Simulation of 3D Crack Growth

Thin Shells
3D Solids

NONLINEARITIES:Predicted Curvilinear Fatigue Crack Growth

Early Damage Tolerance Testing

on B-707 Fuselage

Single Bay Flaps

Life Prediction in Transmission Gears

Project: NASA Lewis NAG3-1993

U.S. Army OH-51 Kiowa

Fatigue Cracks in Spiral Bevel

Power Transmission Gear

Allison 250-C30R Engine

Geometry Update for Crack Growth

1) based on the stress intensity factors

and a growth model, new crack front
points are determined

2) a best-fit polynomial space curve is

fit through the new crack front points

3) edges and faces are added to connect the old

crack front to the new front

Geometry Update for Crack Growth:

some difficult cases

crossing patch boundaries

reentrant corners along

the crack mouth
new crack
front points
fitted curve

predicted fronts old

crack
front
that do not intersect
surfaces

intersection
point

circular
cutting
plane

reentrant corners along

the crack front

Geometry for the Demonstration Analysis

3"

p 11.54 kips, R = 0.214

projection onto Section A - A
1.5"

Crack
Tip 1
A

2.412"

.508"
Crack
Tip 2

2"
side view

a3

a1

12"
0.25R" EDM
flaw

view 2

a2
initial notch

view 1

45 angle

bottom view

crack

Solid Geometry Models

OSM Geometry
Model

Inserted Initial
Flaw

Initial Boundary Element Mesh

Flaw Mouth

Initial Flaw

Full Beam

Predicted and Observed Crack Fronts

Final Fatigue Crack Front

Predicted Transition into Corner a

Predicted Transition into Corner b

a
b

b
Observed Fatigue Crack Shape

Final Predicted Crack Shape

Deformed
Solid

Comparison of
computed and
observed crack trace
on the surface

Experiment
FRANC3D

initial
crack
side

bottom face

side

A Computed SIF History and Comparisons

to Observations

a2

a1
Event

Observed

FRANC3D

a-Corner (cycles)
b-Cor ner (cycles)
Last Fr ont (cycles)
a1 (in.)
a2 (in.)

106, 800
171, 000
175, 000
1. 26
1. 38

140,000
170,000
190,000
1.42
1.34

%
Difference
32
-0.5
8.5
12.7
-2.8

50

Countersunk Rivet-hole
Comparison of boundary element
computed and experimentally
observed results.

r
h = 0.005"
0.045"

nh

Assumed circular crack front

4

3.5

Experimental
G
J G
G
BES, applied stress
JG
G
GGJ
BES, applied displacements
GGGGGG
J
GGG J
GGGGGG J
JH
J
GGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG H

3
2.5
F

2
1.5

K = S a F

Crack location

0.09"

a = a / cos(20)

0.5

0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
a/r

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Thermal fatigue
in a housing

A Cylindrical Shell with an Arbitrarily Oriented, ThroughCrack Subjected to Internal Pressure:

Comparison of BEM and FEM Solutions

2a

P=1
R = 10
t=1
a=2
= 20 degrees
= 0.3

Boundary Element and Finite Element Models of a

Cracked Tube

BEM

FEM

8,696 3-noded triangular elements:

17,061 10-noded tetrahedral elements:
24 SP processors, 7 hours wall clock time 1 SP processor, 2.5 hours wall clock time

Mode-I
StressIntensit
Intensity
Factor
Mode
I Stress
y Factor

Mode-I Stress Intensity Factors

40
35

BEM

2D Analytical solution

30
25

FEM

20
15
10
5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Normalized Distance Along Crack Front