THE EFFECT OF DENTS ON FATIGUE LIFE AND

FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH OF ALUMINUM 2024-T3

BARE SHEET

A Thesis by

Praveen Shivalli

Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering

Visveswaraiah Technological University, India, 2003

Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering

and the faculty of Graduate School of
Wichita State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

December 2006
THE EFFECT OF DENTS ON FATIGUE LIFE AND FATIGUE
CRACK GROWTH OF ALUMINUM 2024-T3 BARE SHEET
I have examined the final copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science,
with a major in Mechanical Engineering.

________________________________

Kurt Soschinske, Committee Chair

____________________________________

Bert Smith, Committee Co-Chair

I have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:

____________________________________

Hamid Lankarani, Committee Member

ii
 DEDICATION

Dedicated to my

Parents B.L.Shivalli and S.B.Shivalli and

my Brother Mahesh for their continued support.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like express my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Bert Smith who guided me

through and provided me with the opportunity to work on a multi-disciplinary project. I

would also like to thank him for allowing me to use the valuable results of this NIS-

project in my thesis report. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Kurt Soschinske who gave me

valuable time from his busy schedule to help me in my thesis report.

I would like to express my thanks and deep gratitude to my Manager Dr. Brijesh

Kumar who gave me the opportunity to work on very good projects, which helped me to

enhance my knowledge. I believe it was a privilege working under him.

I would also like to thank Dr. Hamid Lankarani for his valuable comments and

suggestions. Last but not the least, I would like to thank all my co-workers in NIAR for

their continuous support and help through out this project.

iv
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of dents on the fatigue

properties of 0.04 inch thick 2024-T3 bare aluminum sheet, which is the most widely

used material for aircraft skin. The study is divided into two parts. The first part (Part I)

is a study on the effect of dents on the fatigue life of the material, while the second part

(Part II) is a study on the effect of dents on crack growth in the material. The test

specimens were either pristine (no dents), dented or reworked. For Part I, the dented and

reworked specimens were divided into two groups, depending on the dent depth ranges.

The dent depths for each of these two groups ranged from 0.030” to 0.0335” and 0.0605”

to 0.065”. Dents were produced with a drop tower having a 0.5 inch spherical hardened

steel indenter head. The fatigue life of the material in these three conditions was

determined experimentally. Constant amplitude fatigue tests were conducted according

to ASTM-466 with a single stress level and a single frequency for the fatigue cycle. The

results were then compared to determine the effect of dents and the reworking of dents on

the fatigue life of the material. Results of the study indicate that the fatigue life of a

dented specimen is significantly less than that of the pristine and the reworked specimens.

The study also showed that the fatigue life decreases as the dent depth increases in the

dented specimens. Statistical analysis of the results showed that there is no significant

difference in the fatigue life between the reworked population and the pristine population

of specimens, while reworking considerably improves the fatigue life of the dented

material.

For Part II, the specimens are again either pristine dented or reworked. The edge-

cracked pin-loaded specimens of 8” in width were tested at constant amplitude loading

v
with a stress ratio of 0.2 producing stable crack growth of close to 4 inches completely

through two dents on the crack line. Dents were produced the same as described for Part

I. Dent depths ranged from 0.03” to 0.0325” measured on the convex side of the

specimen. A starter notch of 0.3” was produced at the edge of the specimen with a

jeweler’s saw blade. The specimen was fatigue loaded under constant amplitude loading

to produce an initial crack length of 0.37” t which time readings of crack length vs. cycles

began. The same constant amplitude cyclic loading used to produce the initial crack

length was used during the testing. The crack lengths were measured with an optical

microscope at 160X magnification. Nine specimens were tested including three

replications for each of the three conditions. Crack growth data is given in both tabular

and graphical form for all specimens. Crack growth rate data is also presented in

graphical form. The overall crack growth in the dented specimens was significantly

greater than in the pristine specimens. It was also, on the average, faster in the reworked

specimens however, reworking, in general, did not recapture the life displayed by the

pristine specimens.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Part I. The Effect of Dents on the Fatigue Life of 2024-T3 Aluminum

1.1.0. Introduction…..……………………………………………………………1

1.2.0. Test Matrix………………………………………………………………...4

1.3.0. Specimen Preparation…..….……………………………………………...5

1.3.1. Machining to Size…………………………………………………………5

1.3.2. Denting Procedure………………………………………………………...6

1.3.3. Reforming Procedure……………….………………………………..........7

1.4.0. Experimental Setup and Testing…………………………………………..8

1.5.0. Results…..……………….………….………………………………........11

1.6.0. Statistical Analysis…… …….…………………………………………...12

1.6.1. Average Cycles to Failure………….…………………………………….12

1.6.2. Coefficient of Variation…….……………………………………………14

1.6.3 Student 't' Test ……………………………………………………….......16

1.6.4. Mann and Whitney’s U Statistic …………………………………….......18

1.6.5. Halperin’s UH Statistic….. ………………………………………………20

1.7.0. Conclusions and Recommendations...................…………………….......24

2. Part II. The Effect of Dents on the Stable Crack Growth of 2024-T3 Aluminum

2.1.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………27

2.2.0. Test Matrix………….……………………………………………………30

2.3.0. Specimen Preparation………..……………..……………………………31

vii
2.3.1. Machining to Size……………………………………………………......31

2.3.2. Denting Procedure…………...………………………………………......35

2.3.3. Reworking Procedure……….……………………………………………39

2.4.0. Experimental Setup and Testing…………………………………………40

2.5.0. Results……………………………………………………………………43

2.5.1. Tables with Crack Growth Data………...……….………………………43

2.5.2. Graphic Results from Crack Growth Testing………...…….……………48

2.5.3. Comparisons between Pristine, Dented, and

Reworked Conditions……………..……………...………………………50

2.5.4 Crack Growth Rate da/dN vs. KImax…………...…………………………52

2.5.5 A Further Comparison between Pristine and Dented Specimens……......57

2.6.0. Conclusions and Recommendations...............…………...………………59

References………...……………………………...……………………................62

Appendix. Tables of growth rate da/dN vs. KImax and ∆KI for each Specimen….65

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table1.1: Test Matrix ……....…………………………………………………………......4

Table1.2: Details of the dent depths for all the test specimens………..………………......8

Table1.3: Number of cycles at failure…………..………………………………………..11

Table1.4: Average number of cycles at failure and % knock down factors for all test

samples………..………………………………………………………………………….13

Table1.5: Standard deviations and coefficient of variation..…….………………………15

Table1.6: Student 't' table lookup for significance level 'p'…..….………………………17

Table1.7: Number of cycles at failure for the Dented1 and Dented2 specimens…..........19

Table1.8: Row of Mann and Whitney’s table…………………….……………………..19

Table1.9: Number of cycles at failure for the Pristine, Reworked1 and Reworked2

specimens………….……………………………………………..……………………....20

Table1.10: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table…………………..……………………..21

Table1.11: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table…………………..……………………..22

Table1.12: Number of cycles at failure for Reworked1 and Reworked2 specimens…….23

Table1.13: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table……..…………………………………..24

Table2.1: Test matrix………………………………………………………………….....31

Table2.2: Crack growth data for the pristine specimens………...……………………….43

Table2.3: Crack growth data for the dented specimens……….…………………………44

Table2.4: Crack growth data for the reworked specimens………………….…………...46

Table A.1: Crack growth rate data for pristine specimen #1…………………………….66

Table A.2: Crack growth rate data for pristine specimen #2…………………………….67

Table A.3: Crack growth rate data for pristine specimen #3…………………………….68

ix
Table A.4. Crack growth rate data for dented specimen #1…………..………………….70

Table A.5. Crack growth rate data for dented specimen #2…………..……………….....72

Table A.6. Crack growth rate data for dented specimen #3…………..………………….73

Table A.7: Crack growth rate data for reworked specimen #1……….………………….75

Table A.8: Crack growth rate data for reworked specimen #2…….…………………….76

Table A.9: Crack growth rate data for reworked specimen #3……..…………………....78

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1.1: Specimen drawing with dimensions………….……….…………………….....5

Figure1.2: The sandpaper attached to both ends of the specimen……..……………….....9

Figure1.3: The MTS load frame used in the fatigue testing…..………………………...10

Figure1.4: Average cycles to failure for each condition of the material….……………..13

Figure1.5: Coefficient of Variation for the Dented1 and Dented2 populations…. ……..16

Figure2.1: Specimen mounted to the end fixtures…….……….………………………..32

Figure2.2: Specimen and end fixtures……..…………………..………………………..32

Figure2.3: End fixture……..……………………………………………………………..33

Figure2.4: Specimen geometry and location of dents…….……………………………..34

Figure2.5: Schematic diagram of the drop tower…..........................................................35

Figure2.6: Test set-up in the drop tower fixture to produce the first dent…....................36

Figure2.7: Test set-up in the drop tower fixture to produce the second dent….………..37

Figure2.8: A specimen with optical microscope mounted in the testing machine….…..41

Figure2.9: Setup of the specimen with the fixture on MTS machine……..……………..42

Figure2.10: Crack length vs. cycles for pristine specimens…….………………………..49

Figure2.11: Crack length vs. cycles for dented specimens…............................................49

Figure2.12: Crack length vs. cycles for reworked specimens....….……………………..50

Figure2.13: Crack length vs. cycles for pristine and dented specimens..………………..51

Figure2.14: Crack length vs. cycles for pristine and reworked specimens........................51

Figure2.15: da/dN vs. Kmax for pristine specimens….………..………………………...53

Figure2.16: da/dN vs. Kmax for dented specimens…..….……………………………....54

Figure2.17: da/dN vs. Kmax for reworked specimens…………………………………..55

xi
Figure2.18: Details of crack growth rate in dented specimens…………………………..56

Figure2.19: Crack length vs. cycles for pristine specimens.....…..………………………58

Figure2.20: Crack length vs. cycles for dented specimens……………………………....59

xii
 LIST OF SYMBOLS
Fmax: The maximum cyclic force applied to a specimen during the test.

Fmin: The minimum cyclic force applied to a specimen during the test.

Smax: The maximum cyclic stress applied to a specimen.

Smin: The minimum cyclic stress applied to a specimen.

R: Ratio of Smin to Smax.

N: Number of cycles in a fatigue test.

n: The number of specimens tested for each condition of the material.

S: The standard deviation of a set of data.

α: The confidence value adopted for statistical analysis.

t: The "t statistic" in the "Student t" statistical analysis.

p: The significance level parameter in the "Student t" statistical analysis.

Nx: Total numbers of specimens in population X

My: Total number of specimens in population Y.

RH: Total number of run-outs (the DNF specimens).

U: Mann and Whitney’s statistic (the number of times a Y precedes X).

uα: The critical significance values for which the null hypothesis is accepted.

Jx: Number of specimens in the X population that failed.

Jy: Number of specimens in the Y populations that failed.

α: The size of Type I error.

UH : Halperin’s statistic.

UC : Censored data.

A: Crack length

W: Width of the specimen

xiii
t: Thickness of specimen

N: Number of cycles

KImax: Stress intensity factor at σmax

KImin: Stress intensity factor at σmin

da/dN: Crack growth rate

∆KI: KImax - KImin = (1-R)KImax

R: σmin/σmax

σmax: Maximum stress in a cycle

σmin: Minimum stress in a cycle

β: Geometric correction for stress intensity factor.

ai: Current crack length

ai+4: Crack length 4 data points after ai

ai-4: Crack length 4 data points before ai

Ni: Cycle count at ai crack length

Ni+4: Cycle count 4 data points after Ni

Ni-4: Cycle count 4 data points before Ni

xiv
 Part I: The Effect of Dents on the Fatigue Life of 2024-T3
Aluminum Sheet

1.1.0. INTRODUCTION

Metals in airframes undergo fluctuating cyclic stresses during every flight. If these

stresses are great enough they may, over time, cause microscopic fractures to form

between grains both within the metal and on the surface. Even small defects such as dents

and scratches can make this condition more severe (1, 2, 3). Continuing cyclic stresses

cause these weaknesses to grow, resulting in a deterioration of strength to the point of

complete fracture. To ensure that this does not happen, the designer must be aware of the

fatigue endurance limit of structural materials, design the structure accordingly, and

perhaps specify a design life for critical members. Dented skin panels on aircraft are a

common phenomenon in the aviation industry.

The fuselage skins are designed to carry combined loading including internal

pressure at high altitude for the comfort of passengers and crew. Therefore, it is of

primary importance to ensure that the quality of materials and repair processes are such

that the structural integrity and durability are not compromised for the life of the aircraft.

Aircraft skin is very susceptible to various forms of damage. One common form of

damage is the dent. It has been shown that dents can reduce the fatigue life of the

material significantly (1, 2, 3). During the daily routine of the airline, accidental impact

with ground vehicles and baggage carts may leave dents and scratches. Other sources that

may cause dents include hail, the dropping of a tool by a mechanic during the process of

servicing, and runway gravel. Therefore, routine inspection is required, and there is need

for design data on the effect of dents on the fatigue life of the material.

1
 Previous study (1) on the effect of dents on the fatigue life of 2024-T3-clad (0.04”

thick) and 7475-T7351 (0.10” thick) aluminum alloys showed a considerable reduction in

life of the dented specimens. The study was carried out by fatigue testing of both the

materials in three conditions (pristine, dented and reworked) at various stress levels of

constant amplitude cyclic loading with a stress ratio R=0.1. Also the dent depth chosen

for the study was approximately 0.03”. The results for 2024-T3 clad alloy showed a

significant decrease in the fatigue life of the dented specimens compared with the pristine

specimens, which was more pronounced as the stress level decreased. Also the study

showed that the reworked specimens performed almost identically to the pristine panels

with only a slight variation in fatigue life as the maximum stress level decreases. The

fatigue data recorded for the 7475-T7351 aluminum also points to a considerable

reduction in fatigue life of the dented specimens. Unlike the 2024-T3, reworking of the

7475-T7351 specimens did not help to improve the fatigue life of the material for any of

the three stress levels.

Other studies (2) also concluded that there is a considerable reduction in fatigue

life for the dented specimens of 2024-T3-clad aluminum alloy compared with the pristine

specimens. However, the studies on static mechanical properties did not show a

significant difference between the pristine, dented and reworked specimens. The study

from static testing concluded that the dented and reworked specimens show a minor

increase in yield strength and ultimate tensile strength and a minor reduction in percent

elongation. The interesting aspect of the reduction in percent elongation is that the

percent elongation is considered a measure of the ductility of the material, and a loss in

some of the ductility of the material may represent a reduction in toughness or the ability

2
to resist crack growth after it has initiated. The study from the fatigue tests concluded that

the reduction in fatigue life was greater at the lower stress levels. The study also showed

that the residual tensile strains will be induced on both the inside and the outside surface

of the specimen at the dent locations, and the inner surface is lower due to a compression

component from bending.

Currently, the options available to repair a damaged panel include: (1) replacing the

panel itself, (2) removing and hand forming the panel back to its original shape, or (3)

leaving the dented panel intact on the aircraft. Also, current technology provides limited

instructions for dealing with dent evaluation.

Fatigue tests were conducted on 2024-T3 bare sheet specimens in three conditions

of the material: pristine, dented and reworked. A single indenter diameter of 0.5” was

used. The specimens were clamped between two plates with a 2” by 2” window to provide

access for denting. A single indenter mass was used; however, two different drop heights

were used to produce two distinctly different dent depths. The results of the study lead to

the conclusion that the fatigue life of the dented specimen is significantly reduced when

compared with the pristine and reworked specimens. Also, reworking of the specimens

recaptured the fatigue life considerably. In fact, statistical analysis was used to show that

there is no significant difference in the fatigue life between the reworked and the pristine

specimens. In summary, the objective was to compare the fatigue life of the dented

specimens with those of the pristine and reworked specimens for two different dent

depths. It was concluded that denting significantly reduces the fatigue life and reworking

helps to recapture the fatigue life, and the fatigue life was shorter for the specimens with

deeper dents.

3
 1.2.0. TEST MATRIX

Fatigue tests were conducted on specimens of aluminum 2024-T3 bare sheet

according to ASTM-E466 (4). Each specimen was in one of the three conditions:

pristine, dented and reworked. The main purpose was to study the effect of dent depths

on the fatigue life of the material. The dented and reworked specimens were subdivided

into two sets, depending on the dent depth ranges. The test matrix for the study, including

the range of dent depths for the two sets of dented specimens and the reworked

specimens before reworking, is given in Table 1.1. The pristine specimens were

machined to the final test configuration with no known flaws or induced damage to them.

The other specimens were dented and reworked as explained in Sections 1.3.0 and 1.4.0.

All the testing was done with the same stress ratio (R=0.1) and with the same frequency

of cyclic loading (10 Hz). The details of the specimen dimension are shown in Figure 1.1.

Fatigue lives of all specimens are given in Section 1.5.0. The fatigue lives of the dented

and reworked populations are compared with the pristine population in Section 1.6.0.

Table 1.1: Test Matrix

Dent depth Range
before Reworking
Condition Material (in) No. of Specimens
Pristine 2024-T3 bare - 8
Dented 2024-T3 bare 0.030 to 0.0335 7
Dented 2024-T3 bare 0.0605 to 0.065 8
Reworked 2024-T3 bare 0.030 to 0.0335 7
Reworked 2024-T3 bare 0.0605 to 0.065 7

4
 1.3.0. SPECIMEN PREPARATION

1.3.1. MACHINING SPECIMENS TO SIZE

The material was fabricated into a test specimen shape as shown in Figure 1.1 and

the dimensions of the specimens are consistent with ASTM-E-466 (4). The specimens

were first cut into 3” by 12” rectangular blanks. The pristine specimens were then

machined to the final hourglass shape, as shown in Figure 1.1, with no other

modifications. For the dented and reworked specimens, dents were placed at the center of

the specimens before the 3” radii were machined. The denting and reworking procedures

are explained in more detail in the following sections. Conditions of the test specimens

and the method of specimen preparation are of utmost importance. Improper methods of

preparation can greatly bias the test results (4).

2.00

Figure 1.1: Specimen drawing with dimensions.

The surface defects from machining the 3” radius were removed by wet-sanding

with two grits of sand paper. The grit sizes of the sand paper used were 1500 and 4000

grits. Wet sanding was done by rubbing the sand paper slowly along the hourglass radius

with alcohol. Initially 1500 grit size sand paper was used to remove any “rough” edges

5
and small burs created during machining, and then the 4000 grit size was used to remove

any scratches and to make the edges smooth. The hour glass radius was then polished

using "Mother’s Aluminum Polish". Polishing helps to view the defects more clearly. The

neck section was then inspected carefully under an optical microscope for any scratches

created during the process of machining and sanding. Even a small scratch might initiate

a crack during the fatigue test (4). If a scratch was found, the wet sanding and polishing

were again continued until it was removed completely.

1.3.2. DENTING PROCEDURE

Dents were produced in the test specimens with a drop tower located at the

National Institute for Aviation Research Laboratory. Dented and reworked specimens are

divided into two groups based on the dent depths. The dent depths for each of these two

groups ranged from 0.030” to 0.0335” and 0.0605” to 0.065”. This fluctuation or variation

in the dent depths even after using the same drop height and mass of the indenter

assembly can be expected. Dents were created by clamping the specimen in the test

fixture and dropping the 6 lb. indenter assembly with the spherical indenter head from a

predetermined height of 1.3” and 3.05”, which corresponds to energy at impact of 7.8in-lb

and 18.3in-lb respectively. A 0.5” diameter hardened steel indenter was used for

producing the dents. Dent depths were measured on the convex surface of the dent with a

digital depth gage. To avoid the warping effect of the specimen produced during denting,

equal weights were placed on each side of the dent to flatten the specimen while

measuring the dent depth. The following steps were taken to obtain the dent depth:

• The specimen was placed on the smooth surface of a granite table.

6
 • Equal weights (20 lb.) were placed on each side of the specimen dent location so

that the edge of the weight was 1” from the center of the dent. This procedure

flattened the slightly warped specimen.

• The plunger of a digital depth gage was placed at the edge of the specimen nearest

to the dent and the gage was set to zero. The plunger was then moved to the crest

of the dent and another reading was taken and used as the dent depth. The values

of the dent depths of all the dented and reworked specimens are given in Table1.3.

1.3.3. REWORKING PROCEDURE

The purpose of reworking was to make the condition of the dented specimen as

close as possible to the condition of the pristine specimen in a manner that would

simulate the kind of working condition found in a repair depot. Reworking was done by

striking the convex side of the dent with a carpenter's hammer. Several mallets with

different striking materials were tried including dense rubber and plastic. However, these

materials had no affect toward flattening the dent. Also, ball peen hammer heads seemed

to do more damage than good since they produced more dimples because of the small

radius of the striking head. The carpenter's hammer, made of steel, proved to be far

superior to rubber and plastic, and the striking surface of the carpenter's hammer is only

slightly convex, which kept from making further severe dimples when the target was not

exactly hit.

The specimen was struck several times with a carpenter hammer until the dent

was sufficiently removed and no further changes in dent geometry were noticed: The

procedure involved the following steps

7
 • The dented specimen was placed on a solid granite table.

• A plastic film was placed on the table followed by the specimen, followed

by a slightly padded vinyl barrier on top of the specimen to protect the

surfaces of the specimen from being scratched by the table and hammer

head.

• For consistency all reworking was performed by the same person.

Table 1.2 gives the details of the dent depths in inches of all the test specimens.

Table 1.2: Details of the dent depths for all the test specimens

Specimen Reworked1 Reworked2

Dented1 Dented2 Before After Before After
No
Reworking Reworking Reworking Reworking
1 0.0305 0.0605 0.0315 0.0055 0.0665 0.0060
2 0.0335 0.0605 0.0340 0.0035 0.0660 0.0050
3 0.0335 0.0615 0.0325 0.0020 0.0670 0.0045
4 0.0330 0.0625 0.0290 0.0050 0.0660 0.0120
5 0.0300 0.0625 0.0310 0.0095 0.0665 0.0095
6 0.0325 0.0650 0.0335 0.0085 0.0665 0.0095
7 0.0330 0.0625 0.0320 0.0110 0.0680 0.0020
8 0.0615

Average 0.0323 0.0621 0.0319 0.0064 0.0666 0.0069

Dented1 and Reworked1 refer to the specimens whose dent depths ranged from

0.0305” to 0.0335”, and Dented2 and Reworked2 refer to the specimens whose dent

depths ranged from 0.0605” to 0.0650”.

1.4.0. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND TESTING PROCEDURE:

A 22.0 kip servo hydraulic MTS machine was used for testing the specimens.

Multi-Purpose Testware software was used to monitor the loads required to achieve the
GT
desired stress levels. The MTS Flextest Digital Controller was used to manage the

8
hydraulic actuator of the load frame. The gripping force was calculated according to MTS

product guidelines for the 22.0 kip load frame (9):

Gripping Force = Fmax X (1.2/10.3).

The maximum force Fmax is calculated from the ultimate stress of the material at

the net section. Sandpaper tabs were used (Figure 1.2) on the ends of the specimens to

avoid failure of the specimens in the grips. Care was taken to avoid any misalignment of

the specimen inside the machine. Figure 1.3 shows the 22kip MTS hydraulic machine

with the specimen.

Figure 1.2: The sandpaper attached to both ends of the specimen.

9
Figure 1.3: The MTS load frame used in the fatigue testing.

10
 1.5.0 RESULTS

Table 1.3 gives the number of cycles at failure for each specimen for each

condition of the material. Statistical analysis was performed in the next section for a

more detailed comparison of the data for the three different populations (conditions).

There were five different populations of data in terms of cycles at failure: Pristine,

Dented1, Dented2, Reworked1, and Reworked2. Theses populations were compared with

each other in Section 1.6.0. Note that in the pristine and reworked populations there were

tests that were suspended after 1,000,000 cycles. For comparing these populations (with

suspended data), Halperin’s UH statistic for populations with censored (suspended) data

was used (Section 1.6.5).

Table 1.3: Number of cycles at failure

Spec. Pristine Pristine Dented1 Dented1 Dented2 Dented2

No. (cycles) Dent Depth (cycles) Dent Depth (cycles) Dent Depth
(in) (in)
1 621,542 0 261,672 0.0305 139,550 0.0605
2 996,245 0 144,250 0.0335 120,148 0.0605
3 1,000,000 0 176,036 0.0335 143,116 0.0615
4 1,000,000 0 200,001 0.0330 131,155 0.0625
5 345,482 0 207,988 0.0300 162,323 0.0625
6 1,000,000 0 180,050 0.0325 138,245 0.0650
7 1,000,000 0 167,507 0.0330 129,774 0.0625
8 465,893 0 98,002 0.0615

Reworked1 Reworked1 Reworked1 Reworked2 Reworked2 Reworked2

Spec. (cycles) Initial Dent Final Dent (cycles) Initial Dent Final Dent
No. Depth Depth Depth Depth
(in) (in) (in) (in)
1 372,348 0.0315 0.0055 265,173 0.0665 0.0060
2 419,174 0.0340 0.0035 983,769 0.0660 0.0050
3 601,617 0.0325 0.0020 282,949 0.0670 0.0045
4 1,000,000 0.0290 0.0050 1,000,000 0.0660 0.0120
5 531,671 0.0310 0.0095 1,000,000 0.0665 0.0095
6 1,000,000 0.0335 0.0085 1,000,000 0.0665 0.0095
7 1,000,000 0.0320 0.0110 1,000,000 0.0680 0.0020
Represents Tests Terminated after 1,000,000 cycles

11
 1.6.0. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

1.6.1. AVERAGE CYCLES TO FAILURE

Table 1.4 contains the number of cycles at failure for each specimen tested,

including the average number of cycles at failure for each condition of the material.

Table 1.4 also provides the percentage "knock down" for the dented and reworked

specimens compared with the pristine specimens. The percent knockdown is defined as

the percent decrease in life cycles of the dented and reworked specimens as compared

with the pristine specimens. The bar chart in Figure 1.4 gives the pictorial representation

of the average cycles at failure for each condition of the material in the following order

from left to right: Pristine, Dented1, Dented2, Reworked1, Reworked2. It is clear from

the Table 1.4 and the Figure 1.4 that the fatigue life decreases as the dent depth increases.

But it is inappropriate to compare the reworked and pristine samples using the values of

average number of cycles for failure, since some of the tests in these groups were

terminated after 1,000,000 cycles. However, it is obvious that the fatigue life of the

reworded specimens is considerably longer than for the dented specimens, as illustrated

in Figure 1.4.

The shaded data in the Tables 1.3 and 1.4 represents the tests terminated after

1,000,000 cycles. This data is referred to as censored data and will be addressed more

clearly in section 1.6.5. The average percent knockdown of 76.2% for the dented

specimens represents a minimum value. Since four of the tests in the pristine population

were suspended after 1,000,000 cycles, the actual knockdown would be greater than

76.2%. The same can be said for the average knockdown of 83.5 %. The actual

12
knockdown if the suspended tests had been allowed to continue would be greater than

83.48%.

Figure 1.4. Average Cycles to failure for each condition of the

material

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000 Pristine
No of Cycles

500,000 Dented 1
Dented2
400,000 Reworked1
300,000 Reworked 2

200,000

100,000

-
1
Conditions

Table 1.4: Average Number of cycles at failure and % knock down factors for all
populations

Spec. Pristine Dented1 Dented2 Reworked1 Reworked2

No. (cycles) (cycles) (cycles)
1 621,542 261,672 139,550 372,348 265,173
2 996,245 144,250 120,148 419,174 983,769
3 1,000,000 176,036 143,116 601,617 282,949
4 1,000,000 200,001 131,155 1,000,000 1,000,000
5 345,482 207,988 162,323 531,671 1,000,000
6 1,000,000 180,050 138,245 1,000,000 1,000,000
7 1,000,000 167,507 129,774 1,000,000 1,000,000
8 465,893 98,002
Average 803,645 191,072 132,789 703,544 790,270
%Knock 76.2% 83.5% 12.5% 1.7%
Down

Represents Tests Terminated after 1,000,000 cycles

13
 1.6.2. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
The objective of statistical inference is to draw a conclusion about a population by

comparing with other populations. Here, the population is referred to as all of the test

data corresponding to one of the particular conditions (pristine, dented or reworked). In

other words the key aspect of this investigation centers around the comparison of fatigue

lives between pristine, dented and reworked specimens with all the possible

combinations. The comparison of the common statistical properties is important for

statistical reliability. Statistical properties for comparing these three conditions are

presented in Sections 1.6.2 through 1.6.5.

ASTM standards encourage the calculation of certain statistical quantities when

performing material testing including the following: average value, standard deviation,

and coefficient of variation (5). Since some of the tests in the pristine and the reworked

sets were suspended, the standard deviations and coefficients of variation were calculated

and compared only for the two dented populations (Dented1 and Dented2). Comparisons

of other populations are given in Sections 1.6.3, 1.6.4 and 1.6.5.

All statistical analysis discussed herein pertain specifically to a completely

randomized test program. That is, it is implicitly assumed that all specimens are

homogeneous in material and preparation and that all test conditions are nominally

identical during all the testing.

The sample average value ( ) and the sample standard deviation (S) are measures

of the central tendency and dispersion of the sample, respectively. The coefficient of

variation is the ratio of the standard deviation to the average value of the set of n

numbers (5, 7). These simple calculations can prove to be very helpful when comparing

data sets.

14
The quantity yi is the number of cycles of each test in the sample, and i refer to the

specimen number, which ranges from 1 to 7 for the Dented1 population and from 1 to 8

for the Dented2 population. Table 1.5 contains the standard deviations and coefficient of

variation for these two populations.

Table 1.5: Standard deviations and coefficient of variation

No of Average No Coeff of
Condition Specimens (n) of Cycles ( ) S Variation
Pristine 8 851,896 - -
Dented1 7 191,072 37,518 19.64%
Reworked1 7 703,544 - -
Dented2 8 132,789 20,150 15.17%
Reworked2 7 790,270 - -

From the Figure 1.5 the coefficient of variation for the Dented2 population is

small compared with the Dented1 population, which may imply that as the dent depth

increases there is a more severe effect on the fatigue life of the specimens and the

expected time of failure can be specified more accurately. Or simply, there is less scatter

in the data for the specimens with the deeper dents.

15
 Figue 1.5. Coefficient of Variation for the Dented 1 and Dented 2
Populations

25.00%

20.00%
Coefficient of variance

15.00%
Dented 1
Dented 2
10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Condition

1.6.3. STUDENT 't' TEST

The Student 't' test (6,7) was conducted to examine the probability that the

averages of two collected data samples represent two distinct populations. This method

was used to compare two dented conditions to determine if a statistical difference exists.

The statistical parameter, 't' was computed with the equation

(X1 − X 2 ) n1 n 2 (n1 + n 2 − 2)
't' =
(n1 − 1)σ 12 + (n 2 − 1)σ 22 n1 + n 2

where X 1 and X 2 are the averages of the two samples, σ1 and σ2 are the standard

deviations of the two samples, and n1 and n2 are the number of specimens in each of the

samples being compared.

16
 Some assumptions are to be made when employing this method of analysis. First, a

guess (null hypothesis) is adopted for the results of the analysis to be accepted or rejected

when compared to this hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is accepted, it can be stated that

there is no significant statistical difference between the averages of the samples being

compared. Second, a confidence interval, α, is established to govern whether the

hypothesis is rejected or accepted (6, 7). A confidence interval of α = 0.050, which

corresponds to a confidence level of 95%, was selected as the criterion for accepting the

null hypothesis.

A comparison of results based on the Student 't' test is presented below. The 't'

values of two data samples being compared can be used to determine if the two samples

come from two statistically different populations at the desired level of significance 'p'.

The smaller the value of 'p' the more reliable the claim that the two samples are from

populations with different means (6, 7). The 'p' values are obtained from a table. The

particular row of this table used for comparing the two populations of dented specimens

is given in Table 6. The degrees of freedom (DOF) in Table 6 are DOF=n1+n2-2, and for

this investigation of the two dented populations DOF = 8+7-2=13. For DOF=13, the 't'

value calculated from the equation above is 3.6037. The 't' value lies between 3.372 and

3.852 in the Table 1.6. Therefore the p value for this investigation falls between the range

from 0.0025 to 0.001 (0.001<p<0.0025). This means that the confidence level to say that

the two populations fall in two distinct population sets is 100-0.0025*100 = 99.75% and

the confidence range is between 99.75% and 99.9% (where 100-0.001(100)=99.9%).

Table 1.6: Student 't' table lookup for significance level 'p'

DOF 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.0025 0.001 0.0001 0.00001
13 0.259 0.538 0.87 1.35 1.771 2.16 2.65 3.012 3.372 3.852 5.11 6.501

17
 Although some of the pristine and reworked tests were suspended after 1,000,000

cycles it can be clearly stated just by looking at the test data that the two dented sets are

completely different from the pristine set. And similarly, the reworked sets and the

dented sets are completely different. A further statistical analysis was conducted to

compare the pristine and reworked population sets in section 1.6.4 and 1.6.5.

1.6.4. MANN AND WHITNEY’S U STATISTIC

The null-hypothesis for comparing two populations is simply that both

populations are statistically equivalent (8). Visual Inspection of the data suffices to reject

the null-hypothesis for comparing the life populations of the dented specimens with the

pristine specimens. That is, these populations are not statistically equivalent. The same

can be said when comparing the life populations of the dented specimens with those of

the reworked specimens. However, visual inspection of the life populations of the two

sets of dented specimens does not lead to the rejection of the null-hypothesis. That is,

these two sets of life populations are not clearly different.

An analysis based on Mann and Whitney’s U statistic (8) is given to validate the

observation that the null hypothesis is not supported for the populations of the two

different dent depth conditions. Thus, they are considered statistically different. Table 1.7

has the life cycles for the two different dent conditions.

18
 Table 1.7: Number of cycles at failure for the Dented1 and Dented2 specimens

Dented1 Dented2
Cycles Cycles
Specimens Specimens
X1 98,002 Y1 144,250
X2 120,128 Y2 167,210
X3 129,774 Y3 176,036
X4 131,155 Y4 181,898
X5 138,245 Y5 202,775
X6 139,550 Y6 207,988
X7 143,116 Y7 261,672
X8 162,323

The entire collection of data for the Dented1 and Dented2 specimens placed in

order from smallest values to largest value is as follows:

X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, Y1, X8, Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7.

Nx = 8 = Total number of specimens in population X.

My = 7 = Total number of specimens in population Y.

U = Mann and Whitney’s statistic (the number of times a Y precedes X).

The particular row of Mann and Whitney’s table was identified that corresponds

to the values of My and Nx for this analysis. That particular row along with the column

headings is given in the Table 1.8.

Table 1.8: Row of Mann and Whitney’s table

My Nx uα Prob uα Prob uα Prob uα Prob

7 8 16 0.0946 13 0.0469 10 0.0200 7 0.0070

The quantity “Prob” is the probability of the Mann and Whitney U statistic being

equal to or less than uα by chance if the two populations being compared are indeed

identical. According to Mann and Whitney, if the probability is less than 10% in

assuming that the null-hypothesis is true, we usually reject the null-hypothesis.

19
 From Table 1.8, there is a probability of 9.46% that the value of U will be equal to

or less than uα =16, if the populations are identical. This means that if the observed value

of U ≤ 16, the probability is only 9.46% that the two populations are identical. For the

case of the two dented populations, the observed value of U is 1; therefore, the null-

hypothesis is rejected (the two populations are statistically different).

1.6.5. HALPERIN’S UH STATISTIC

Visual inspection of the life populations when comparing the pristine specimens

with the reworked specimens and between the reworked sets themselves leads to the

conclusion that the null-hypothesis is accepted. That is, they appear to be statistically

equivalent. However, these life populations have run-outs, meaning that the testing was

suspended for a specimen if it had not failed before 1,000,000 cycles were reached. The

use of Halperin’s UH statistic (8) test for comparing two life populations with run-outs

validates the conclusion that the null-hypothesis be accepted when comparing the pristine

population with the reworked populations. Table 1.9 has the life cycles for the pristine

and the two sets of reworked specimens.

Table 1.9: Number of cycles at failure for the Pristine, Reworked1 and
Reworked2 specimens

Pristine Cycles Reworked1 Cycles Reworked2 Cycles

Specimen Specimen Specimen
X1 345,482 Y1 372,348 Y1 265,173
X2 465,893 Y2 419,174 Y2 282,949
X3 621,542 Y3 531,671 Y3 983,769
X4 996,245 Y4 601,617 Y4 1,000,000
X5 1,000,000 Y5 1,000,000 Y5 1,000,000
X6 1,000,000 Y6 1,000,000 Y6 1,000,000
X7 1,000,000 Y7 1,000,000 Y7 1,000,000
X8 1,000,000

20
 The following is a comparison of the Pristine specimen population with the

Reworked 1 population based on Halperin’s UH statistic. The entire collection of data for

the Pristine and Reworked 1 specimens placed in order of increasing value as follows:

X1, Y1, Y2, X2, Y3, Y4, X3, X4 (4X’S, 3Y’S DNF).

DNF means did not fail.

Nx = 8 = Total number of specimens in population X.

My = 7 = Total number of specimens in population Y.

RH = 7 total number of run-outs (the DNF specimens).

UH = UL (life data) + UC (censored data).

UL = 10 = Mann and Whitney’s U statistic for observed life data (the number of times a Y

precedes an X).

UC = Jy (Nx - Jx).

Jx = 4 = Number of specimens in the X population that failed

Jy = 4 = Number of specimens in the Y populations that failed

UH = 10 + 4(8-4) = 26

The particular row of Halperin’s UH statistic table is identified that corresponds to

the values of My, Nx and RH for this analysis. That particular row along with the column

headings is shown in Table 1.10.

Table 1.10: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table

My Nx RH uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob

7 8 7 11 0.0926 8 0.0382 6 0.0197 4 0.0078

The quantity "Prob" is the probability of the Halperin UH statistic being equal to

or less than uhα by chance if the two populations being compared are indeed identical.

From Table 1.10, there is a probability of 9.26% that the value of UH will be equal to or

21
less than 11 if the populations are identical. This means that if the observed value of UH ≤

11, the probability is only 9.26% that the two populations are identical. For the case of

the Pristine and Reworked1 population, the value of UH = 26; therefore, the null

hypothesis is acceptable (the two populations are statistically identical).

A similar analysis can also be done to show that the null-hypothesis should be

accepted when comparing the populations of the Pristine specimens with the Reworked2

specimens and the Reworked1 with Reworked2 specimens.

The following is a comparison of the Pristine specimen population with

Reworked2 population. The entire collection of data for pristine and Reworked2

specimens placed in order of increasing value as follows:

Y1, Y3, X1, X2, X3, Y2, X4 (4X’S, 4Y’S DNF).

Nx = 8.

My = 7.

RH = 8.

That particular row along with the column headings for the above values of Nx, My and

RH is shown in Table 1.11.

Table 1.11: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table

My Nx RH uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob

7 8 8 9 0.0839 7 0.0448 5 0.0186 3 0.0099

UH = UL (life data) + UC (censored data).

UL = 9 = Mann and Whitney’s U statistic for observed life data (the number of times a Y

precedes an X).

UC = Jy (Nx - Jx).

22
Jx = 4.

Jy = 3.

UH =9 + 3(8-4) = 21.

Since UH = 21 is greater than uhα =9 (based on Prob = 8.39%), the appropriate

action is to accept the null-hypothesis and conclude that there is no statistical difference

between the population of the Pristine specimens and the Reworked2 specimens.

A similar comparison is made between Reworked1 specimen population with

Reworked2 population based on Halperin’s UH statistic. Table 1.12 gives the values of

the Reworked1 and Reworked2 sets. Reworked1 is considered as the X population and

Reworked2 as a Y population.

Table 1.12: Number of cycles at failure for Reworked1 and Reworked2 specimens

Reworked1 Cycles Reworked2 Cycles

Specimen Specimen
X1 372,348 Y1 265,173
X2 419,174 Y2 282,949
X3 531,671 Y3 983,769
X4 601,617 Y4 1,000,000
X5 1,000,000 Y5 1,000,000
X6 1,000,000 Y6 1,000,000
X7 1,000,000 Y7 1,000,000

The entire collection of data for Reworked1 and Reworked2 specimens placed in

order of increasing value is as follows:

Y1, Y3, X1, X2, X5, X3, Y2 (3X’S, 4Y’S DNF).

Nx = 7.

My = 7.

RH = 7.

23
That particular row along with the column headings for the above values of Nx, My and

RH is shown in Table 1.13.

Table 1.13: Row of Halperin’s UH statistic table

My Nx RH uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob uhα Prob

7 7 7 9 0.0982 6 0.037 5 0.0227 3 0.0064

UH = UL (life data) + UC (censored data).

UL = 8 = Mann and Whitney’s U statistic for observed life data (the number of times a Y

precedes an X).

UC = Jy (Nx - Jx).

Jx = 4.

Jy = 3.

UH =8 + 3(7-4) = 17.

Since UH =17 is greater than uhα =9 (based on Prob = 9.82%), the appropriate

action again is to accept the null-hypothesis and conclude that there is no statistical

difference between the population of the Pristine specimens and the Reworked2

specimens. This means that there is no statistical difference between the Pristine,

Reworked1 and Reworked2 sets of populations.

1.7.0. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An investigation into the effects of dents on 2024-T3-bare aluminum alloys was

undertaken to better understand how the fatigue life of the material reacts to damage.

The specimens were divided depending upon their condition as pristine, dented and

reworked. The reworked and dented specimens were subdivided into two sets, depending

24
on dent depths. Two sets of dent depths were chosen for this study, one set ranging from

0.0305” to 0.0335” and the other set ranging from 0.0605” to 0.0650”. Dents were placed

at the center of the specimens using a drop tower with an indenter diameter of 0.5”.

Reworking was done by striking the convex side of the dent with a carpenter’s hammer.

Machining of the specimens to the final hourglass configuration was done and fatigue

testing was conducted according to ASTM-466(4). All the testing was done at a stress

ration of 0.1 (R = 0.1), with a frequency of 10 Hz. The fatigue life was recorded and

analyzed with various statistical analyses techniques.

The following conclusions can be made from this study:

• There was a considerable reduction in life of the dented specimens as compared

with the pristine and the reworked specimens.

• It was clear that the fatigue life decreases as the dent depth increases in the dented

specimens. However, there was no significant difference in fatigue life between

the two reworked sets of specimens.

• Statistical analysis showed that there is no significant statistical difference

between the pristine and reworked populations, which implies that reworking can

improve the life of the material considerably as compared with the dented

configuration.

Establishing the cause leading to the change in the properties remains unanswered. It may

be due to the induced residual stresses, geometry change or cold working. But other

studies have shown that there will be some unfavorable residual stresses induced in the

material due to denting (2). Additional investigations should be done to determine the

precise reason for the decrease in fatigue life as a result of denting. The data presented

25
herein is limited. Only one material was used. All specimens were tested under the same

cyclic loading stresses. Only two dent depths and one indenter diameter was used. The

population of data needs to be expanded to include different stress levels, different dent

depths and different indenter diameters (or configurations). Other methods of reworking

such as rotary peening and shot peening should be used and the results compared with the

reworking method used here.

26
 Part II: The Effect of Dents on the Stable Crack Growth of
2024-T3 Aluminum sheet

2.1.0. INTRODUCTION

The primary choice of material for the surface (skin) of aircraft structure during

the past 40 years has been 2024-T3 aluminum alloy, and is still the alloy of choice for

most airframes today. Continued cyclic loading will cause cracks to initiate and to grow

in a stable manner until a critical crack length is reached, after which unstable crack

extension will occur which may produce catastrophic results. There are many physical

parameters that may adversely affect the propagation of cracks. For example, one such

parameter is dents, which may be caused by a number of things such as flying runway

gravel, accidental tool drop, and hail. The designer must take into account any negative

affects of these physical parameters to avoid unexpected catastrophic results.

The purpose of this project is to determine the effect of dents on the stable crack

propagation of 2024-T3 bare sheet material under constant amplitude cyclic loading.

This is addressed by comparing the crack growth in specimens that have dents with the

crack growth in pristine specimens and in specimens with dents that have been reworked.

Although there is much data in the literature on physical and mechanical

properties of metallic alloys that are used for airframe construction, little data is available

on the effect of dents. There are numerous parameters that influence dent resistance (10).

The most important among these are the boundary conditions, the curvature and size of

the panel, the location of the dent in the panel, and the source of the dent. The

parameters in the study presented herein were limited to a single configuration. An edge-

cracked panel with two dents aligned on the crack line was selected so that the crack

27
would undergo stable crack extension while passing through both dents before becoming

unstable. A single indenter diameter along with a single indenter mass, drop height and

boundary condition were used to produce the dents. The objective was to determine

whether dents accelerated or retarded stable cracking and whether dents influenced the

direction of cracking, and also weather reworking of dents produced favorable results in

terms of crack growth rate.

Previous research (2) conducted on small edge-cracked specimens with single

dents showed that overall crack growth was accelerated; however, in this study the stable

crack extension barely went through a single dent before unstable crack extension

occurred. Reworking of the dents recaptured some of the life, but not necessarily to the

level of the undamaged (pristine) specimens, and also the results from reworked

specimens were not consistent. Three materials were used in the previous study (2):

2024-T3, 7475-T7351 and 7050-T7451. The reworked specimens of 2024-T3 and 7475-

T7351 showed little to no decrease in crack growth rate when compared with dented

specimens. However, the 7050-T7451 reworked specimens showed a noticeable decrease

in the crack growth rate when compared with the dented specimens. In general, the

results from the 2024-T3 material are in good agreement with the results obtained from

the work described herein. The results herein also left doubt about the helpfulness of the

reworking process in recapturing the same characteristics as the pristine specimens.

Another study (3) concluded that there is also a considerable reduction in fatigue

life for the un-cracked dented specimens of 2024-T3 alclad aluminum alloy compared

with the pristine specimens. However the static mechanical properties were not

significantly different between the pristine, dented and reworked specimens. The results

28
from static testing concluded that the dented and reworked specimens show a minor

increase in yield strength and ultimate tensile strength and a minor reduction in percent

elongation. The interesting aspect of reduction in percent elongation was that this

property is considered a representation of the ductility of the material. Thus, a loss in

some of the ductility of the material may represent a reduction in toughness or the ability

to resist crack growth after it has initiated.

The research described herein includes stable crack growth testing of 2024-T3

bare aluminum alloy specimens having three different conditions: pristine, dented, and

reworked. The edge cracked pin loaded specimens of 8 inches in width were tested at

constant amplitude loading so as to produce stable crack growth of close to 4” completely

through two dents on the crack line before critical conditions were reached. The study

clearly shows that the overall propagation of stable cracking in the dented specimens was

significantly faster than in the pristine specimens. It was also faster, on the average, in

the reworked specimens; however, the crack propagation of the reworked specimens was

not as consistent as it was for the pristine and dented specimens. The crack growth in the

dented specimens was accelerated in comparison with the pristine specimens until the

crack tip came close to a dent, after which the propagation was retarded until the tip of

the crack grew completely through the dent, where the growth again became accelerated.

This may be due to cold working, geometric changes, and/or residual stresses, but it is not

clear which of these have the greatest effect. Previous work (3) has shown that residual

tensile stresses will be induced due to the process of denting. Analysis of the results of

the testing herein also show that the crack life of the dented specimens is about the same

as the crack life of the pristine specimens if the amplitude of the cyclic loading on the

29
pristine specimens is increased by about 8%. However, this only applies to the specimen

geometry and dent metrics used in this study and may be different for other

configurations.

2.2.0. TEST MATRIX

Fatigue crack growth tests were conducted with 2024-T3 bare aluminum alloy

specimens having three different conditions: pristine, dented and reworked. The edge

cracked pin loaded specimens were 8” wide and were tested at constant amplitude loading

so as to produce stable crack growth of close to 4” before critical conditions were

reached. The pristine specimens had no dents. Each of the dented specimens had two

dents produced with a drop tower located in the structures laboratory in the National

Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR). These dents were located along the crack line so

that stable crack growth completely through both dents could be recorded before unstable

cracking occurred. Details of the specimen geometry are given in Section 2.3.1. The

denting procedure is described in Section 2.3.2, while the procedure for reworking is

given in Section 2.3.3. The specimens were bolted at their extremities to fixtures that

were designed for pin loading. The specimen with the end fixtures mounted in the MTS

servo-hydraulic testing machine is shown in Section 2.4.0.

The test matrix, which consists of three specimens for each condition (pristine,

dented, and reworked), as shown in Table 2.1. The ratio of the minimum stress to the

maximum stress of the constant amplitude cyclic loading was 0.2 (R = 0.2), and testing

was done at a frequency of 10 Hz.

30
 Table 2.1: Test Matrix

Condition Material (thickness, in.) Form No. of Specimens

Pristine 2024-T3 (0.04) bare sheet 3
Dented 2024-T3(0.04) bare plate 3
Reworked 2024-T3 (0.04) bare plate 3

2.3.0. SPECIMEN PREPARATION

2.3.1. MACHINING SPECIMENS TO SIZE

The material used for each specimen was 2024-T3 bare sheet with a thickness of

0.04 inches. The specimens were machined to the dimension of 8" by 20" and were T-L

specimens (fracture mechanics nomenclature), which means that the grain direction was

perpendicular to the load. Each specimen has two rows of fastener holes (15 holes).

Each end of the specimen was sandwiched between two identical test fixtures (double lap

splice). A test specimen and the end fixtures are shown in Figures 2.1 and 2.2. The end

fixture geometry is shown in Figure 2.3. The end fixtures were machined from 0.25”

thick aluminum plate. The specimen geometry is shown in Figure 2.4.

To avoid failure of the test specimens at the fastener holes, tabs were bonded to

each side of each specimen at each end. The tabs were 3" by 8" with a thickness of 0.09”.

A starter crack (notch) of approximately 0.3” was produced at the edge of each specimen

by hand sawing with a jeweler's saw blade.

31
Figure 2.1: Specimen mounted to the end fixtures.

Figure 2.2: Specimen and end fixtures.

32
 1”D
1.5”
4”

6.5”
0.75”

15 holes with 2”
0.75”
0.25”D &1”pitch

16”

Figure 2.3: End fixture.

33
 1/2"

3/4"

3/4"
1/4" diameter holes, 1" pitch, both ends

8"

8"

Crack Position of dents

1.25" 1"

Grain direction

Figure 2.4: Specimen geometry and location of dents.

34
 2.3.2. DENTING PROCEDURE

Dents were produced with a drop tower located in the structures laboratory in the

NIAR. The drop tower consists of a base with a fixture to hold the specimen, guide

shafts, a sled mounted to the guide shafts, and an indenter assembly attached to the sled.

A schematic diagram of the drop tower is shown in Figure 2.5.

Column Guides for Sled

Sled

Impacter (Indenter)
2" x 2" window Specimen

7" x 7" plates,

both sides of

Figure 2.5: Schematic diagram of the drop tower.

Dents were created by clamping the specimen in the test fixture and dropping the

sled and indenter assembly from a predetermined height. This height was previously

determined by using a dummy specimen of the same material and varying the drop height

until a dent of the desired depth was produced. The edge crack was predicted to undergo

35
stable crack growth until it reached a length of approximately 4”. The two dents were

spaced on the predicted crack line within the 4” length so that the crack would undergo

stable crack extension completely through both dents. The dent depths ranged from 0.03”

to 0.0325” measured on the convex side of the specimen. The dents were produced with

a 1” diameter hardened steel indenter. Figure 2.4 shows the position of the dents in the

specimen.

Two dents were placed in the specimens as shown in Figure 2.6 and 2.7. The first

dent was placed at 1.25" from the edge of the specimen. For producing the first dent, the

specimen was clamped between two 7" by 7" plates such that the dent location comes

exactly at the center on the 2" by 2" window in the two plates as shown in Figure 2.6.

The second dent was placed at 1" from the first dent (2.5" from the edge of the

specimen). To avoid damage to the first dent while creating the second dent, the

specimen was placed at an angle of 45 degrees inside the 7" by 7" plates as shown in

Figure 2.7. This arrangement allows the first dent to be located within the 2"x2" window

so as not to flatten it between the two plates while the second dent is being produced.

36
Figure 2.6: Test set-up in the drop tower fixture to produce the first dent.

37
Figure 2.7: Test set-up in the drop tower fixture to produce the second dent.

38
 Dent depths were measured on the convex surface of the dent with a digital depth

gage. To avoid the curvature effect produced during denting, equal weights were placed

on both sides of the dent while measuring the dent depth. The following steps were taken

to obtain the dent depth:

• The specimen was placed on granite table with a smooth hard surface.

• Equal weights (20 lb.) were placed on both sides of the specimen dent location at

so that the edge of the weight was 1" from the center of the dent.

• The plunger of a digital depth gage was placed at the edge of the specimen nearest

to the dents and the gage was set to zero. The plunger was then placed at the crest

of the dent and another reading was taken and used as the dent depth. Dent

depths measured with this method were very consistent, and the range of the dent

depth for all the specimens was between 0.03” to 0.0325”.

2.3.3. REWORKING PROCEDURE

The objective of reworking was to attempt to return the condition of the dented

specimen as closely as possible to the condition of the pristine specimen in a manner that

would simulate the kind of working condition found in a repair depot. Reworking was

done by striking the convex side of the dent with a carpenter's hammer. Several mallets

with different striking materials were tried including dense rubber and plastic. However,

these materials had no affect toward flattening the dent. Also, ball peen hammer heads

seemed to do more damage than good since they produced more dimples because of the

small radius of the striking head. The carpenter's hammer is made of steel, which proved

to be far superior to rubber and plastic, and the striking surface of the carpenter's hammer

39
is only slightly convex, which kept it from making further severe dimples when the target

was not exactly hit.

The specimen was placed on a solid granite table top and struck several times with a

carpenter's hammer until the dent was sufficiently removed and no further changes in

dent geometry were noticed. A plastic film was placed between the table and the

specimen to prevent scratching. A thin padded vinyl barrier was placed on top of the

specimen to prevent scratching from the hammer head. All denting was performed by the

same person for consistency.

2.4.0. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND TESTING

A 5-kip servo-hydraulic MTS testing machine was used for the crack growth

testing of the specimens. The hydraulic actuator was controlled with the MTS Flextest

GT system. MTS Multi-Purpose Testware™ software was used for providing the

required loads for the specimens and for recording the data. A Hirox optical microscope

(BH-1000 BGA) was used to monitor and record the crack growth data. The microscope

has a capability of 20X to 160X magnification and with a field of view of 15.4 ~ 2.0 mm.

The setup of the specimen with the microscope is shown in Figure 2.8.

40
 Figure 2.8: A specimen with optical microscope mounted in the testing machine.

The microscope was mounted on a mechanical traverse and wired to a video

monitor for viewing the crack tip. The scale on the mechanical traverse was used to

measure and record crack length. Crack length was measured by aligning the tip of the

crack with the hairline mounted vertically at the center of the monitor and measuring the

position of the traverse. The highest magnification of the microscope (160X) was used to

obtain the crack growth data.

Before mounting the specimen in the testing machine, one face of the specimen

was polished with Mother’s Aluminum Polish around the expected crack growth path.

Polishing was done to remove the oxide layer on the specimen and make the crack more

41
clearly visible in the TV screen connected to the optical microscope. Both ends of the

specimen with the tabs were then fastened to the end fixtures with nuts and bolts as

shown in Figure 2.1. The specimen with the end fixtures was then mounted on the testing

machine as shown in Figures 2.8 and 2.9.

Figure 2.9: Setup of the specimen with the fixture on MTS machine.

Fatigue testing of all the specimens was carried out at a cyclic frequency of 10

Hz with a maximum load of 2000 lb. (6,250 psi) and a minimum load of 400 lb (1,250

psi). Crack growth data was recorded approximately every 0.04" increment in the crack

length and the corresponding value of the cycle count was recorded. The same cyclic

loading that was used during the testing was used to pre-crack the specimen from the

initial saw cut notch length of 0.3" to the length of 0.37". The purpose of pre-cracking is

to ensure that the crack growth data taken during the test corresponds to an actual crack

rather than a man-made notch that would have different conditions at its tip (11). The

42
value of 6,250 psi for the maximum stress in the constant amplitude cyclic loading and

the 8-inch width for the test specimen were chosen so that the crack would grow in a

stable manner to about 4” before becoming unstable. This length would be long enough

for the crack to grow completely through two dents. The dent spacing of 1” was

considered to be a reasonable minimum spacing for dents in aircraft skin.

2.5.0. RESULTS

2.5.1. TABLES WITH CRACK GROWTH DATA

The following tables (2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) provide the optical crack growth data for

each of the three pristine, dented and reworked specimens respectively.

Table 2.2: Crack Growth Data for the Pristine Specimens

Pristine Specimens: Cycles vs. Crack Length

Specimen #1 Specimen #2 Specimen #3
Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm)
0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4
43821 0.4331 11 9109 0.3898 9.9 24290 0.3976 10.1
72915 0.4724 12 46405 0.4252 10.8 49993 0.4331 11
89848 0.4961 12.6 78268 0.4606 11.7 64956 0.4528 11.5
99158 0.5079 12.9 103604 0.4843 12.3 80038 0.4724 12
128534 0.5551 14.1 125365 0.5197 13.2 108554 0.5118 13
145143 0.5906 15 150308 0.5591 14.2 124321 0.5394 13.7
164989 0.6299 16 172563 0.5984 15.2 187165 0.6614 16.8
179220 0.6654 16.9 190338 0.6378 16.2 201549 0.7047 17.9
196395 0.7087 18 203517 0.6732 17.1 213357 0.7362 18.7
211480 0.7480 19 216116 0.7087 18 227813 0.7795 19.8
225032 0.7874 20 220868 0.7205 18.3 237589 0.8071 20.5
235845 0.8268 21 232115 0.7480 19 246422 0.8268 21
245026 0.8661 22 243839 0.7874 20 258809 0.8661 22
254430 0.9055 23 255820 0.8268 21 267801 0.9055 23
264071 0.9449 24 264690 0.8622 21.9 277206 0.9449 24
271736 0.9843 25 272323 0.8976 22.8 286035 0.9843 25
279259 1.0236 26 285792 0.9449 24 293358 1.0236 26
286482 1.0630 27 292577 0.9803 24.9 301223 1.0630 27
294389 1.1024 28 299767 1.0157 25.8 308596 1.1024 28
302264 1.1417 29 305975 1.0472 26.6 314891 1.1417 29
310923 1.1890 30.2 315013 1.1024 28 323232 1.1890 30.2
316864 1.2205 31 321390 1.1417 29 328480 1.2205 31
323297 1.2598 32 327130 1.1811 30 334522 1.2598 32
328385 1.2992 33 332590 1.2244 31.1 341478 1.2992 33

43
333610 1.3386 34 337661 1.2598 32 346989 1.3386 34
339857 1.3780 35 342505 1.2992 33 350019 1.3701 34.8
344154 1.4173 36 346986 1.3386 34 358953 1.4370 36.5
349279 1.4567 37 351286 1.3740 34.9 362983 1.4646 37.2
353206 1.4961 38 355604 1.4173 36 367524 1.5039 38.2
356697 1.5354 39 359649 1.4567 37 371132 1.5433 39.2
360865 1.5748 40 363282 1.4961 38 374746 1.5827 40.2
364245 1.6181 41.1 367268 1.5354 39 380486 1.6614 42.2
367005 1.6535 42 370742 1.5748 40 385493 1.7244 43.8
370097 1.6929 43 374288 1.6142 41 389290 1.7795 45.2
373037 1.7323 44 376301 1.6457 41.8 391169 1.8465 46.9
375530 1.7717 45 380234 1.6929 43 394173 1.9094 48.5
378191 1.8110 46 383521 1.7323 44 396091 1.9449 49.4
381051 1.8504 47 386000 1.7717 45 397580 1.9843 50.4
383507 1.8937 48.1 388487 1.8110 46 399028 2.0079 51
385224 1.9331 49.1 390836 1.8543 47.1 400696 2.0472 52
387269 1.9685 50 393020 1.8898 48 402511 2.0866 53
389066 2.0079 51 395133 1.9291 49 404096 2.1339 54.2
390917 2.0472 52 397223 1.9646 49.9 405355 2.1654 55
392786 2.0866 53 399511 2.0039 50.9 406740 2.2047 56
394967 2.1260 54 402741 2.0866 53 408103 2.2441 57
396440 2.1654 55 405791 2.1575 54.8 409360 2.2835 58
397997 2.2047 56 407427 2.1969 55.8 410461 2.3228 59
399395 2.2441 57 408800 2.2362 56.8 411534 2.3622 60
400601 2.2835 58 410133 2.2638 57.5 412441 2.4016 61
402580 2.3622 60 411680 2.2992 58.4 413541 2.4409 62
404645 2.4409 62 412762 2.3268 59.1 414288 2.4803 63
406155 2.5197 64 414910 2.3976 60.9 415041 2.5197 64
407479 2.5984 66 416855 2.4685 62.7 416066 2.5827 65.6
408660 2.6772 68 418561 2.5236 64.1 416936 2.6378 67
409543 2.7402 69.6 419841 2.5906 65.8 417377 2.6772 68
410149 2.8110 71.4 421165 2.6575 67.5 417790 2.7165 69
410672 2.8661 72.8 422247 2.7244 69.2 418121 2.7559 70
410976 2.9252 74.3 423257 2.8031 71.2 418448 2.7953 71
411257 2.9843 75.8 424081 2.8661 72.8 418807 2.8346 72
411466 3.0591 77.7 424810 2.8858 73.3 419012 2.8740 73
411698 3.1181 79.2 425230 3.0157 76.6 419378 2.9134 74
411831 3.1890 81 425859 3.1693 80.5 419598 2.9528 75
411961 3.2480 82.5 426138 3.1890 81 419817 2.9921 76
412075 3.3031 83.9 426138 3.2087 81.5 419985 3.0315 77
412176 3.3937 86.2 426432 3.3268 84.5 420082 3.0709 78
412255 3.4843 88.5 420223 3.1102 79
412326 3.6496 92.7 420325 3.1496 80
420406 3.1929 81.1
420463 3.2283 82
420587 3.3031 83.9
420692 3.3937 86.2
420758 3.4606 87.9
420807 3.5866 91.1

44
 Table 2.3: Crack Growth Data for the Dented Specimens

Dented Specimens: Cycles vs. Crack Length

Specimen #1 Specimen #2 Specimen #3
Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm)
0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4
13981 0.3937 10 33112 0.4094 10.4 24846 0.4094 10.4
42870 0.4370 11.1 59167 0.4488 11.4 61767 0.4724 12
60392 0.4724 12 84563 0.4882 12.4 81918 0.5118 13
85533 0.5236 13.3 98310 0.5276 13.4 95300 0.5512 14
93374 0.5512 14 126325 0.5906 15 116147 0.6063 15.4
115317 0.5906 15 140917 0.6299 16 123554 0.6299 16
140245 0.6732 17.1 162647 0.6890 17.5 133577 0.6693 17
149136 0.7087 18 182682 0.7480 19 145242 0.7087 18
158848 0.7480 19 191669 0.7874 20 153309 0.7480 19
167012 0.7874 20 199865 0.8268 21 164503 0.7874 20
178016 0.8425 21.4 207977 0.8661 22 172267 0.8268 21
185330 0.8819 22.4 214931 0.9055 23 183027 0.8661 22
189630 0.9055 23 221659 0.9449 24 191768 0.9173 23.3
196396 0.9449 24 228191 0.9843 25 196527 0.9449 24
203103 0.9843 25 232982 1.0236 26 202135 0.9843 25
208920 1.0236 26 238211 1.0630 27 208550 1.0236 26
214542 1.0630 27 242555 1.1024 28 213153 1.0630 27
219868 1.1024 28 247677 1.1417 29 218847 1.1024 28
224781 1.1457 29.1 251482 1.1811 30 222848 1.1417 29
234333 1.2205 31 255447 1.2205 31 226074 1.1811 30
239588 1.2598 32 259099 1.2598 32 230754 1.2205 31
244947 1.2992 33 269099 1.3386 34 234006 1.2598 32
251055 1.3386 34 273433 1.3780 35 237649 1.2992 33
257605 1.3780 35 281345 1.4567 37 241647 1.3386 34
264443 1.4173 36 286736 1.4961 38 246819 1.3780 35
271149 1.4567 37 291161 1.5354 39 253203 1.4173 36
277156 1.4961 38 295550 1.5748 40 258030 1.4567 37
283383 1.5354 39 299640 1.6142 41 263923 1.4961 38
288552 1.5748 40 302683 1.6535 42 268120 1.5354 39
292849 1.6142 41 306984 1.6929 43 275169 1.5748 40
297066 1.6535 42 309329 1.7323 44 278992 1.6142 41
300389 1.6929 43 311255 1.7598 44.7 283113 1.6535 42
302953 1.7323 44 314479 1.8110 46 286374 1.6929 43
305800 1.7717 45 315995 1.8504 47 289696 1.7323 44
308256 1.8110 46 318903 1.9291 49 292060 1.7717 45
310450 1.8504 47 321745 1.9921 50.6 295225 1.8110 46
312694 1.8898 48 323581 2.0472 52 297160 1.8504 47
314784 1.9291 49 324850 2.0866 53 299465 1.8898 48
317214 1.9685 50 326336 2.1260 54 301039 1.9291 49
320024 2.0079 51 327408 2.1654 55 302998 1.9685 50
322411 2.0472 52 328833 2.2047 56 304277 2.0079 51
324964 2.0866 53 330053 2.2441 57 306093 2.0472 52
327095 2.1260 54 337128 2.4213 61.5 307219 2.0866 53
329843 2.1654 55 338904 2.4882 63.2 308807 2.1260 54
332916 2.2047 56 340137 2.5197 64 310022 2.1654 55
335897 2.2441 57 340881 2.5591 65 311701 2.2047 56
338983 2.2835 58 341651 2.5984 66 313211 2.2441 57

45
341503 2.3228 59 342114 2.6378 67 314937 2.2835 58
344844 2.3622 60 342633 2.6772 68 316705 2.3228 59
347792 2.4016 61 342885 2.7165 69 318945 2.3622 60
349920 2.4409 62 343269 2.7559 70 320433 2.4016 61
351828 2.4803 63 343486 2.7953 71 322454 2.4409 62
354043 2.5197 64 343746 2.8346 72 323271 2.4764 62.9
356377 2.5591 65 343937 2.8740 73 324752 2.5197 64
358548 2.6063 66.2 344169 2.9134 74 325535 2.5591 65
359856 2.6378 67 344284 2.9528 75 326798 2.5984 66
361159 2.6772 68 344431 2.9921 76 327507 2.6378 67
362185 2.7165 69 344528 3.0315 77 328495 2.6772 68
363128 2.7559 70 344671 3.0709 78 328925 2.7165 69
363923 2.7953 71 344736 3.1102 79 329446 2.7559 70
364604 2.8346 72 344867 3.1496 80 329749 2.7953 71
364942 2.8740 73 344913 3.1890 81 330254 2.8346 72
365304 2.9173 74.1 345012 3.2677 83 330499 2.8740 73
365707 2.9528 75 345154 3.3465 85 331106 2.9528 75
366027 2.9921 76 345220 3.4252 87 331340 2.9921 76
366311 3.0433 77.3 345276 3.5433 90 331498 3.0118 76.5
366462 3.0748 78.1 345329 3.7283 94.7 331687 3.1024 78.8
366670 3.1102 79 331866 3.1496 80
366495 3.1496 80 331962 3.1890 81
366944 3.1890 81 332168 3.2677 83
367070 3.2283 82 332323 3.3976 86.3
367129 3.2677 83 332396 3.5039 89
367217 3.3071 84 332443 3.6181 91.9
367284 3.3465 85 332479 3.8740 98.4
367348 3.3976 86.3
367408 3.4606 87.9
367467 3.5630 90.5
367509 3.6457 92.6
367541 3.8268 97.2

Table 2.4: Crack Growth Data for the Reworked Specimens

Reworked Specimens: Cycles vs. Crack Length

Specimen #1 Specimen #2 Specimen #4
Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm) Cycles (inch) (mm)
0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4 0 0.3701 9.4
16436 0.4331 11 22533 0.4094 10.4 17299 0.3937 10
30214 0.4724 12 41201 0.4488 11.4 37562 0.4331 11
52277 0.5512 14 56715 0.4882 12.4 63494 0.4803 12.2
62322 0.5906 15 77881 0.5276 13.4 83622 0.5394 13.7
69661 0.6299 16 94726 0.5669 14.4 100353 0.5906 15
78516 0.6693 17 104112 0.6063 15.4 112146 0.6417 16.3
85156 0.7087 18 113865 0.6457 16.4 120202 0.6693 17
91788 0.7480 19 126439 0.6850 17.4 127842 0.7087 18
97727 0.7874 20 133786 0.7087 18 135493 0.7480 19
103979 0.8268 21 140990 0.7480 19 147631 0.8031 20.4
110844 0.8661 22 147631 0.7874 20 162481 0.8268 21
119064 0.9055 23 154550 0.8268 21 193793 0.8898 22.6

46
127684 0.9449 24 162546 0.8661 22 217464 0.9488 24.1
139354 0.9843 25 167617 0.9055 23 223607 0.9843 25
146898 1.0118 25.7 173733 0.9449 24 235318 1.0512 26.7
157487 1.0630 27 178465 0.9843 25 240030 1.0906 27.7
169535 1.1339 28.8 184496 1.0236 26 244884 1.1299 28.7
180303 1.1929 30.3 189234 1.0591 26.9 251087 1.1693 29.7
207856 1.2598 32 193887 1.0984 27.9 261181 1.2087 30.7
213504 1.2992 33 197505 1.1378 28.9 266026 1.2480 31.7
239510 1.3386 34 202460 1.1457 29.1 284660 1.2874 32.7
255714 1.4134 35.9 206626 1.1850 30.1 298797 1.3268 33.7
261522 1.4567 37 215575 1.2362 31.4 310009 1.3661 34.7
268233 1.4961 38 219877 1.2598 32 320101 1.4055 35.7
271906 1.5354 39 241736 1.2992 33 324803 1.4449 36.7
275693 1.5748 40 255509 1.3386 34 332887 1.4843 37.7
278056 1.6142 41 277348 1.3780 35 336826 1.5236 38.7
281072 1.6535 42 302346 1.4370 36.5 341573 1.5630 39.7
282818 1.6929 43 309148 1.4567 37 345311 1.6024 40.7
285068 1.7323 44 318122 1.4961 38 348756 1.6417 41.7
286597 1.7717 45 330212 1.5591 39.6 351889 1.6811 42.7
289272 1.8110 46 332485 1.5748 40 354295 1.7205 43.7
291008 1.8504 47 336483 1.6142 41 357452 1.7598 44.7
293769 1.8898 48 340731 1.6535 42 359836 1.7992 45.7
296120 1.9291 49 343864 1.6929 43 362534 1.8386 46.7
300114 1.9685 50 346914 1.7323 44 365575 1.8819 47.8
302850 2.0079 51 349142 1.7717 45 368158 1.9252 48.9
306416 2.0472 52 351232 1.8110 46 369107 1.9567 49.7
309438 2.0866 53 353265 1.8504 47 371495 1.9961 50.7
314436 2.1260 54 355441 1.8898 48 373988 2.0354 51.7
319341 2.1850 55.5 357199 1.9291 49 378246 2.0748 52.7
322331 2.2047 56 358986 1.9685 50 381671 2.1142 53.7
326027 2.2441 57 360232 2.0079 51 386549 2.1535 54.7
329577 2.2835 58 361434 2.0472 52 391541 2.1929 55.7
332963 2.3228 59 362401 2.0866 53 395854 2.2323 56.7
336742 2.3622 60 363793 2.1260 54 398769 2.2717 57.7
339280 2.4016 61 364985 2.1654 55 401475 2.3110 58.7
342271 2.4409 62 366613 2.2047 56 404171 2.3504 59.7
343853 2.4803 63 368266 2.2441 57 407200 2.3898 60.7
345461 2.5197 64 370041 2.2835 58 407200 2.4291 61.7
346704 2.5591 65 371914 2.3228 59 408957 2.4685 62.7
347962 2.5984 66 374523 2.3622 60 410528 2.5079 63.7
348993 2.6378 67 376857 2.4016 61 412447 2.5472 64.7
349918 2.6575 67.5 379538 2.4409 62 413756 2.5866 65.7
350496 2.6969 68.5 381190 2.4803 63 414896 2.6260 66.7
351445 2.7165 69 382434 2.5197 64 415898 2.6654 67.7
352052 2.7559 70 383295 2.5591 65 416669 2.7047 68.7
352438 2.8189 71.6 384053 2.5984 66 417138 2.7441 69.7
353335 2.8740 73 384635 2.6378 67 417623 2.7835 70.7
353627 2.9134 74 385284 2.6772 68 417939 2.8228 71.7
353920 2.9528 75 385687 2.7165 69 418228 2.8622 72.7
354117 2.9921 76 386117 2.7559 70 418421 2.9016 73.7
354450 3.0315 77 386435 2.7953 71 418675 2.9409 74.7
354703 3.0709 78 386739 2.8346 72 418896 2.9803 75.7
355164 3.1496 80 386995 2.8740 73 419063 3.0197 76.7

47
355545 3.2283 82 387272 2.9134 74 419319 3.0984 78.7
355860 3.3071 84 387471 2.9528 75 419549 3.1378 79.7
356145 3.3858 86 387708 2.9921 76 419713 3.2205 81.8
356332 3.4646 88 387844 3.0315 77 419831 3.2992 83.8
356493 3.5433 90 387986 3.0748 78.1 419952 3.3819 85.9
356571 3.6220 92 388097 3.1102 79 420041 3.5000 88.9
356620 3.7402 95 388208 3.1496 80 420090 3.6142 91.8
356670 3.8189 97 388310 3.1890 81
388458 3.2677 83
388574 3.3465 85
388665 3.4252 87
388714 3.5472 90.1
388754 3.6811 93.5
388775 3.7677 95.7
388791 3.9370 100

2.5.2. GRAPHIC RESULTS FROM CRACK GROWTH TESTING

The following plots provide a graphic representation of crack length versus cycles

for each of the three conditions (pristine, dented, and reworked). Figure 2.10 shows the

results for the three pristine specimens. The data is very consistent from specimen to

specimen, as the three curves are bunched very close together. Figure 2.11 shows the

results for the dented specimens. The results for the three dented specimens are

consistent, but not as consistent as the pristine specimens. Figure 2.12 shows the results

for the reworked specimens. The results for the three reworked specimens are not nearly

as consistent as the pristine and dented specimens, because of the reworking procedure.

The life of the dented specimens is considerably shortened when compared with the

pristine specimens. The life of the reworked specimens is also shortened, but not quite as

much as the dented specimens. A better comparison of the three conditions is provided in

the next section, where the results for the different conditions are plotted on the same set

of axis.

48
 Figure 2.10 Crack Length vs. Cycles (Pristine
Specimens)
# 1 Pristine # 2 Pristine # 3 Pristine
4.0
3.5
Crack Length (inches)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

Figure 2.11. Crack Length vs Cycles (Dented Specimens)

# 1 Dented # 2 Dented # 3 Dented
4.5
4
Crack Length (inches)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

49
 Figure 2.12 Crack Length vs. Cycles (Reworked
Specimens)
# 1 Reworked # 2 Reworked # 3 Reworked
4.0
3.5
Crack Length (inches)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

2.5.3. COMPARISIONS BETWEEN PRISTINE, DENTED, AND REWORKED

CONDITIONS

A comparison of the crack length versus number of cycles data between the

pristine and dented conditions and between the pristine and reworked conditions is shown

in Figures 2.7 and 2.8 respectively. Figure 2.7, which is a plot of both the pristine and

dented conditions, shows that there is a significant reduction in crack life for the

specimens with dents compared with the pristine specimens. Figure 2.8 shows the results

from the pristine specimens, as well as the reworked specimens. The reworking helped,

but did not, on the average, restore the fatigue life to that of the pristine specimens.

50
 Figure 2.13 Crack Lenhth vs. Cycles (Pristine and Dented
Specimens)
1 Dented Pristine
4.0
3.5
Crack Length (inches)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

Figure 2.14 Crack Lenhth vs. Cycles (Pristine and

Reworked Specimens)
Reworked Pristine
4.0
3.5
Crack Length (inches)

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

51
2.5.4. Crack Growth Rate da/dN vs. Kmax:

Damage tolerance assessment requires a data base of growth rate information for

the various materials used. Growth rate information is often expressed as the crack

growth rate (da/dN) versus the maximum stress intensity factor (KImax) or change in stress

intensity factor (∆KI ) for a given constant amplitude cyclic loading. The following plots

provide a graphic representation of da/dN vs. KImax for each of the three conditions

(pristine, dented and reworked) and for each of the three replications for each condition.

These plots are always given on log-log paper, since the data tends to be linear in the

mid-range region. Figure 2.15 has the crack growth rate plots for the three replications of

the pristine condition. Figures 2.16 and 2.17 have the same data for the dented and

reworked conditions respectively. The KImax and da/dN values for the specimens are

determined as follows:

KImax = σmax (π a) 0.5 β

β = 1.122-0.231(a/w) +10.550(a/w) 2-21.71(a/w) 3 +30.82(a/w) 4

σmax = maximum stress in the constant amplitude cyclic loading

∆KI = KImax – KImin = (1 - R)KImax

σmin = minimum stress in the constant amplitude cyclic loadinig

da/dN = slope of the crack length vs. cycles curve, (ai+4-ai-4)/ (Ni+4-Ni-4)

The slope da/dN was also determined from (ai+3-ai-3)/ (Ni+3-Ni-3) and from (ai+5-ai-5)/

(Ni+5-Ni-5); however, they produced results that were almost identical to the slope

determined from (ai+4-ai-4)/ (Ni+4-Ni-4). Tables giving the values of KImax and ∆KI are

given in Appendix A for each of the three pristine, dented and reworked specimens.

Although da/dN vs. KImax is considered a material property (independent of structural

52
geometry), there is considerable difference between the crack growth rate curves for

pristine, dented and reworked specimens of same material. Growth rate information is

normally presented for pristine material. It is shown here for the dented and reworked

specimens, as well as the pristine specimens, to attain a better understanding of the

differences between these three conditions. The experimental crack length vs. cycles data

is given in Appendix A along with the calculated da/dN vs. KImax and da/dN vs. ∆KI data

for all pristine, dented and reworked specimens.

Figure 2.15. da/dN vs Kmax for Pristine Specimens

#1 Pristine #2 Pristine #3 Pristine

1.E-02

1.E-03
da/dN

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06
1 10 100
Kmax

53
 Figure 2.16. da/dN vs Kmax for Dented Specimens

#1 Dented #2 Dented #3 Dented

1.E-02

1.E-03
da/dN (inch/cycle)

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06
1 10 100
Kmax

54
 Figure 2.17. da/dN vs Kmax all Reworked Specimens

#1 Reworked #1 Reworked #3 Reworked

1.E-02

1.E-03
da/dN

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06
1.0 10.0 100.0
Kmax

The overall crack growth rate for the dented specimens is faster than the pristine

specimens, however, there are some interesting observations that can be made by careful

inspection of the crack length versus cycles plots for the dented specimens. These

observations are illustrated graphically in Figure 2.18. Crack growth in the dented

specimens in Regions A in Figure 2.18 is faster than in the pristine specimens. However,

55
in region R, shown in the figure, the crack growth is retarded. This phenomenon is

clearly illustrated in the da/dN vs. KImax plots (Figure 2.16). A reverse in curvature on the

crack length vs. cycles plot appears as a reverse in direction of da/dN on the da/dN vs

KImax plot.

Center Line of

Specimen

1.25" 1" 1.75"

Crack

Dent
A R A R A

A: accelerated growth
R: retarded growth

Figure 2.18: Details of Crack Growth Rate in dented specimens.

56
 2.5.5. A FURTHER COMPARISION BETWEEN PRISTINE AND DENTED

SPECIMENS.

The purpose of this section is to provide an additional comparison between the

pristine specimens and the dented specimens. Namely, it is shown that the crack growth

in the dented specimens under constant amplitude cyclic loading is approximately equal

to the crack growth in the pristine specimens if the magnitude of the cyclic loading for

the pristine specimens is increased by about 8%.

The crack growth in one of the pristine specimens (specimen #1) was simulated

with the software Air Force Grow, known as AFGROW (12) as follows: The software

AFGROW provides growth rate information da/dN vs. ∆KI in the form of an equation if

the constants are known for the particular material being used. The software also allows

for growth rate to be input in tabulated form. Table A.1 in the appendix gives da/dN vs.

∆KI in tabulated form for specimen #1. A total of 10 data points, evenly spaced, were

chosen and input into AFGROW, and a crack was grown analytically cycle-by-cycle with

the constant amplitude cyclic loading used to generate the experimental data (σmax = 6.25

ksi and σmin = 1.25 ksi). These data points are the shaded values in Table A.3 of

Appendix A. When compared with the crack length vs. cycles experimental data, the

analytically determined results matched favorably, as they should. The crack length vs.

cycles curve grown with the use of AFGROW for the pristine specimen #1 is compared

with the experimental results for pristine specimen #1 in Figure 2.19.

The maximum and minimum values of the remote stresses (σmax and σmin) were

adjusted upward (keeping their ratio constant at R = 0.2) until the analytical curve

produced by AFGROW matched the experimental data from the dented specimens as

57
well as could be. Figure 2.20 shows the analytical results for the pristine specimen with

an 8% increase in stresses compared favorably with the experimental results for the three

dented specimens. That is, for the specimen geometry and dent metrics used in this

study, it can be concluded that the pristine specimen with an 8% increase in remote stress

will produce crack growth about the same as a dented specimen. Similar results may be

shown by using pristine specimen #2 or #3.

Figure 2.19. Crack Length vs. Cycles(Pristine

Specimen#1)
Pristine Specimen #1(Afgrow) Pristine Specimen #1(Experimental)
4.0

3.5

3.0
Crack Length(inches)

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

58
 Figure 2.20. Crack Length vs Cycles (Dented
Specimens)
Dented Specimens Pristine Specimen #1 AFGROW (8% increase in stress)
4

3.5
Crack Length (inches)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000
Cycles

6.0. Conclusion and Recommendations

An investigation of the stable crack propagation in 2024-T3 aluminum alloy

specimens under three conditions (pristine, dented, and reworked) was made. An 8 inch

wide 0.04” thick edge-cracked specimen with multiple dents along the crack line was

used. Constant amplitude cyclic loading was used with a maximum stress of 6,250 ksi

and a minimum stress of 1,250 ksi (stress ratio of 0.2). The initial crack length was

approximately 0.37”. Dents were placed along the crack line 1.25” and 2.25” from the

edge of the specimen. Crack length vs. cycles was recorded with the use of an optical

microscope (160X). Stable crack propagation was observed to take place on a line

perpendicular to the load and through both dents before failure occurred. The overall

crack propagation in the dented specimens was significantly faster than in the pristine

59
specimens. It was also faster in the reworked specimens; however, the crack propagation

in the reworked specimens was not as consistent as the pristine and dented specimens.

The crack growth in the dented specimens was accelerated until the crack tip came close

to a dent, after which the propagation was retarded until the tip of the crack grew

completely through the dent, where the growth again became accelerated.

The data was also displayed in the form of da/dN vs. KImax. The growth rate for

the pristine specimens displayed the classical "almost" linear pattern on log-log paper.

However, when the data for the dented and reworked specimens was displayed in this

manner, the pattern was highly non-linear. It is clear from this study that denting causes

cracks to grow faster, and the type of reworking done resulted in little or no help in

regaining the characteristics of the pristine condition. The denting procedure produced

cold working, geometric changes, and residual stresses, and it is not clear which of these

has the greatest effect.

A comparison was made between the crack growth for the dented specimens

(under the cyclic loading of σmax = 6.25 ksi and σmin = 1.25 ksi) and the crack growth for

the pristine specimens with increased remote stresses. It was determined that, for the

specimen geometry and dent metrics used in this study, a pristine specimen with its

remote stress increased by about 8% resulted in similar crack growth to the dented

specimens. The crack growth for the pristine specimen was simulated with the

AFGROW software based on experimental da/dN vs. ∆KI data from pristine specimen

#1. This software was used to produce crack growth curves with increasing values of

remote stress until a curve was produced that most closely matched the experimental data

for the dented specimens.

60
 The data presented herein is limited. Only one material was used. All specimens

were tested under the same cyclic loading stresses. Only one dent depth and one indenter

diameter was used. The population of data needs to be expanded to include different

stress level, different dent depths and different indenter diameters (or configurations).

Advanced methods of reworking such as rotary-peening and shot-peening should be used

and the results compared with the reworking method used here. In order to use the

results for purposes of damage tolerance calculations, either the growth rate curves must

be altered or the analytical models should incorporate the residual stresses caused by the

denting. Growth rate curves represent material properties, independent of structural

geometry; therefore, the second of the afore-mentioned approaches is the most promising

approach to take. For example, the crack propagation software Air Force Grow

(AFGROW) allows for the inclusion of residual stresses.

61
REFERENCES

62
 LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Smith .B. L and Herrick .C, "The Effect of Dents on the Fatigue Life of 2024-T3 and

7475-T7351 Aluminum Alloys," National Institute for Aviation research, Wichita

State University, NIS Project 05-013, 2005.

2. F. Simmons, Veciana .J, and Wallace. J, "Effects of Dent Removal on the

DesignProperties of Fuselage Skin Material," 41st IAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures,

Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA 2000-1467.

3. Smith .B. L and Jacob .K, "The Effect of Dents on Crack Growth of 2024-T3, 7475-

T7351, and 7050-T7451 Aluminum Alloys," National Institute for Aviation research,

Wichita State University, NIS Project 05-013, 2005.

4. ASTM-E-466, "Standard Practice for Conducting Force Controlled Constant

Amplitude Axial Fatigue Tests of Metallic Materials," 1996 Vol. 03.01.

5. ASTM-D-3039 1976, ASTM-D-3410 1987, and ASTM-D-3518 1976, “Report”

Sections.

6. Kumar, B., "The Fatigue Behavior of an Amorphous Brittle Composite Material",

PhD Dissertation, Wichita State University, 2000.

7. Montgomery .D. C, Arizona State University, Design and Analysis of Experiments,

5th Ed.

8. Little .R.E., Manual on Statistical Planning and Analysis for Fatigue Experiments,

ASTM STP 588, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1975.

9. MTS 810 Material Test System Procedural Manual, MTS Systems Corporation, 2004,

100-027-556a.

63
10. Ekstrand, G, and Asnafi, N., "Testing of the Stiffness and the Dent Resistance of

Autobody Panels," Materials and Design 19, pp.145-156, Elsevier Science

Publishers, 1998.

11. ASTM-E-647, "Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth

Rates," 2000.

12. Harter, J. A., AFGROW for Windows 2k/XP, Version 4.0009.12, Air Force

Research Laboratory, Wright Patterson Air force Base, OH, June 2004.

64
APPENDIX

65
 APPENDIX

Table A.1. Crack Growth Rate Data for Pristine Specimen #1

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
43821 0.4331
72915 0.4724
89848 0.4961
99158 0.5079 1.65E-06 9.1423 7.3140
128534 0.5551 1.81E-06 9.6013 7.6809
145143 0.5906 1.99E-06 9.9383 7.9510
164989 0.6299 2.16E-06 10.3066 8.2451
179220 0.6654 2.33E-06 10.6335 8.5071
196395 0.7087 2.67E-06 11.0281 8.8228
211480 0.7480 2.88E-06 11.3831 9.1062
225032 0.7874 3.18E-06 11.7352 9.3882
235845 0.8268 3.45E-06 12.0851 9.6683
245026 0.8661 3.8E-06 12.4335 9.9465
254430 0.9055 4.2E-06 12.7808 10.2246
264071 0.9449 4.54E-06 13.1276 10.5022
271736 0.9843 4.74E-06 13.4743 10.7798
279259 1.0236 4.9E-06 13.8213 11.0569
286482 1.0630 5.04E-06 14.1690 11.3353
294389 1.1024 5.32E-06 14.5179 11.6146
302264 1.1417 5.56E-06 14.8682 11.8943
310923 1.1890 5.79E-06 15.2909 12.2329
316864 1.2205 5.9E-06 15.5743 12.4597
323297 1.2598 6.33E-06 15.9309 12.7444
328385 1.2992 6.7E-06 16.2901 13.0320
333610 1.3386 7.26E-06 16.6522 13.3219
339857 1.3780 7.91E-06 17.0176 13.6144
344154 1.4173 8.38E-06 17.3864 13.9089
349279 1.4567 8.89E-06 17.7589 14.2072
353206 1.4961 9.43E-06 18.1355 14.5087
356697 1.5354 1.04E-05 18.5162 14.8127
360865 1.5748 1.09E-05 18.9014 15.1211
364245 1.6181 1.2E-05 19.3305 15.4643
367005 1.6535 1.26E-05 19.6860 15.7485
370097 1.6929 1.29E-05 20.0859 16.0686
373037 1.7323 1.41E-05 20.4912 16.3931
375530 1.7717 1.5E-05 20.9021 16.7221
378191 1.8110 1.55E-05 21.3188 17.0549
381051 1.8504 1.66E-05 21.7416 17.3933
383507 1.8937 1.76E-05 22.2139 17.7711
385224 1.9331 1.83E-05 22.6501 18.1203
387269 1.9685 1.88E-05 23.0484 18.4387
389066 2.0079 2.05E-05 23.4976 18.7984
390917 2.0472 2.15E-05 23.9541 19.1629
392786 2.0866 2.19E-05 24.4179 19.5342
394967 2.1260 2.36E-05 24.8895 19.9117

66
 396440 2.1654 2.62E-05 25.3690 20.2956
397997 2.2047 2.87E-05 25.8566 20.6850
399395 2.2441 3.24E-05 26.3526 21.0821
400601 2.2835 3.78E-05 26.8573 21.4862
402580 2.3622 4.19E-05 27.8938 22.3150
404645 2.4409 4.64E-05 28.9682 23.1740
406155 2.5197 5.27E-05 30.0826 24.0663
407479 2.5984 5.79E-05 31.2396 24.9914
408660 2.6772 6.71E-05 32.4416 25.9537
409543 2.7402 8.22E-05 33.4373 26.7504
410149 2.8110 0.000102 34.5956 27.6762
410672 2.8661 0.000123 35.5258 28.4201
410976 2.9252 0.000161 36.5521 29.2417
411257 2.9843 0.00021 37.6105 30.0891
411466 3.0591 0.000256 38.9993 31.2001
411698 3.1181 0.000351 40.1356 32.1083
411831 3.1890 0.000437 41.5482 33.2389
411961 3.2480 0.000622 42.7680 34.2139
412075 3.3031
412176 3.3937
412255 3.4843
412326 3.6496

Table A.2. Crack Growth Rate Data for Pristine Specimen #2

Table A.2. Crack Growth Rate Data for Pristine Specimen #2

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI
inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
9109 0.3898
46405 0.4252
78268 0.4606
103604 0.4843 1.4065E-06 8.9079 7.1263
125365 0.5197 1.4581E-06 9.2582 7.4066
150308 0.5591 1.6703E-06 9.6390 7.7112
172563 0.5984 1.8222E-06 10.0124 8.0099
190338 0.6378 2.0526E-06 10.3796 8.3037
203517 0.6732 2.2597E-06 10.7056 8.5645
216116 0.7087 2.5373E-06 11.0281 8.8225
220868 0.7205 2.8632E-06 11.1349 8.9080
232115 0.7480 3.1694E-06 11.3831 9.1065
243839 0.7874 3.3018E-06 11.7352 9.3882
255820 0.8268 3.5528E-06 12.0851 9.6681
264690 0.8622 3.7425E-06 12.3987 9.9190
272323 0.8976 4.0511E-06 12.7114 10.1691
285792 0.9449 4.4252E-06 13.1276 10.5021
292577 0.9803 4.8034E-06 13.4396 10.7517
299767 1.0157 5.1073E-06 13.7518 11.0015
305975 1.0472 5.4221E-06 14.0298 11.2239
315013 1.1024 6.0722E-06 14.5179 11.6143

67
 321390 1.1417 6.3872E-06 14.8682 11.8945
327130 1.1811 6.837E-06 15.2202 12.1762
332590 1.2244 7.2118E-06 15.6099 12.4879
337661 1.2598 7.7594E-06 15.9309 12.7447
342505 1.2992 8.2323E-06 16.2901 13.0320
346986 1.3386 8.7121E-06 16.6522 13.3218
351286 1.3740 8.9689E-06 16.9809 13.5847
355604 1.4173 9.5209E-06 17.3864 13.9091
359649 1.4567 9.9097E-06 17.7589 14.2072
363282 1.4961 1.0475E-05 18.1355 14.5084
367268 1.5354 1.1016E-05 18.5162 14.8130
370742 1.5748 1.1282E-05 18.9014 15.1211
374288 1.6142 1.1953E-05 19.2912 15.4330
376301 1.6457 1.2496E-05 19.6067 15.6853
380234 1.6929 1.3531E-05 20.0859 16.0687
383521 1.7323 1.4138E-05 20.4912 16.3930
386000 1.7717 1.511E-05 20.9021 16.7217
388487 1.8110 1.5242E-05 21.3188 17.0551
390836 1.8543 1.6134E-05 21.7842 17.4274
393020 1.8898 1.8436E-05 22.1706 17.7365
395133 1.9291 1.9495E-05 22.6061 18.0849
397223 1.9646 2.0371E-05 23.0039 18.4031
399511 2.0039 2.1259E-05 23.4524 18.7619
402741 2.0866 2.1856E-05 24.4179 19.5344
405791 2.1575 2.2365E-05 25.2724 20.2179
407427 2.1969 2.3309E-05 25.7584 20.6067
408800 2.2362 2.5567E-05 26.2527 21.0022
410133 2.2638 2.7058E-05 26.6039 21.2831
411680 2.2992 2.8672E-05 27.0617 21.6494
412762 2.3268 3.1714E-05 27.4228 21.9383
414910 2.3976 3.4069E-05 28.3724 22.6979
416855 2.4685 3.8025E-05 29.3535 23.4828
418561 2.5236 4.3529E-05 30.1395 24.1116
419841 2.5906 4.7652E-05 31.1219 24.8975
421165 2.6575 4.9312E-05 32.1367 25.7094
422247 2.7244 6.5343E-05 33.1854 26.5483
423257 2.8031 8.8472E-05 34.4648 27.5719
424081 2.8661 9.5033E-05 35.5258 28.4206
424810 2.8858 0.00011083 35.8644 28.6915
425230 3.0157 0.00014393 38.1885 30.5508
425859 3.1693
426138 3.1890
426138 3.2087
426432 3.3268

Table A.3. Crack Growth Rate Data for Pristine Specimen #3

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
24290 0.3976

68
49993 0.4331
64956 0.4528
80038 0.4724 1.6601E-06 8.7889 7.0311
108554 0.5118 1.7909E-06 9.1809 7.3447
124321 0.5394 1.9480E-06 9.4499 7.5599
187165 0.6614 2.0523E-06 10.5972 8.4778
201549 0.7047 2.1300E-06 10.9922 8.7938
213357 0.7362 2.3580E-06 11.2767 9.0214
227813 0.7795 2.5516E-06 11.6647 9.3318
237589 0.8071 3.1486E-06 11.9105 9.5284
246422 0.8268 3.3094E-06 12.0854 9.6683
258809 0.8661 3.5925E-06 12.4331 9.9465
267801 0.9055 3.8619E-06 12.7807 10.2246
277206 0.9449 4.1587E-06 13.1278 10.5022
286035 0.9843 4.5992E-06 13.4747 10.7798
293358 1.0236 5.0122E-06 13.8211 11.0569
301223 1.0630 5.1913E-06 14.1691 11.3353
308596 1.1024 5.4941E-06 14.5182 11.6146
314891 1.1417 5.6797E-06 14.8679 11.8943
323232 1.1890 5.8735E-06 15.2911 12.2329
328480 1.2205 6.2935E-06 15.5746 12.4597
334522 1.2598 6.6446E-06 15.9305 12.7444
341478 1.2992 6.7142E-06 16.2899 13.0320
346989 1.3386 7.1096E-06 16.6524 13.3219
350019 1.3701 7.5682E-06 16.9444 13.5555
358953 1.4370 8.0275E-06 17.5721 14.0577
362983 1.4646 9.2853E-06 17.8342 14.2674
367524 1.5039 1.0020E-05 18.2109 14.5687
371132 1.5433 1.0425E-05 18.5928 14.8742
374746 1.5827 1.2711E-05 18.9792 15.1834
380486 1.6614 1.4261E-05 19.7654 15.8123
385493 1.7244 1.5437E-05 20.4096 16.3277
389290 1.7795 1.6674E-05 20.9847 16.7878
391169 1.8465 1.7511E-05 21.6995 17.3596
394173 1.9094 1.9090E-05 22.3870 17.9096
396091 1.9449 2.1283E-05 22.7824 18.2259
397580 1.9843 2.3936E-05 23.2278 18.5822
399028 2.0079 2.2480E-05 23.4979 18.7984
400696 2.0472 2.3498E-05 23.9536 19.1629
402511 2.0866 2.4908E-05 24.4178 19.5342
404096 2.1339 2.5399E-05 24.9852 19.9882
405355 2.1654 2.7543E-05 25.3695 20.2956
406740 2.2047 2.9064E-05 25.8563 20.6850
408103 2.2441 3.1722E-05 26.3527 21.0821
409360 2.2835 3.2504E-05 26.8578 21.4862
410461 2.3228 3.5251E-05 27.3705 21.8964
411534 2.3622 3.7947E-05 27.8937 22.3150
412441 2.4016 4.2522E-05 28.4264 22.7412
413541 2.4409 4.6766E-05 28.9675 23.1740
414288 2.4803 5.1243E-05 29.5200 23.6160
415041 2.5197 5.6634E-05 30.0828 24.0663
416066 2.5827 6.2377E-05 31.0050 24.8040
416936 2.6378 7.2223E-05 31.8349 25.4679

69
 417377 2.6772 7.8402E-05 32.4421 25.9537
417790 2.7165 8.9222E-05 33.0596 26.4477
418121 2.7559 9.9849E-05 33.6910 26.9528
418448 2.7953 1.1833E-04 34.3350 27.4680
418807 2.8346 1.2906E-04 34.9903 27.9922
419012 2.8740 1.4351E-04 35.6606 28.5284
419378 2.9134 1.6063E-04 36.3446 29.0757
419598 2.9528 1.7741E-04 37.0427 29.6342
419817 2.9921 2.0751E-04 37.7536 30.2029
419985 3.0315 2.2877E-04 38.4812 30.7850
420082 3.0709 2.9023E-04 39.2243 31.3794
420223 3.1102 3.5420E-04 39.9813 31.9850
420325 3.1496 4.5897E-04 40.7566 32.6052
420406 3.1929 5.5511E-04 41.6280 33.3024
420463 3.2283 7.1131E-04 42.3560 33.8848
420587 3.3031
420692 3.3937
420758 3.4606
420807 3.5866

Table A.4. Crack Growth Rate Data for Dented Specimen #1

Table A.4. Crack Growth Rate Data for Dented Specimen #1

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI
inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
13981 0.3937
42870 0.4370
60392 0.4724
85533 0.5236 2.2703E-06 9.2967 7.4373
93374 0.5512 2.4459E-06 9.5635 7.6508
115317 0.5906 2.8225E-06 9.9383 7.9506
140245 0.6732 3.1463E-06 10.7056 8.5645
149136 0.7087 3.5900E-06 11.0281 8.8225
158848 0.7480 3.6811E-06 11.3831 9.1065
167012 0.7874 4.3702E-06 11.7352 9.3882
178016 0.8425 4.9480E-06 12.2247 9.7797
185330 0.8819 5.2683E-06 12.5725 10.0580
189630 0.9055 5.6552E-06 12.7808 10.2247
196396 0.9449 5.9588E-06 13.1276 10.5021
203103 0.9843 6.4824E-06 13.4743 10.7794
208920 1.0236 6.9094E-06 13.8213 11.0570
214542 1.0630 7.0926E-06 14.1690 11.3352
219868 1.1024 7.2981E-06 14.5179 11.6143
224781 1.1457 7.3893E-06 14.9033 11.9226
234333 1.2205 7.2780E-06 15.5743 12.4595
239588 1.2598 7.1007E-06 15.9309 12.7447
244947 1.2992 6.9096E-06 16.2901 13.0320
251055 1.3386 6.6901E-06 16.6522 13.3218
257605 1.3780 6.4212E-06 17.0176 13.6140

70
264443 1.4173 6.4325E-06 17.3864 13.9091
271149 1.4567 6.5751E-06 17.7589 14.2072
277156 1.4961 6.8453E-06 18.1355 14.5084
283383 1.5354 7.3616E-06 18.5162 14.8130
288552 1.5748 8.1787E-06 18.9014 15.1211
292849 1.6142 9.0895E-06 19.2912 15.4330
297066 1.6535 1.0127E-05 19.6860 15.7488
300389 1.6929 1.1636E-05 20.0859 16.0687
302953 1.7323 1.3046E-05 20.4912 16.3930
305800 1.7717 1.4359E-05 20.9021 16.7217
308256 1.8110 1.5632E-05 21.3188 17.0551
310450 1.8504 1.6041E-05 21.7416 17.3933
312694 1.8898 1.6187E-05 22.1706 17.7365
314784 1.9291 1.6435E-05 22.6061 18.0849
317214 1.9685 1.6719E-05 23.0484 18.4387
320024 2.0079 1.6241E-05 23.4976 18.7981
322411 2.0472 1.5575E-05 23.9541 19.1633
324964 2.0866 1.4918E-05 24.4179 19.5344
327095 2.1260 1.4468E-05 24.8895 19.9116
329843 2.1654 1.4664E-05 25.3690 20.2952
332916 2.2047 1.4040E-05 25.8566 20.6853
335897 2.2441 1.3797E-05 26.3526 21.0821
338983 2.2835 1.3799E-05 26.8573 21.4859
341503 2.3228 1.4326E-05 27.3710 21.8968
344844 2.3622 1.4908E-05 27.8938 22.3150
347792 2.4016 1.5379E-05 28.4261 22.7409
349920 2.4409 1.6501E-05 28.9682 23.1745
351828 2.4803 1.7161E-05 29.5202 23.6162
354043 2.5197 1.9305E-05 30.0826 24.0661
356377 2.5591 2.1883E-05 30.6557 24.5245
358548 2.6063 2.3846E-05 31.3577 25.0862
359856 2.6378 2.6041E-05 31.8348 25.4678
361159 2.6772 2.9823E-05 32.4416 25.9532
362185 2.7165 3.6773E-05 33.0602 26.4482
363128 2.7559 4.6037E-05 33.6911 26.9529
363923 2.7953 5.3830E-05 34.3346 27.4677
364604 2.8346 6.4700E-05 34.9910 27.9928
364942 2.8740 7.9198E-05 35.6608 28.5287
365304 2.9173 9.5650E-05 36.4134 29.1307
365707 2.9528 1.1466E-04 37.0419 29.6335
366027 2.9921 1.6656E-04 37.7541 30.2033
366311 3.0433 1.5732E-04 38.7023 30.9618
366462 3.0748 1.7612E-04 39.2988 31.4390
366670 3.1102 2.2149E-04 39.9820 31.9856
366495 3.1496 2.6467E-04 40.7567 32.6053
366944 3.1890
367070 3.2283
367129 3.2677
367217 3.3071

71
 Table A.5. Crack Growth Rate Data for Dented Specimen #2

Table A.5. Crack Growth Rate Data for Dented Specimen #2

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI
inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
33112 0.4094
59167 0.4488
84563 0.4882
98310 0.5276 2.07E-06 9.9383 7.9506
126325 0.5906 2.38E-06 10.3066 8.2453
140917 0.6299 2.69E-06 10.8493 8.6795
162647 0.6890 3.06E-06 11.3831 9.1065
182682 0.7480 3.24E-06 11.7352 9.3882
191669 0.7874 3.72E-06 12.0851 9.6681
199865 0.8268 4.06E-06 12.4335 9.9468
207977 0.8661 4.76E-06 12.7808 10.2247
214931 0.9055 5.67E-06 13.1276 10.5021
221659 0.9449 6.19E-06 13.4743 10.7794
228191 0.9843 6.59E-06 13.8213 11.0570
232982 1.0236 7.24E-06 14.1690 11.3352
238211 1.0630 7.77E-06 14.5179 11.6143
242555 1.1024 8.41E-06 14.8682 11.8945
247677 1.1417 8.66E-06 15.2202 12.1762
251482 1.1811 8.76E-06 15.5743 12.4595
255447 1.2205 9.13E-06 15.9309 12.7447
259099 1.2598 8.91E-06 16.6522 13.3218
269099 1.3386 9.05E-06 17.0176 13.6140
273433 1.3780 8.93E-06 17.7589 14.2072
281345 1.4567 8.91E-06 18.1355 14.5084
286736 1.4961 9.03E-06 18.5162 14.8130
291161 1.5354 9.35E-06 18.9014 15.1211
295550 1.5748 9.87E-06 19.2912 15.4330
299640 1.6142 1.01E-05 19.6860 15.7488
302683 1.6535 1.14E-05 20.0859 16.0687
306984 1.6929 1.27E-05 20.4912 16.3930
309329 1.7323 1.52E-05 20.7782 16.6226
311255 1.7598 1.71E-05 21.3188 17.0551
314479 1.8110 1.88E-05 21.7416 17.3933
315995 1.8504 2.2E-05 22.6061 18.0849
318903 1.9291 2.31E-05 23.3171 18.6537
321745 1.9921 2.51E-05 23.9541 19.1633
323581 2.0472 2.74E-05 24.4179 19.5344
324850 2.0866 2.8E-05 24.8895 19.9116
326336 2.1260 2.7E-05 25.3690 20.2952
327408 2.1654 2.89E-05 25.8566 20.6853
328833 2.2047 2.85E-05 26.3526 21.0821
330053 2.2441 2.95E-05 28.6959 22.9567
337128 2.4213 3.08E-05 29.6319 23.7055
338904 2.4882 3.21E-05 30.0826 24.0661
340137 2.5197 3.42E-05 30.6557 24.5245
340881 2.5591 3.68E-05 31.2396 24.9917
341651 2.5984 5.45E-05 31.8348 25.4678

72
 342114 2.6378 6.7E-05 32.4416 25.9532
342633 2.6772 8.73E-05 33.0602 26.4482
342885 2.7165 0.000103 33.6911 26.9529
343269 2.7559 0.000125 34.3346 27.4677
343486 2.7953 0.000145 34.9910 27.9928
343746 2.8346 0.000175 35.6608 28.5287
343937 2.8740 0.000192 36.3443 29.0755
344169 2.9134 0.000225 37.0419 29.6335
344284 2.9528 0.000252 37.7541 30.2033
344431 2.9921 0.000281 38.4812 30.7849
344528 3.0315 0.000323 39.2237 31.3789
344671 3.0709 0.00042 39.9820 31.9856
344736 3.1102 0.000453 40.7567 32.6053
344867 3.1496 0.000549 41.5482 33.2385
344913 3.1890 0.000684 43.1836 34.5469
345012 3.2677 0.000999 44.8926 35.9141
345154 3.3465
345220 3.4252
345276 3.5433
345329 3.7283

Table A.6. Crack Growth Rate Data for Dented Specimen #3

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
24846 0.4094
61767 0.4724
81918 0.5118
95300 0.5512 2.33E-06 9.5635 7.6508
116147 0.6063 2.64E-06 10.0863 8.0691
123554 0.6299 3.07E-06 10.3066 8.2453
133577 0.6693 3.49E-06 10.6696 8.5357
145242 0.7087 3.59E-06 11.0281 8.8225
153309 0.7480 4.11E-06 11.3831 9.1065
164503 0.7874 4.32E-06 11.7352 9.3882
172267 0.8268 4.59E-06 12.0851 9.6681
183027 0.8661 4.98E-06 12.4335 9.9468
191768 0.9173 5.26E-06 12.8849 10.3079
196527 0.9449 5.8E-06 13.1276 10.5021
202135 0.9843 6.23E-06 13.4743 10.7794
208550 1.0236 7.32E-06 13.8213 11.0570
213153 1.0630 7.78E-06 14.1690 11.3352
218847 1.1024 8.4E-06 14.5179 11.6143
222848 1.1417 8.87E-06 14.8682 11.8945
226074 1.1811 9.52E-06 15.2202 12.1762
230754 1.2205 9.36E-06 15.5743 12.4595
234006 1.2598 9.17E-06 15.9309 12.7447
237649 1.2992 8.95E-06 16.2901 13.0320
241647 1.3386 8.32E-06 16.6522 13.3218
246819 1.3780 8.43E-06 17.0176 13.6140

73
253203 1.4173 7.65E-06 17.3864 13.9091
258030 1.4567 7.62E-06 17.7589 14.2072
263923 1.4961 7.6E-06 18.1355 14.5084
268120 1.5354 7.96E-06 18.5162 14.8130
275169 1.5748 8.63E-06 18.9014 15.1211
278992 1.6142 9.26E-06 19.2912 15.4330
283113 1.6535 1.01E-05 19.6860 15.7488
286374 1.6929 1.08E-05 20.0859 16.0687
289696 1.7323 1.3E-05 20.4912 16.3930
292060 1.7717 1.43E-05 20.9021 16.7217
295225 1.8110 1.58E-05 21.3188 17.0551
297160 1.8504 1.76E-05 21.7416 17.3933
299465 1.8898 1.92E-05 22.1706 17.7365
301039 1.9291 2.08E-05 22.6061 18.0849
302998 1.9685 2.32E-05 23.0484 18.4387
304277 2.0079 2.45E-05 23.4976 18.7981
306093 2.0472 2.57E-05 23.9541 19.1633
307219 2.0866 2.59E-05 24.4179 19.5344
308807 2.1260 2.64E-05 24.8895 19.9116
310022 2.1654 2.53E-05 25.3690 20.2952
311701 2.2047 2.45E-05 25.8566 20.6853
313211 2.2441 2.38E-05 26.3526 21.0821
314937 2.2835 2.31E-05 26.8573 21.4859
316705 2.3228 2.35E-05 27.3710 21.8968
318945 2.3622 2.41E-05 27.8938 22.3150
320433 2.4016 2.56E-05 28.4261 22.7409
322454 2.4409 2.66E-05 28.9682 23.1745
323271 2.4764 2.92E-05 29.4646 23.5717
324752 2.5197 3.3E-05 30.0826 24.0661
325535 2.5591 3.71E-05 30.6557 24.5245
326798 2.5984 4.5E-05 31.2396 24.9917
327507 2.6378 4.92E-05 31.8348 25.4678
328495 2.6772 5.72E-05 32.4416 25.9532
328925 2.7165 6.34E-05 33.0602 26.4482
329446 2.7559 8.22E-05 33.6911 26.9529
329749 2.7953 9.24E-05 34.3346 27.4677
330254 2.8346 0.000111 34.9910 27.9928
330499 2.8740 0.00014 35.6608 28.5287
331106 2.9528 0.000163 37.0419 29.6335
331340 2.9921 0.000178 37.7541 30.2033
331498 3.0118 0.000226 38.1157 30.4926
331687 3.1024 0.000287 39.8291 31.8632
331866 3.1496 0.000427 40.7567 32.6053
331962 3.1890 0.000568 41.5482 33.2385
332168 3.2677 0.000879 43.1836 34.5469
332323 3.3976
332396 3.5039
332443 3.6181
332479 3.8740

74
 Table A.7. Crack Growth Rate Data for Reworked Specimen #1

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
16436 0.4331
30214 0.4724
52277 0.5512
62322 0.5906 4.12E-06 9.9383 7.9506
69661 0.6299 4.36E-06 10.3066 8.2453
78516 0.6693 4.8E-06 10.6696 8.5357
85156 0.7087 5.38E-06 11.0281 8.8225
91788 0.7480 5.55E-06 11.3831 9.1065
97727 0.7874 5.43E-06 11.7352 9.3882
103979 0.8268 5.18E-06 12.0851 9.6681
110844 0.8661 4.91E-06 12.4335 9.9468
119064 0.9055 4.79E-06 12.7808 10.2247
127684 0.9449 4.82E-06 13.1276 10.5021
139354 0.9843 4.8E-06 13.4743 10.7794
146898 1.0118 4.06E-06 13.7171 10.9737
157487 1.0630 4.17E-06 14.1690 11.3352
169535 1.1339 3.52E-06 14.7980 11.8384
180303 1.1929 3.69E-06 15.3262 12.2610
207856 1.2598 3.88E-06 15.9309 12.7447
213504 1.2992 3.91E-06 16.2901 13.0320
239510 1.3386 3.92E-06 16.6522 13.3218
255714 1.4134 4E-06 17.3493 13.8795
261522 1.4567 5.05E-06 17.7589 14.2072
268233 1.4961 5.24E-06 18.1355 14.5084
271906 1.5354 8.18E-06 18.5162 14.8130
275693 1.5748 1.09E-05 18.9014 15.1211
278056 1.6142 1.26E-05 19.2912 15.4330
281072 1.6535 1.5E-05 19.6860 15.7488
282818 1.6929 1.65E-05 20.0859 16.0687
285068 1.7323 1.74E-05 20.4912 16.3930
286597 1.7717 1.74E-05 20.9021 16.7217
289272 1.8110 1.65E-05 21.3188 17.0551
291008 1.8504 1.57E-05 21.7416 17.3933
293769 1.8898 1.48E-05 22.1706 17.7365
296120 1.9291 1.38E-05 22.6061 18.0849
300114 1.9685 1.25E-05 23.0484 18.4387
302850 2.0079 1.18E-05 23.4976 18.7981
306416 2.0472 1.1E-05 23.9541 19.1633
309438 2.0866 1.05E-05 24.4179 19.5344
314436 2.1260 1.07E-05 24.8895 19.9116
319341 2.1850 1.05E-05 25.6117 20.4894
322331 2.2047 1.04E-05 25.8566 20.6853
326027 2.2441 1.06E-05 26.3526 21.0821
329577 2.2835 1.13E-05 26.8573 21.4859
332963 2.3228 1.2E-05 27.3710 21.8968
336742 2.3622 1.36E-05 27.8938 22.3150
339280 2.4016 1.52E-05 28.4261 22.7409
342271 2.4409 1.71E-05 28.9682 23.1745

75
 343853 2.4803 1.96E-05 29.5202 23.6162
345461 2.5197 2.24E-05 30.0826 24.0661
346704 2.5591 2.63E-05 30.6557 24.5245
347962 2.5984 3E-05 31.2396 24.9917
348993 2.6378 3.36E-05 31.8348 25.4678
349918 2.6575 4.29E-05 32.1367 25.7094
350496 2.6969 4.75E-05 32.7494 26.1995
351445 2.7165 5.56E-05 33.0602 26.4482
352052 2.7559 6.39E-05 33.6911 26.9529
352438 2.8189 7.97E-05 34.7269 27.7815
353335 2.8740 8.46E-05 35.6608 28.5287
353627 2.9134 0.000109 36.3443 29.0755
353920 2.9528 0.000127 37.0419 29.6335
354117 2.9921 0.000132 37.7541 30.2033
354450 3.0315 0.000172 38.4812 30.7849
354703 3.0709 0.000188 39.2237 31.3789
355164 3.1496 0.000212 40.7567 32.6053
355545 3.2283 0.000232 42.3570 33.8856
355860 3.3071 0.000278 44.0286 35.2229
356145 3.3858 0.000349 45.7761 36.6209
356332 3.4646 0.000444 47.6042 38.0833
356493 3.5433
356571 3.6220
356620 3.7402
356670 3.8189

Table A.8. Crack Growth Rate Data for Reworked Specimen #2

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
22533 0.4094
41201 0.4488
56715 0.4882
77881 0.5276 2.49E-06 9.3350 7.4680
94726 0.5669 2.69E-06 9.7143 7.7714
104112 0.6063 3E-06 10.0863 8.0691
113865 0.6457 3.29E-06 10.4524 8.3619
126439 0.6850 3.9E-06 10.8135 8.6508
133786 0.7087 4.41E-06 11.0281 8.8225
140990 0.7480 4.71E-06 11.3831 9.1065
147631 0.7874 5E-06 11.7352 9.3882
154550 0.8268 5.75E-06 12.0851 9.6681
162546 0.8661 6.21E-06 12.4335 9.9468
167617 0.9055 6.45E-06 12.7808 10.2247
173733 0.9449 6.72E-06 13.1276 10.5021
178465 0.9843 7.24E-06 13.4743 10.7794
184496 1.0236 7E-06 13.8213 11.0570
189234 1.0591 7.17E-06 14.1342 11.3074
193887 1.0984 6.96E-06 14.4829 11.5863
197505 1.1378 6.65E-06 14.8330 11.8664

76
202460 1.1457 4.81E-06 14.9033 11.9226
206626 1.1850 4.22E-06 15.2555 12.2044
215575 1.2362 3.35E-06 15.7167 12.5733
219877 1.2598 2.85E-06 15.9309 12.7447
241736 1.2992 2.92E-06 16.2901 13.0320
255509 1.3386 2.79E-06 16.6522 13.3218
277348 1.3780 2.82E-06 17.0176 13.6140
302346 1.4370 2.8E-06 17.5722 14.0577
309148 1.4567 3.32E-06 17.7589 14.2072
318122 1.4961 3.7E-06 18.1355 14.5084
330212 1.5591 4.74E-06 18.7468 14.9974
332485 1.5748 6.63E-06 18.9014 15.1211
336483 1.6142 7.88E-06 19.2912 15.4330
340731 1.6535 9.51E-06 19.6860 15.7488
343864 1.6929 1.26E-05 20.0859 16.0687
346914 1.7323 1.37E-05 20.4912 16.3930
349142 1.7717 1.52E-05 20.9021 16.7217
351232 1.8110 1.73E-05 21.3188 17.0551
353265 1.8504 1.92E-05 21.7416 17.3933
355441 1.8898 2.17E-05 22.1706 17.7365
357199 1.9291 2.38E-05 22.6061 18.0849
358986 1.9685 2.51E-05 23.0484 18.4387
360232 2.0079 2.69E-05 23.4976 18.7981
361434 2.0472 2.82E-05 23.9541 19.1633
362401 2.0866 2.85E-05 24.4179 19.5344
363793 2.1260 2.85E-05 24.8895 19.9116
364985 2.1654 2.7E-05 25.3690 20.2952
366613 2.2047 2.41E-05 25.8566 20.6853
368266 2.2441 2.18E-05 26.3526 21.0821
370041 2.2835 2E-05 26.8573 21.4859
371914 2.3228 1.94E-05 27.3710 21.8968
374523 2.3622 1.99E-05 27.8938 22.3150
376857 2.4016 2.1E-05 28.4261 22.7409
379538 2.4409 2.25E-05 28.9682 23.1745
381190 2.4803 2.48E-05 29.5202 23.6162
382434 2.5197 2.93E-05 30.0826 24.0661
383295 2.5591 3.57E-05 30.6557 24.5245
384053 2.5984 4.79E-05 31.2396 24.9917
384635 2.6378 6E-05 31.8348 25.4678
385284 2.6772 7.32E-05 32.4416 25.9532
385687 2.7165 8.51E-05 33.0602 26.4482
386117 2.7559 9.78E-05 33.6911 26.9529
386435 2.7953 0.000111 34.3346 27.4677
386739 2.8346 0.00013 34.9910 27.9928
386995 2.8740 0.000146 35.6608 28.5287
387272 2.9134 0.000171 36.3443 29.0755
387471 2.9528 0.00019 37.0419 29.6335
387708 2.9921 0.000214 37.7541 30.2033
387844 3.0315 0.00024 38.4812 30.7849
387986 3.0748 0.000299 39.2988 31.4390
388097 3.1102 0.000357 39.9820 31.9856
388208 3.1496 0.000453 40.7567 32.6053
388310 3.1890 0.000593 41.5482 33.2385

77
 388458 3.2677 0.000789 43.1836 34.5469
388574 3.3465 0.00097 44.8926 35.9141
388665 3.4252 0.001351 46.6798 37.3438
388714 3.5472
388754 3.6811
388775 3.7677
388791 3.9370

Table A.9. Crack Growth Rate Data for Reworked Specimen #3

Cycles Crack Length da/dN KImax ∆KI

inch inch/cycle ksi√inch ksi√inch
0 0.3701
17299 0.3937
37562 0.4331
63494 0.4803
83622 0.5394 2.65E-06 9.4496 7.5597
100353 0.5906 3E-06 9.9383 7.9506
112146 0.6417 3.36E-06 10.4160 8.3328
120202 0.6693 3.5E-06 10.6696 8.5357
127842 0.7087 3.18E-06 11.0281 8.8225
135493 0.7480 3.06E-06 11.3831 9.1065
147631 0.8031 3.07E-06 11.8754 9.5003
162481 0.8268 3.32E-06 12.0851 9.6681
193793 0.8898 3.4E-06 12.6420 10.1136
217464 0.9488 3.49E-06 13.1623 10.5298
223607 0.9843 3.54E-06 13.4743 10.7794
235318 1.0512 3.87E-06 14.0646 11.2517
240030 1.0906 4.96E-06 14.4131 11.5305
244884 1.1299 5.04E-06 14.7629 11.8103
251087 1.1693 4.56E-06 15.1144 12.0915
261181 1.2087 4.22E-06 15.4679 12.3743
266026 1.2480 3.93E-06 15.8236 12.6589
284660 1.2874 3.94E-06 16.1820 12.9456
298797 1.3268 3.85E-06 16.5432 13.2346
310009 1.3661 4.16E-06 16.9076 13.5261
320101 1.4055 4.17E-06 17.2754 13.8203
324803 1.4449 5.19E-06 17.6468 14.1174
332887 1.4843 6.3E-06 18.0221 14.4177
336826 1.5236 7.52E-06 18.4015 14.7212
341573 1.5630 9.21E-06 18.7853 15.0283
345311 1.6024 9.65E-06 19.1738 15.3390
348756 1.6417 1.17E-05 19.5671 15.6536
351889 1.6811 1.23E-05 19.9654 15.9723
354295 1.7205 1.33E-05 20.3691 16.2952
357452 1.7598 1.41E-05 20.7782 16.6226
359836 1.7992 1.55E-05 21.1932 16.9545
362534 1.8386 1.61E-05 21.6141 17.2913
365575 1.8819 1.6E-05 22.0843 17.6674
368158 1.9252 1.51E-05 22.5623 18.0498
369107 1.9567 1.44E-05 22.9150 18.3320

78
371495 1.9961 1.31E-05 23.3621 18.6897
373988 2.0354 1.2E-05 23.8164 19.0531
378246 2.0748 1.11E-05 24.2780 19.4224
381671 2.1142 1.06E-05 24.7472 19.7978
386549 2.1535 1.05E-05 25.2243 20.1794
391541 2.1929 1.04E-05 25.7094 20.5675
395854 2.2323 1.09E-05 26.2029 20.9623
398769 2.2717 1.23E-05 26.7050 21.3640
401475 2.3110 1.41E-05 27.2159 21.7727
404171 2.3504 1.66E-05 27.7360 22.1888
407200 2.3898 1.9E-05 28.2654 22.6123
407200 2.4291 2.1E-05 28.8045 23.0436
408957 2.4685 2.35E-05 29.3535 23.4828
410528 2.5079 2.69E-05 29.9128 23.9302
412447 2.5472 3.33E-05 30.4826 24.3861
413756 2.5866 3.17E-05 31.0633 24.8506
414896 2.6260 3.63E-05 31.6550 25.3240
415898 2.6654 4.25E-05 32.2583 25.8066
416669 2.7047 5.45E-05 32.8733 26.2987
417138 2.7441 6.75E-05 33.5005 26.8004
417623 2.7835 8.33E-05 34.1402 27.3122
417939 2.8228 0.000105 34.7927 27.8342
418228 2.8622 0.000132 35.4585 28.3668
418421 2.9016 0.000162 36.1378 28.9102
418675 2.9409 0.000184 36.8311 29.4649
418896 2.9803 0.000224 37.5389 30.0311
419063 3.0197 0.000273 38.2614 30.6092
419319 3.0984 0.000314 39.7528 31.8023
419549 3.1378 0.000409 40.5225 32.4180
419713 3.2205 0.000531 42.1938 33.7550
419831 3.2992
419952 3.3819
420041 3.5000
420090 3.6142

79