Alloy and 4340 Steel, NASA/TM-2001-
210843 ARL-TR-2363, December 2001.
8. ANSYS, Inc., ANSYS Mechanical Release 12.1, November 2009.
9. Wu, Weidong, Fatigue Crack Propagation Behavior of Welded and Weld-
Repaired 5083 Aluminium Alloy Joints, Thesis, School of Aerospace and
Mechanical Engineering, University College, The University of New South
Wales, June 2002.

25