Advertisement

An Evaluation of the Pressure Proof Test Concept for 2024-T3 Aluminium Alloy Sheet

  • D. S. Dawicke
  • C. C. PoeJr.
  • J. C. NewmanJr.
  • C. E. Harris
Part of the Springer Series in Computational Mechanics book series (SSCMECH)

Abstract

The concept of pressure proof testing of fuselage structures with fatigue cracks to insure structural integrity was evaluated from a fracture mechanics viewpoint. A generic analytical and experimental investigation was conducted on uniaxially loaded flat panels with crack configurations and stress levels typical of longitudinal lap splice joints in commercial transport aircraft fuselages. The results revealed that the remaining fatigue life after a proof cycle was longer than that without the proof cycle because of crack growth retardation due to increased crack closure. However, based on a crack length that is slightly less than the critical value at the maximum proof stress, the minimum assured life or proof test interval must be no more than 550 pressure cycles for a 1.33 proof factor and 1530 pressure cycles for a 1.5 proof factor to prevent in-flight failures.

Keywords

Fatigue Crack Fatigue Life Crack Length Crack Growth Rate Crack Growth Retardation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Dawicke, D.S.; Poe, C.C, Jr.; Newman, J.C., Jr. and Harris, C.E., NASA TM 101675, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Newman, J.C., Jr., ASTM STP 748, 1981, pp. 53–81.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Elber, W., Engng Fracture Mech. J., Vol. 2, No. 1, 1970, pp. 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Elber, W., ASTM STP 486, 1971, pp. 230–242.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Dugdale, D.S., J. of the Mech. and Phys. of Solids, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1960, pp. 100–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Newman, J.C., Jr., AGARD CP-328, 1982, pp. 6.1–6.26.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Smith, E., First Int. Conf. on Fracture, 1965, pp. 139-151.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Newman, J.C., Jr., ASTM STP 896, 1985, pp. 139–166.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Newman, J.C., Jr.; Poe, C.C, Jr. and Dawicke, D.S., Submitted for Publication at the Fourth Int. Conf. on Fatigue, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Newman, J.C., Jr., NASA TN D-8244, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Phillips, E.P., ASTM STP 982, 1988, pp. 505-515.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hudson, C.M., NASA TN D-5390, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Dubensky, R.G., NASA CR-1732, 1971.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Roberts, R. and Erdogan, F., J. of Basic Engng., 1967, pp. 885-892.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Newman, J.C, Jr., ASTM STP 605, 1976, pp. 104–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. S. Dawicke
    • 1
  • C. C. PoeJr.
    • 2
  • J. C. NewmanJr.
    • 2
  • C. E. Harris
    • 2
  1. 1.Analytical Services and Materials, Inc.HamptonUSA
  2. 2.NASA Langley Research CenterHamptonUSA

Personalised recommendations