1 / 24

Phillip Allen & Doug Wells NASA MSFC Damage Tolerance Team – EM20

Workshop on Life Prediction Methodology and Validation for Surface Cracks Investigations into Deformation Limits for SSY and LSY for Surface Cracks in Tension 5/23/2007. Phillip Allen & Doug Wells NASA MSFC Damage Tolerance Team – EM20. K, T. a. r a. r b. R>>r p.

holden
Télécharger la présentation

Phillip Allen & Doug Wells NASA MSFC Damage Tolerance Team – EM20

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Workshop on Life Prediction Methodology and Validation for Surface CracksInvestigations into DeformationLimits for SSY and LSY forSurface Cracks in Tension5/23/2007 Phillip Allen & Doug Wells NASA MSFC Damage Tolerance Team – EM20

  2. K, T a ra rb R>>rp How do we determine the proper deformation limits for surface cracks?.... Our Proposed Method to Understand or Bound the Problem: Step 1: Revisit the 2-D Length Scale Problem • Try to understand the current solutions to the 2-D problem • Compare with current length scale requirements in ASTM E 399 and E 1820 Effect of constraint on crack tip plastic zone size and orientation small strain analysis 2-D Plane Strain Boundary Layer Solution (Gives “exact” solution for crack tip stress field in infinite body)

  3. Length Scale Requirements in Current ASTM E08 Standards E399 – C(T) • For valid KIC,and • Implicit requirement on B E1820 – C(T), SEN(B) a = crack length B = thickness W = width b0 = W-a • For valid KIC,and • For valid JC,(crack instability without stable tearing) • For valid JIC, (crack instability proceeded by stable tearing) • For J determination (ensures positive constraint)

  4. Stresses gradually decrease below SSY values as plasticity becomes uncontained K, T rfb rfa R>>rp rfa rfb Step 2: Evaluate Finite Boundary 3-D Surface Crack Problem • Can the 3-D surface crack front at some distance from the free surface in a finite body be approximated by a plane strain boundary layer solution? • What is the influence of the stress tangential to the crack front, st? (Analogous to thickness requirements in E399 and E1820) • What influence does the free surface behind the crack tip have for the shallow crack problem?

  5. A SSY, K or J dominance, 1 parameter Loading trajectories E A D C B B LSY, J dominance, 1 parameter C SSY, K or J with constraint, 2 parameters D LSY, J with constraint, 2 parameters E Constraint Influenced Collapse, Alternative methods At initiation of ductile tearing in a test sample or structure, the crack tip conditions will fall into one of the 5 regions A-E in the constraint/deformation diagram below. Evaluate the constraint (j) and the deformation limits (C) at the onset of ductile tearing to determine the applicable region for assessment of crack tip conditions. 1/C = J/(lsys) Large Scale Yielding Small Scale Yielding Collapse 1/CJ(E/sys) J J-j 1/CK(E/sys) Increasing Deformation K or J K-j or J-j K or J dominance not achieved due to lack of constraint, 2 parameters required to describe fields jo j K or J dominance, only 1 parameter required • = Constraint measure jo = Constraint condition equivalent to T = Q = 0 Example: E399 KIc test Example: E1820 JIc test Examples: E740 KIe tests

  6. rfb m Point (xe,B) Point (xf, yf) B a rfa f Point (xint,0) 2c Deformation Limit Study for E740 • Determine reasonable deformation limits to compare to rfa and rfb to characterize test result • Proposed deformation limits based on SSY Valid, Check at initiation of tearing LSY Valid , If prior to initiation of tearing then classify as plastic collapse

  7. K, T R>>rp Modified Boundary Layer FEMs • Plane strain boundary conditions • 20 node bricks • WARP3D analysis • Linear Plus Power Law Mat’l Model • Apply displacement field as function of K, T • Vary T/sys, In this work s0 = sys E/sys = 400, n = 10 T/sys = 0.9 T/sys = 0.0 T/sys = -0.9 E/sys = 400, n = 10 = r*

  8. C(T) a/w = 0.5; E/sys = 400; n = 10 • Plane strain boundary conditions • 20 node bricks • WARP3D analysis • Linear Plus Power Law Mat’l Model for for

  9. C(T) a/w = 0.5, E/sys = 400, n = 10 Reference Solution Comparison by T-Stress r* = 2 5% deviation curve (typ) r* = 4 r* = 6 r* = 8 CJ = 31 @ r* = 2 “a” in deformation scale can be rfa or rfb. The minimum dimension is the limiting case. rfa = rfb for this geometry. Assume 5% deviation from MBL sopen as limit of LSY validity

  10. C(T) a/w = 0.5, E/sys = 400, n = 10 Reference Solution Comparison by Q CJ = 49 @ r* = 4

  11. C(T) a/w = 0.5, E/sys = 400, n = 10 Jtotal vs. Jelastic Comparison Ck = 110 Assume 10% deviation from elastic K prediction as limit of SSY validity

  12. C(T) a/w = 0.5, E/sys = 400, n = 10 Reference Solution Comparison by T-Stress – Another look at Deform. Limits LSY SSY Plastic Collapse Traditional definition of SSY, at T = 0, r* = 2 Plastic Collapse SSY, K, Jel LSY, J E399, KIC, CJ = 31 CK-E399 = 1100 CK = 110 Note: this value is a function of E/sys

  13. rfb m Point (xe,B) Point (xf, yf) B a rfa f Point (xint,0) 2c SC(T) FEMs • 20 node bricks • WARP3D analysis • Linear Plus Power Law Mat’l Model a/B = 0.50, a/c = 1.0

  14. SC(T) Test conducted at NASA MSFC 2219-T87, E/sys = 190, n = 10 • Sample description: • W = 3.00 in. • B = 0.375 in. • 2c = 0.494 in. • a = 0.229 in. • a/c = 0.92 • a/B = 0.61 • Test conditions, results: • 70F • Monotonic load to crack initiation • Initiation force = 54.95 kip Tearing present 180 deg General tear length = 0.006 in. Maximum tear length = 0.013 in.

  15. f = 18 degrees or 2 f / p = 0.2 SC(T) Test conducted at NASA MSFC Location of Tearing Initiation

  16. SC(T) a/B = 0.61, a/c = 0.92, 2219-T87, E/sys = 190, n = 10 Reference Solution Comparison by T-Stress 2f/p = 0.19 Initiation of ductile tearing in SC(T) test CJ≈ 50

  17. SC(T) a/B = 0.61, a/c = 0.92, 2219-T87, E/sys = 190, n = 10 Reference Solution Comparison by Q 2f/p = 0.19 Initiation of ductile tearing in SC(T) test CJ≈ 50

  18. SC(T) a/B = 0.61, a/c = 0.92, 2219-T87, E/sys = 190, n = 10 Jtotal vs. Jelastic Comparison 2f/p = 0.19 Initiation of ductile tearing in SC(T) test Ck = 110

  19. SSY Deformation Limit Determination

  20. LSY Deformation Limit Determination E 1820 JC E 1820 JIC

  21. Deformation Limit Study for E740 • Determine reasonable deformation limits to compare to rfa and rfb to characterize test result • Proposed deformation limits based on SSY Valid, LSY Valid , If prior to initiation of tearing then classify as plastic collapse

  22. SC(T) Test Evaluation per E740 Plots on pp 16-18 also indicate that SSY should be valid for initiation of ductile tearing. Likely need to increase value for CK, to ensure that Jf/JK < 1.2, especially for materials with low E/sys.

  23. Deformation Limit Comparison Increasing Load May need to modify CK limit for materials with low E/sys.

  24. Deformation Limit Study for E740 - Questions • What are reasonable deformation limits to compare to specimen dimensions to characterize test results? • Can we use deviation from Jel solution to determine limits for SSY (K or Jel valid solution)? • Is a 5% deviation from J-T MBL solution a valid cut off point for LSY validity? Is this just “in the noise” in test data? • Should our deformation limits be a function of E/sys, n, or other? Which material variables have the strongest influence on deformation limits? • Should we use different deformation limits to compare to crack size (rfa) and ligament length (rfb)? • How do r* distances compare to process zone sizes for ductile tearing? Is r* = 2 the right place to focus or other?

More Related