Skip to main content

Tools for Assessing the Damage Tolerance of Primary Structural Components

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Virtual Testing and Predictive Modeling

Abstract

Fatigue considerations play a major role in the design of optimised flight vehicles, and the ability to accurately design against the possibility of fatigue failure is paramount. However, recent studies have shown that, in the Paris Region, cracking in high-strength aerospace quality steels and Mil Annealed Ti–6AL–4 V titanium is essentially R ratio independent. As a result, the crack closure and Willenborg algorithm’s available within commercial crack growth codes are inappropriate for predicting/assessing cracking under operational loading in these materials. To help overcome this shortcoming, this chapter presents an alternative engineering approach that can be used to predict the growth of small near-micron-size defects under representative operational load spectra and reveal how it is linked to a prior law developed by the Boeing Commercial Aircraft Company. A simple method for estimating the S–N response of 7050-T7451 aluminium is then presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. M. Skorupa, “Load Interaction Effects During Fatigue Crack Growth Under Variable Amplitude Loading—A Literature Review. Part II: Qualitative Interpretation,” Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct., Vol. 22, 1999, pp. 905–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. B. Dixon, L. Molent, and S.A. Barter, “The FINAL program of enhanced teardown for agile aircraft structures,” Proceedings of 8th NASA/FAA/DOD Conference on Aging Aircraft, Palm Springs, 31 Jan–3 Feb, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Molent, R. Singh, and J. Woolsey, “A method for evaluation of in-service fatigue cracks,” Eng. Fail. Anal., Vol. 12, 2005, pp. 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. R. Jones, L. Molent, and S. Pitt, “Crack growth from small flaws,” Int. J. Fatigue, Vol. 29, 2007, pp. 658–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. S.C. Forth, M.A. James, W.M. Johnston, and J.C. Newman, Jr., “Anomolous Fatigue Crack Growth Phenomena in High-strength Steel,” Proceedings Int. Congress on Fracture, Italy, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M.N. James and J.F. Knott, “An Assessment of Crack Closure and the Extent of the Short Crack Regime in QlN (HY80) Steel,” Fatigue Frac. Eng. Mater. Struc., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1985, pp. 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Jones, B. Farahmand, and C. Rodopoulos, “Fatigue crack growth discrepencies with stress ratio,” Theor. Appl. Frac. Mech., doi: 10.1016/tafmec.2009.01.004.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Jones, S. Pitt, and D. Peng, “The Generalised Frost–Dugdale Approach to Modeling Fatigue Crack Growth,” Eng Fail Anal, 15, 2008, pp. 1130–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. R. Jones, B. Chen, and S. Pitt, “Similitude: Cracking in Steels,” Theor. Appl. Frac. Mech., Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 161–168.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D.L. Davidson, “How Fatigue Cracks Grow, Interact with Microstructure, and Lose Similitude,” Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 27th Volume, ASTM STP 1296, R.S. Piascik, J.C. Newman, and N.E. Dowling, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, pp. 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  11. R. Jones, L. Molent, and K. Krishnapillai, “An Equivalent Block Method for Computing Fatigue Crack Growth,” Int. J. Fatigue, Vol. 30, 2008, pp. 1529–1542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P. White, S.A. Barter, and L. Molent, “Observations of Crack Path Changes Under Simple Variable Amplitude Loading in AA7050-T7451,” Int. J. Fatigue, Vol. 30, 2008, pp. 1267–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Schijve, “Fatigue Crack Growth Under Variable-Amplitude Loading,” Eng. Frac. Mech., Vol. 11, 1979, pp. 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J.P. Gallagher and H.D. Stalnaker, “Developing Normalised Crack Growth Curves for Tracking Damage in Aircraft, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,” J. Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 114–120.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P.C. Miedlar, A.P. Berens, A. Gunderson, and J.P. Gallagher, “Analysis and Support Initiative for Structural Technology (ASIST),” AFRL-VA-WP-TR-2003-3002, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J.M. Barsom and S.T. Rolfe, “Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures: Applications of Fracture Mechanics,” Butterworth-Heinemann Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Miller, V.K. Luthra, and U.G. Goranson, “Fatigue Crack Growth Characterization of Jet Transport Structures,” Proc. of 14th Symposium of the International Conference on Aeronautical Fatigue (ICAF), Ottawa, Canada, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. Jones, and S. Pitt, “Crack Patching: Revisited,” Comp. Struct., Vol. 32, 2006, pp. 218–223.

    Google Scholar 

  19. B.J. Murtagh and K.F. Walker, “Comparison of Analytical Crack Growth Modelling and the A-4 Wing Test Experimental Results for a Fatigue Crack in an F-111 Wing Pivot Fitting Fuel Flow Hole Number 58”, DSTO-TN-0108, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Jones and S.C. Forth, “Cracking In D6ac Steel,” Submitted J. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech., 2008 (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  21. E.K. Walker, “The Effect of Stress Ratio During Crack Propagation and Fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7076-T6 Aluminium.” In: Effect of Environment and Complex Load History on Fatigue Life, ASTM STP 462, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1970, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Jones, C. Wallbrink, S. Pitt, and L. Molent, “A Multi-Scale Approach to Crack Growth,” Proceedings Mesomechanics 2006: Multiscale Behavior of Materials and Structures: Analytical, Numerical and Experimental Simulation, Porto, Portugal, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. C.M. Hudson, “Fatigue-Crack Propagation in Several Titanium and One Superalloy Stainless-Steel Alloys, NASA TN D-2331, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  24. T.R. Porter, “Method of Analysis and Prediction for Variable Amplitude Fatigue Crack Growth,” Eng. Fract. Mech., Vol. 4, 1972, pp. 717–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. W. Zhuang, S. Barter, L. Molent, “Flight-By-Flight Fatigue Crack Growth Life Assessment,” Int J Fatigue, Vol. 29, 2007, pp. 1647–165.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. P.D. Bell and M. Creager, “Crack Growth Analysis For Arbitrary Spectrum Loading,” Volume I – Results and Discussion, Final Report: June 1972 – October 1974, Technical Report AFFDL-TR-74-129, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Jones, S. Pitt, and D. Peng, “An Equivalent Block Approach to Crack Growth,” In: Multiscale Fatigue Crack Initiation and Propagation of Engineering Materials: Structural Integrity and Microstructural Worthiness, G.C. Sih, Ed., ISBN 978-1-4020-8519, Springer Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  28. L. Molent, S. Barter, and R. Jones, “Some Practical Implications of Exponential Crack Growth,” In: Multiscale Fatigue Crack Initiation and Propagation of Engineering Materials: Structural Integrity and Microstructural Worthiness, G.C. Sih, Ed., ISBN 978-1-4020-8519, Springer Press, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. H.W. Liu, Crack Propagation in Thin Metal Sheet Under Repeated Loading, Wright Air Development Center, WADC TN, 1959, pp. 59–383.

    Google Scholar 

  30. U.H. Tiong and R. Jones, “Damage Tolerance Analysis of a Helicopter Component,” Int. J. Fatigue, 2008 doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2008.05.012

    Google Scholar 

  31. J.C. Newman, Jr., FASTRAN-II- A fatigue Crack Growth Structural Analysis Program, NASA Technical Memorandum 104159, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. L. Molent, Q. Sun and A.J. Green, “Characterisation of equivalent initial flaw sizes in 7050 aluminium alloy,” Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater Struct., Vol. 29, 2006, pp. 916–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was performed under the auspices of the DSTO Centre of Expertise in Structural Mechanics which is supported by the RAAF Directorate General Technical Airworthiness Air Structural Integrity Section. We specifically acknowledge the support given by Lorrie Molent, Functional Head Combat Aircraft (Structural Integrity), Dr Weiping Hu, Science Team Leader: Structural Lifing Methods and Tools, Dr. Scott Forth at the NASA Johnson Space Center, Prof. Chris Rodopoulos at the University of Patras, Greece, and the Materials and Engineering Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, England, and Dr. Bob Farahmand at TASS (Los Angeles).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Jones .

Editor information

Bahram Farahmand

Appendix: Formulae for Computing the Crack Opening Stress

Appendix: Formulae for Computing the Crack Opening Stress

Newman [31] defined an opening load, which he denoted as S0, as:

$${{S }}_0{{/S}}_{{max}}={\textrm{A}}_0 + {\textrm{A}}_1{{R}} + {\textrm{A}}_2{{R}}^2 + {\textrm{A}}_{\textrm{3}} {{R}}^{\textrm{3}}\ {\textrm{for}}\ {R}\ \geq 0$$
((2.14))

and

$${{S}}_0 {{/S}}_{{max}}={\textrm{A}}_0+{\textrm{A}}_1=\ {{R}}\ {\textrm{for}}\ {R}< 0 $$
((2.15))

for \(S_{\max}< 0.8\sigma_{0},S_{\min}>-\sigma_{0}\), where Smax and Smin are the maximum minimum stress in the cycle and σ 0 is the yield stress. If \(S_{0}/S_{\max}\) is less than R then \(S_0 = {\textrm{S}}_{\min}\), whilst if \(S_0/S_{\max}\) is negative then \(S_0/S_{\max} = 0.0\).

The A coefficients in Equations (2.14) and (2.15) are functions of α, the constraint factor, and \(S_{\max}/\sigma_0\) and are given in [31] as:

$${\textrm{A}}_{\textrm{o}}=(0.825-0.34\alpha+0.05\alpha^{2})[{\textrm{COS}}(\pi{\textrm{S}}_{\max}{\textrm{F}}/2\sigma_{0}]^{1/\alpha}\\$$
$${\textrm{A}}_{1}=(0.415-0.071\alpha){\textrm{S}_{\max}}{\textrm{F}/\sigma_0}\\$$
$${\textrm{A}}_{2}={1-}{\textrm{A}}_0-{\textrm{A}}_{1}{-A3}$$
$${\textrm{A}}_3=2{\textrm{A}}_0+A_{1}-1$$
((2.16))

for α = 1 to 3.

The boundary correction factor, F, accounts for the influence of finite width on the stresses required to propagate the crack. For 3D small 3D surface cracks we can approximate F as F ∼ 2 × 1.12/π.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jones, R., Peng, D. (2009). Tools for Assessing the Damage Tolerance of Primary Structural Components. In: Farahmand, B. (eds) Virtual Testing and Predictive Modeling. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-95924-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-95924-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-95923-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-95924-5

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics