Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics
Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics Residual Strength and Fatigue Lifetime of ... - Solid Mechanics
erroneous extrapolations in the transition from stable to unstable crack growth zone and the extreme non-linearity of this transition. With smaller control parameters smaller jumps occur and the cycle jump scheme is able to extrapolate accurately the stable-unstable crack transition zone. H100 specimens due to slightly different crack growth rate relations and stable crack growth, as also observed in the fatigue experiments, show much less dependency on the control parameters. Additionally, with the chosen initial crack length, the H100 specimens have already passed the highly non-linear region of transition from very slow crack growth rates to much larger growth rates. 200 200 q=qG=0.05 q=qG=0.15 q=qG=0.25 Crack length (mm) 150 100 50 0 q=qG=0.01 q=qG=0.05 q=qG=0.15 q=qG=0.25 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Cycles Cycles (a) (b) Figure 5.31: The effect of the control parameters on the simulation of (a) H45 and (b) H100 STT specimens. In order to model the initial highly non-linear crack growth zone for the H100 STT specimens, simulations were conducted on the specimens with H100 core and 5 mm smaller initial crack length (20 mm crack length) for a range of different control parameters, see Figure 5.32. Deviations similar to those of the STT specimens with H45 core are seen this time for the qG=q=0.05, 0.15 and 0.25 control parameters, illustrating one of the main limitations of the developed cycle jump scheme. In the case of highly non-linear behaviour of the structure, the control parameters should be chosen carefully to be able to simulate the non-linear zone accurately. This limitation makes the sensitivity and convergence analysis an essential part of incorporating the cycle jump method in the simulation of general fatigue crack growth in structural analysis. Simulation results using qG=q=0.05 control parameters are presented together with experimental results in Figure 5.33. The simulations of the specimens with H100 core show fair accuracy compared to the experimental results. However, large deviations are seen between the simulations and experimental results for the specimens with H45 core. The deviations start at the beginning of the unstable crack growth and remains constant throughout the stable crack growth zone. The reason for this deviation can be found in the interface fatigue characterisation. Since the interface fatigue characterisation was only made for the stable linear part of the crack growth rate diagram (the Paris regime), the resulting da/dN vs. G relation is 112 Crack length (mm) 150 100 50 0 1 mm 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
not valid for unstable crack growth and produces incorrect results. Utilising stable da/dN vs. G relations for unstable fatigue crack growth will result in smaller crack growth estimations, which is seen in Figure 5.33 (a). Crack length (mm) Figure 5.32: The effect of the control parameters on H100 specimens with an initial crack length of 20 mm. 250 200 150 100 50 0 Crack length (mm) 200 150 100 50 0 Cycles (a) 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Test #1 Test #2 Simulation 0 25000 50000 75000 100000 Cycles 113 q=qG=0.05 q=qG=0.15 q=qG=0.25 0 25000 50000 Cycles (b) 75000 100000 Figure 5.33: Crack length vs. cycles for the STT specimens with (a) H45 and (b) H100 core from experiments and simulations. The number of simulated cycles and the computational efficiency are listed in Table 5.3. Results show that up to 98% of the simulation time can be saved by use of the cycle jump method with reasonable accuracy, which proves a significant computational efficiency. It is seen that Crack length (mm) 200 150 100 50 0 Test #1 Test #2 Simulation
- Page 84 and 85: This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 86 and 87: composite laminates under thermal c
- Page 88 and 89: S S y( t ) y( t ) ( t ) 2 1 12 2
- Page 90 and 91: listed in Table 4.1. The length and
- Page 92 and 93: The strain energy release rate, G,
- Page 94 and 95: high growth rate of G (see Figure 4
- Page 96 and 97: 4.4 Face/Core Fatigue Crack Growth
- Page 98 and 99: Debond 310 mm Symmetry B. C. a Figu
- Page 100 and 101: B 2 1/ 2 ( S44 S55 S45) (4.17) wh
- Page 102 and 103: 75), which illustrates possible ina
- Page 104 and 105: Figure 4.18 (a) presents the deflec
- Page 106 and 107: Debond radius (mm) 100 90 80 70 60
- Page 108 and 109: using the cycle jump method, more t
- Page 110 and 111: Chapter 5 Face/Core Interface Fatig
- Page 112 and 113: of this chapter, sandwich panels wi
- Page 114 and 115: H250 Specimen H100 Specimen H45 Spe
- Page 116 and 117: Figure 5.5: Test setup. Initially,
- Page 118 and 119: H100 Specimen Fibre bridging Figure
- Page 120 and 121: propagation, the crack continues to
- Page 122 and 123: Figure 5.14: Kinking of the crack i
- Page 124 and 125: Crack length [mm] Crack length [mm]
- Page 126 and 127: mode-mixity phase angle was chosen
- Page 128 and 129: should be taken into account for a
- Page 130 and 131: Figure 5.25: Kinking of the crack i
- Page 132 and 133: log (da/dN) (mm/cycle) 10 log G (J/
- Page 136 and 137: compared to the 65% efficiency obta
- Page 138 and 139: the case of uneven debond growth, t
- Page 140 and 141: Load (kN) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Panel 1 Pan
- Page 142 and 143: Figure 5.42: Zero and ninety degree
- Page 144 and 145: G(J/m 2 ) 180 150 210 120 150 100 5
- Page 146 and 147: 110 q=qG=0.4 Test #1 100 Test #2 Te
- Page 148 and 149: panels were determined for differen
- Page 150 and 151: Chapter 6 Conclusion and Future Wor
- Page 152 and 153: toughness using MMB fracture toughn
- Page 154 and 155: For the specimens with H250 core th
- Page 156 and 157: Development of testing methods for
- Page 158 and 159: This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 160 and 161: Bezazi A., Mahi A. E., Berthelot J.
- Page 162 and 163: Kanny K. and Mahfuz H. (2005), Flex
- Page 164 and 165: Ratcliffe J. and Cantwell W. J. (20
- Page 166 and 167: This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 168 and 169: Out-of-plane displacement (mm) 1 0.
- Page 170 and 171: Out-of-plane displacement (mm) 3 2
- Page 172 and 173: A.5 Out-of-plane deflection of Debo
- Page 174 and 175: (a) Figure A.14: Out-of-plane defle
- Page 176 and 177: (a) (b) Figure A.18: Out-of-plane d
- Page 178 and 179: Load (kN) 250 200 150 100 50 250 30
- Page 180 and 181: Displacement (mm) 4 3 2 1 0 8 9 (a)
- Page 182 and 183: (a) (b) Figure B.11: Out-of-plane d
erroneous extrapolations in the transition from stable to unstable crack growth zone <strong>and</strong> the<br />
extreme non-linearity <strong>of</strong> this transition. With smaller control parameters smaller jumps occur <strong>and</strong><br />
the cycle jump scheme is able to extrapolate accurately the stable-unstable crack transition zone.<br />
H100 specimens due to slightly different crack growth rate relations <strong>and</strong> stable crack growth, as<br />
also observed in the fatigue experiments, show much less dependency on the control parameters.<br />
Additionally, with the chosen initial crack length, the H100 specimens have already passed the<br />
highly non-linear region <strong>of</strong> transition from very slow crack growth rates to much larger growth<br />
rates.<br />
200<br />
200 q=qG=0.05<br />
q=qG=0.15<br />
q=qG=0.25<br />
Crack length (mm)<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
q=qG=0.01<br />
q=qG=0.05<br />
q=qG=0.15<br />
q=qG=0.25<br />
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000<br />
Cycles<br />
Cycles<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Figure 5.31: The effect <strong>of</strong> the control parameters on the simulation <strong>of</strong> (a) H45 <strong>and</strong> (b) H100<br />
STT specimens.<br />
In order to model the initial highly non-linear crack growth zone for the H100 STT specimens,<br />
simulations were conducted on the specimens with H100 core <strong>and</strong> 5 mm smaller initial crack<br />
length (20 mm crack length) for a range <strong>of</strong> different control parameters, see Figure 5.32.<br />
Deviations similar to those <strong>of</strong> the STT specimens with H45 core are seen this time for the<br />
qG=q=0.05, 0.15 <strong>and</strong> 0.25 control parameters, illustrating one <strong>of</strong> the main limitations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
developed cycle jump scheme. In the case <strong>of</strong> highly non-linear behaviour <strong>of</strong> the structure, the<br />
control parameters should be chosen carefully to be able to simulate the non-linear zone<br />
accurately. This limitation makes the sensitivity <strong>and</strong> convergence analysis an essential part <strong>of</strong><br />
incorporating the cycle jump method in the simulation <strong>of</strong> general fatigue crack growth in<br />
structural analysis. Simulation results using qG=q=0.05 control parameters are presented<br />
together with experimental results in Figure 5.33. The simulations <strong>of</strong> the specimens with H100<br />
core show fair accuracy compared to the experimental results. However, large deviations are<br />
seen between the simulations <strong>and</strong> experimental results for the specimens with H45 core. The<br />
deviations start at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the unstable crack growth <strong>and</strong> remains constant throughout<br />
the stable crack growth zone. The reason for this deviation can be found in the interface fatigue<br />
characterisation. Since the interface fatigue characterisation was only made for the stable linear<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the crack growth rate diagram (the Paris regime), the resulting da/dN vs. G relation is<br />
112<br />
Crack length (mm)<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
1 mm<br />
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000