Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses

The residual strength of a flat panel (thickness 7.6 mm) with five stringers, machined from a monolithic block of Al2024-T351 material, which contained a crack that divided the central stringer, was to be predicted during a Round Robin organised by ASTM. The initial crack tips were right ahead of th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Engineering fracture mechanics 2009, Vol.76 (1), p.149-163
Hauptverfasser: Scheider, Ingo, Brocks, Wolfgang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 163
container_issue 1
container_start_page 149
container_title Engineering fracture mechanics
container_volume 76
creator Scheider, Ingo
Brocks, Wolfgang
description The residual strength of a flat panel (thickness 7.6 mm) with five stringers, machined from a monolithic block of Al2024-T351 material, which contained a crack that divided the central stringer, was to be predicted during a Round Robin organised by ASTM. The initial crack tips were right ahead of the stringers #2 and #4, respectively, so that crack branching along the skin and into the stringers occurred after initiation. The prediction has been achieved using finite element simulations including crack extension, for which a cohesive model was utilised. Conventional material properties, yield and ultimate strength as well as experimental results from M(T) specimens in terms of force, COD and Δ a, were given. The residual strength prediction was performed in two-steps: First the crack extension parameters for the cohesive model, the cohesive strength, T 0, and the cohesive energy, Γ 0, were determined by numerical reproduction of the results of the M(T) specimen. With the optimised parameters, the five-stringer panel was modelled. These steps were conducted by two different finite element models: by a shell and a 3D finite element mesh. It turned out that it is possible to analyse the structure with both models. In the 3D case, the residual strength prediction was conservative and the deviation of the predicted from the experimental value was below 9%. The results of the shell simulation were even closer to the experiment (deviation approximately 3%), but the simulation was non-conservative.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.035
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_35612316</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0013794408001896</els_id><sourcerecordid>35612316</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-f0ab2a40cf9fcff83e283c11fbfa6ad491dfe5328ac692642837cdd832f674243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-h3rQ29ZJ0k3boyx-gSAseg5xOtGs3XbNtKL_3iwr4tHTBObJ-zKPEKcScgnSXKxy6l58dLgmfM0VQJWDyUHP98REVqWelVrO98UEQKZ3XRSH4oh5BQClqWAilkvi0IyuzXiIKWp4zTaRmoBD6Lus95nLsF9vWvrcAiMOY6Rs5NC9ZJha3zL6HKjjLew6134x8bE48K5lOvmZU_F0ffW4uJ3dP9zcLS7vZ1hoPcw8uGflCkBfe_S-0qQqjVL6Z--Ma4paNp7mWlUOTa1MkbYlNk2llTdloQo9Fee73E3s30fiwa4DI7Wt66gf2eq5kUpLk8B6B2LsmSN5u4lh7eKXlWC3Fu3K_rFotxYtGJsspr9nPyWO0bWJ6TDwb4CSUNUqeZ6KxY6jdPFHoGgZA3WYVEbCwTZ9-EfbN3jFkCw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>35612316</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Scheider, Ingo ; Brocks, Wolfgang</creator><creatorcontrib>Scheider, Ingo ; Brocks, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><description>The residual strength of a flat panel (thickness 7.6 mm) with five stringers, machined from a monolithic block of Al2024-T351 material, which contained a crack that divided the central stringer, was to be predicted during a Round Robin organised by ASTM. The initial crack tips were right ahead of the stringers #2 and #4, respectively, so that crack branching along the skin and into the stringers occurred after initiation. The prediction has been achieved using finite element simulations including crack extension, for which a cohesive model was utilised. Conventional material properties, yield and ultimate strength as well as experimental results from M(T) specimens in terms of force, COD and Δ a, were given. The residual strength prediction was performed in two-steps: First the crack extension parameters for the cohesive model, the cohesive strength, T 0, and the cohesive energy, Γ 0, were determined by numerical reproduction of the results of the M(T) specimen. With the optimised parameters, the five-stringer panel was modelled. These steps were conducted by two different finite element models: by a shell and a 3D finite element mesh. It turned out that it is possible to analyse the structure with both models. In the 3D case, the residual strength prediction was conservative and the deviation of the predicted from the experimental value was below 9%. The results of the shell simulation were even closer to the experiment (deviation approximately 3%), but the simulation was non-conservative.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-7944</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.035</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EFMEAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aluminium ; Cohesive model ; Ductile crack extension ; Exact sciences and technology ; Experimental validation ; Fracture mechanics (crack, fatigue, damage...) ; Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications) ; Inelasticity (thermoplasticity, viscoplasticity...) ; Physics ; Residual strength ; Solid mechanics ; Static elasticity (thermoelasticity...) ; Stiffened panel ; Structural and continuum mechanics ; Thin-walled structure</subject><ispartof>Engineering fracture mechanics, 2009, Vol.76 (1), p.149-163</ispartof><rights>2008 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-f0ab2a40cf9fcff83e283c11fbfa6ad491dfe5328ac692642837cdd832f674243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-f0ab2a40cf9fcff83e283c11fbfa6ad491dfe5328ac692642837cdd832f674243</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013794408001896$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,776,780,785,786,3537,4010,4036,4037,23909,23910,25118,27900,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21089287$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Scheider, Ingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brocks, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><title>Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses</title><title>Engineering fracture mechanics</title><description>The residual strength of a flat panel (thickness 7.6 mm) with five stringers, machined from a monolithic block of Al2024-T351 material, which contained a crack that divided the central stringer, was to be predicted during a Round Robin organised by ASTM. The initial crack tips were right ahead of the stringers #2 and #4, respectively, so that crack branching along the skin and into the stringers occurred after initiation. The prediction has been achieved using finite element simulations including crack extension, for which a cohesive model was utilised. Conventional material properties, yield and ultimate strength as well as experimental results from M(T) specimens in terms of force, COD and Δ a, were given. The residual strength prediction was performed in two-steps: First the crack extension parameters for the cohesive model, the cohesive strength, T 0, and the cohesive energy, Γ 0, were determined by numerical reproduction of the results of the M(T) specimen. With the optimised parameters, the five-stringer panel was modelled. These steps were conducted by two different finite element models: by a shell and a 3D finite element mesh. It turned out that it is possible to analyse the structure with both models. In the 3D case, the residual strength prediction was conservative and the deviation of the predicted from the experimental value was below 9%. The results of the shell simulation were even closer to the experiment (deviation approximately 3%), but the simulation was non-conservative.</description><subject>Aluminium</subject><subject>Cohesive model</subject><subject>Ductile crack extension</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Experimental validation</subject><subject>Fracture mechanics (crack, fatigue, damage...)</subject><subject>Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)</subject><subject>Inelasticity (thermoplasticity, viscoplasticity...)</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Residual strength</subject><subject>Solid mechanics</subject><subject>Static elasticity (thermoelasticity...)</subject><subject>Stiffened panel</subject><subject>Structural and continuum mechanics</subject><subject>Thin-walled structure</subject><issn>0013-7944</issn><issn>1873-7315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE1LxDAQhoMouK7-h3rQ29ZJ0k3boyx-gSAseg5xOtGs3XbNtKL_3iwr4tHTBObJ-zKPEKcScgnSXKxy6l58dLgmfM0VQJWDyUHP98REVqWelVrO98UEQKZ3XRSH4oh5BQClqWAilkvi0IyuzXiIKWp4zTaRmoBD6Lus95nLsF9vWvrcAiMOY6Rs5NC9ZJha3zL6HKjjLew6134x8bE48K5lOvmZU_F0ffW4uJ3dP9zcLS7vZ1hoPcw8uGflCkBfe_S-0qQqjVL6Z--Ma4paNp7mWlUOTa1MkbYlNk2llTdloQo9Fee73E3s30fiwa4DI7Wt66gf2eq5kUpLk8B6B2LsmSN5u4lh7eKXlWC3Fu3K_rFotxYtGJsspr9nPyWO0bWJ6TDwb4CSUNUqeZ6KxY6jdPFHoGgZA3WYVEbCwTZ9-EfbN3jFkCw</recordid><startdate>2009</startdate><enddate>2009</enddate><creator>Scheider, Ingo</creator><creator>Brocks, Wolfgang</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2009</creationdate><title>Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses</title><author>Scheider, Ingo ; Brocks, Wolfgang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c433t-f0ab2a40cf9fcff83e283c11fbfa6ad491dfe5328ac692642837cdd832f674243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Aluminium</topic><topic>Cohesive model</topic><topic>Ductile crack extension</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Experimental validation</topic><topic>Fracture mechanics (crack, fatigue, damage...)</topic><topic>Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)</topic><topic>Inelasticity (thermoplasticity, viscoplasticity...)</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Residual strength</topic><topic>Solid mechanics</topic><topic>Static elasticity (thermoelasticity...)</topic><topic>Stiffened panel</topic><topic>Structural and continuum mechanics</topic><topic>Thin-walled structure</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Scheider, Ingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brocks, Wolfgang</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Engineering fracture mechanics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Scheider, Ingo</au><au>Brocks, Wolfgang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses</atitle><jtitle>Engineering fracture mechanics</jtitle><date>2009</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>149</spage><epage>163</epage><pages>149-163</pages><issn>0013-7944</issn><eissn>1873-7315</eissn><coden>EFMEAH</coden><abstract>The residual strength of a flat panel (thickness 7.6 mm) with five stringers, machined from a monolithic block of Al2024-T351 material, which contained a crack that divided the central stringer, was to be predicted during a Round Robin organised by ASTM. The initial crack tips were right ahead of the stringers #2 and #4, respectively, so that crack branching along the skin and into the stringers occurred after initiation. The prediction has been achieved using finite element simulations including crack extension, for which a cohesive model was utilised. Conventional material properties, yield and ultimate strength as well as experimental results from M(T) specimens in terms of force, COD and Δ a, were given. The residual strength prediction was performed in two-steps: First the crack extension parameters for the cohesive model, the cohesive strength, T 0, and the cohesive energy, Γ 0, were determined by numerical reproduction of the results of the M(T) specimen. With the optimised parameters, the five-stringer panel was modelled. These steps were conducted by two different finite element models: by a shell and a 3D finite element mesh. It turned out that it is possible to analyse the structure with both models. In the 3D case, the residual strength prediction was conservative and the deviation of the predicted from the experimental value was below 9%. The results of the shell simulation were even closer to the experiment (deviation approximately 3%), but the simulation was non-conservative.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.035</doi><tpages>15</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0013-7944
ispartof Engineering fracture mechanics, 2009, Vol.76 (1), p.149-163
issn 0013-7944
1873-7315
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_35612316
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Aluminium
Cohesive model
Ductile crack extension
Exact sciences and technology
Experimental validation
Fracture mechanics (crack, fatigue, damage...)
Fundamental areas of phenomenology (including applications)
Inelasticity (thermoplasticity, viscoplasticity...)
Physics
Residual strength
Solid mechanics
Static elasticity (thermoelasticity...)
Stiffened panel
Structural and continuum mechanics
Thin-walled structure
title Residual strength prediction of a complex structure using crack extension analyses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T13%3A38%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Residual%20strength%20prediction%20of%20a%20complex%20structure%20using%20crack%20extension%20analyses&rft.jtitle=Engineering%20fracture%20mechanics&rft.au=Scheider,%20Ingo&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=149&rft.epage=163&rft.pages=149-163&rft.issn=0013-7944&rft.eissn=1873-7315&rft.coden=EFMEAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.06.035&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E35612316%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=35612316&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0013794408001896&rfr_iscdi=true