You are on page 1of 8

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, pp. 11-18 IASTER 2013, www.iaster.

com

A Study on the Fracture and Fatigue Behaviour of an Aluminium Alloy: Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Approach
S. Nageswara1 and Dr. T. Hari Prasad2
Assistant Professor, 2Professor, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Tirupathi, AP, India
1

ABSTRACT
The present investigation deals with the determination of fracture parameters and fatigue crack growth rate of Single Edge Notched Tension (SENT) specimen made of an aluminium alloy 2024T3. In the first part of the work stress intensity factor (SIF) values are obtained for various crack lengths, using both finite element method and analytical approach. The results from both of these methods are compared. In the second part of the investigation, an attempt has been made to introduce a life prediction methodology for specimen having a through crack defects at centre using both finite element method and analytical method in conjunction with experimental crack length and number of cycles (a-N) data to obtain fatigue crack growth rate curve. Both finite element and theoretical results are compared for a constant amplitude loading of stress ratio (R) equal to 0.1. The finite element model of SENT specimen is generated and analysed using ANSYS, a general purpose structural analysis FEA software. The finite element analysis of the specimen was carried out simulating static tensile load and boundary conditions according to grip end conditions of the specimen fixed in. Instron machine. This investigation is carried out in order to establish correctly fatigue crack growth rate (FCGR) curve for an aluminium alloy 2024-T3, which is generally used for primary structural components of metallic aircraft. Also, material constants C (proportionality constant) and m (Paris exponent) are obtained in the Paris region of FCGR curve from both finite element and analytical results. 1.1 Geometric Details of the sent specimen The standard SENT specimen is outlined in ASTM 647 (shown in Figure.1) [1] is made by the materials aluminium alloy 2024-T3 and 7020-T7 are using in the Aircraft manufacturing. The three holes at the top and bottom were provided to facilitate in mode- I ,with an initial pre-crack length (a) at centre is measured from the outside edge to inside of the pre crack length. it is the most critical component among the cracked specimens. Its separation from the interface will most likely cause the separation of the total component from the fuselage resulting in the collapse of the aircraft.
Table1: Geometrical properties

Length (L) 170 mm

Thickness (t/B) 6.5 mm

Width (w) 52 mm

Applied load (F/P) 1kN

Youngs modulus (E) 73100MPa

Poissons ratio () 0.33

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

Figure 1: Configuration of SENT Specimen for Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics - based Testing

1.2 Mechanical and chemical properties of 7020-T7and 2024-T3Al-alloys The INSTRON fast track (da/dN) fatigue crack propagation program is used for online crack growth monitoring and analysis for specimen with some of the standard ASTM specimens used in testing the materials numerous research papers are Compact Tension (CT) Specimen, Single Edge Notched Tension (SENT), Single Edge Notch Bend (SENB) Specimen, Disk Compact Tension (DCT) Specimen, Double Edge Notched (DEN) Specimen
Table 2: Chemical Composition of 7020-T7and 2024-T3Al-alloys used in SARAS

Materials 7020-T7 AlAlloy 2024-T3 AlAlloy

Al Main constituent 90.7-94.7

Cu 0.05 3.84.9

Mg 1.2 1.21.8

Mn 0.43 0.30.9

Fe 0.37 0.5

Si 0.22 0.5

Zn 4.6 0.25

Cr 0.1

Others 0.15

Table 3: Mechanical Properties of 7020-T7and2024-T3Al-alloys used in SARAS

Tensile Strength (ut) MPa Yield Strength (ys) MPa

Plane Strain Fracture Toughness (KIC) MPa mm Plane Stress Fracture Toughness (KC) MPa mm 50.12 37.0 236.8 95.31

7020-T7 AlAlloy 2024-T3 AlAlloy

352.1 4 469

314. 7 324

70,000 73,100

0.33 0.33

21.54% in 40 mm 19% in 12.7 mm

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Some of them discussed the ways to improve the fatigue life by various methods such as SENT specimen usage of materials in aircrafts (which is implemented in this work), etc., Most of older research activities were based on the experimental techniques and computational algorithms. The concept of simulation through the finite element softwares like ANSYS, ABAQUS, etc., in recent years has taken the research activity in the field of fatigue to new heights. Advanced in these softwares are reducing the gap between the predicted and the test results.

Elongation

Materials

Poissons Ratio()

Youngs Modulus (E)MPa

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
This study was conducted using 7020 and 2024 Al-alloys. The 7020 Al-alloy suitable for ground transport system was procured in the as-fabricated condition, while 2024 Al-alloy was procured in T3 heat-treated condition. The 7020 Al-alloy was subjected to T7 heat-treatment to obtain optimum mechanical properties. The chemical composition and the mechanical properties of the alloys are given in Table2 and Table3 respectively. Single-edge notched specimens having a thickness of 6.5 mm were used for conducting the fatigue test. The specimens were made in the LT plane, with the loading aligned in the longitudinal direction. The detail geometry of the specimen is illustrated in Figure 1 [13]. The experiments were performed using an Instron-8502 machine with 250 kN load cell capacity, interfaced to a computer for control and data acquisition. All tests were conducted in air and at room temperature. The test specimens were fatigue pre-cracked under mode-I loading to an a/w ratio (non-dimensional crack length or normalized crack length) of 0.3 and were subjected to constant load test (i.e. progressive increase in K with crack extension) maintaining a load ratio of 0.1. The sinusoidal load cycles were applied at a frequency of 6 Hz. The crack growth was monitored with the help of a COD gauge mounted on the face of the machined notch. The following equations were used to determine stress intensity factor K. K = f (g) F a / wB Where f (g) =1.12 _ 0.231 (a/w) +10.55 (a/w) 2 _ 21.72 (a/w) 3 + 30.39 (a/w) 4 a - crack length measured from edge of the specimen (mm); B- Plate thickness (mm); w - Plate width (mm) ; F- Remotely applied load (N) 3.1. Stress Intensity Factor Values Calculations Using Finite Element Method Procedure for Varying Crack Length 1. Assumptions Linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM). Plane stress with thickness problem. Material given is 2024-T3 Al alloy Isotropic materials.

2. Approach Since the LEFM assumption is used, the SIFs at a crack tip may be computed using ANSYS KCALC command. The analysis used a fit of the nodal displacements in the vicinity of the crack tip. Due to the symmetry of the problem, only half section is analyzed. The crack tip region is meshed using the element type Solid QUAD4node 182 Plane stress for displacement extrapolation is considered based on the half symmetry boundary conditions for model type. 3. Pre Processing Element type: QUAD 4node 182, type1 plane stress with thickness. Number of Nodes and Elements in the problem is representing.

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

4. Meshing Processing The specimen has been modeled with thickness of twenty node isoparametric hexahedron elements in the finite element formulation; the pre-crack of the specimen has been modeled by placing identical independent nodes. The x and y- axes are in the plane of the plate and z-axis is perpendicular to the plane of the specimen. The ANSYS code is developed to predict the propagation of fatigue crack growth. QUAD 4 node 182 structural solid elements were used to mesh the specimen. 5. Analysis Processing The finite element model for this analysis was constructed as a two-dimensional approximation assuming no twisting can occur on the actual part. The Solid QUAD 4node PLANE182 was used with its plane stress with user- defined thickness behavior option. The geometry and loading (Example shown in: Figure 3.1) is appropriate for a half symmetry finite element model (Example shown in Figure 3.3). 3.2. Theoretical Calculations for Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Values with Varying Crack Lengths a 1. Geometric Parameters Height of the plate H = 170 mm Width of the plate W = 52 mm Thickness of the plate t = B = 6.5 mm Crack length of the plate a = 15.6 to 23.6 mm Type of specimen SENT Specimen with (a/w) = 0.3 Materials Properties Material given is 2024-T3 Al alloy Isotropic materials Youngs modulus E = 73100 MPa (N/mm2) Poissons ratio = 0.33 The element type used Solid QUAD4 node 182 Boundary Conditions (Considering the Half Symmetric Model) Left side of the specimen: u = w = x = y = z = 0 Bottom of the plate: v = w = x = y = z = 0 Load Conditions 1KN (=1000 N) Load is applied on the top and bottom of the specimen. Theoretical Solutions

2.

3.

4.

5.

Stress Intensity factor (K) = f (g) F a / wB f (g) =1.12 _ 0.231 (a/w) + 10.55 (a/w) 2 _ 21.72 (a/w) 3 + 30.39 (a/w) 4

Figure 3.1 Geometric Model of the SENT Specimen

Figure 3.3 Full Model Finite Element Mesh plot of the SENT Specimen

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

Figure 3.3 Half Model Finite Element Mesh with boundary conditions plot of the SENT Specimen

Figure 3.4Von Misses Stresses Contour for SENT Specimen for a=15.6 mm

Figure 3.5 SIF Contour for SENT Specimen for a=15.6 mm

Figure 3.6 Von Misses Stresses Contour for SENT Specimen for a=17.6 mm

Figure 3.7 SIF Contour for SENT Specimen for a=17.6 mm

Figure 3.8 Von Misses Stresses Contour for SENT Specimen for a=19.6 mm

Figure 3.9 SIF Contour for SENT Specimen for a=19.6 mm

Figure 3.10 Von Misses Stresses Contour for SENT Specimen for a=21.6 mm

Figure 3.11 SIF Contour for SENT Specimen for a=21.6 mm

Figure 3.12 Von Misses Stresses Contour for SENT Specimen for a=23.6 mm

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

Figure 3.13 Stress Intensity Factor Contour for SENT Specimen for a=23.6 mm Table 3.1: The Finite Element Method Values of Stress Intensity Factor and Von Misses Stresses and No. of Nodes and Elements for Different Crack Lengths

Sl. No.

Crack Length (a) mm 15.6 17.6 19.6 21.6 23.6

1 2 3 4 5

Total Number of Nodes (N) 4569 4131 3978 5406 5500

Total Number of Elements(E) 4450 4000 3850 5250 5661

SIF (MPa mm) 37.587 54.933 56.483 61.584 67.149

Von Mises Stresses (MPa) 35.803 52.838 54.216 59.20 64.611

3.3. Comparison of Theoretical and Finite Element Method Stress Intensity Factor Values
Table 3.2: Comparing Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Solution obtained from theoretically & Finite Element Methods

Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5

Crack Length (a) in mm 15.6 17.6 19.6 21.6 23.6

SIF Theoretically in MPa mm 41.427 55.718 58.789 69.242 80.297

SIF Finite Element Method in MPa mm 37.587 54.933 56.483 61.584 67.149

The comparison of the stress intensity factor from theoretical values and finite element values are shown in above Table 3.2 in this the analytical values are have a good correlation with finite element method values. The below table shown the values of stress intensity factor (SIF) theoretical and finite element values for each crack length(a) from 15.6 mm to 23.6 mm.
100

Stress Intensity Factor (KI) in MPamm --->

80
60 40 20 0 15.6

Theoretical Values SIF

17.6

Crack Length (a) in mm ---->

19.6

21.6

23.6

Figure 3.14 The Theoretical and FEM Values of SIF for All Crack Length Values

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

3.4.

Percentage Change in Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) is

The percentage change in stress intensity factor () calculations is shown in below formulae.
Table 3.3. Shown Comparing and Percentage Change in Stress Intensity Factor ()

KI(Analytical) in MPam

KI (Theoretical) KI (FEM)] / KI (Theoretical)

Crack Length (a) in mm

KI (FEM) in MPamm

1 2 3 4 5

15.6 17.6 19.6 21.6 23.6

41.427 55.718 58.789 69.242 80.297

1.310 1.762 1.859 2.190 2.539

37.587 54.933 56.483 61.584 67.149

1.189 1.737 1.786 1.948 2.124

0.09236 0.01418 0.03926 0.11050 0.16345

The Percentage Change in SIF= {[KI (analytical) - KI (FEM)] / (KI (analytical))} By applying this formula to determined the percentage change stress intensity factor and tabulated all cases in above Table 3.3.in this values the least value is 1.41% and highest value is 16.374% in the case 2 and case 5 respectively. The Bar chart shown in Figure 3.14 is percentage change in stress intensity factor is in % with varying crack lengths in this graph on X-axis crack length (a) in mm and on Y- axis percentage change in stress intensity factor is in %, from this graph the percentage change 1.42 (least value) to 16.35 (highest value), this is because of FE model have a low stiffness at higher frequencies, so in order to get correct natural frequencies in higher modes, the mesh should be very fine [30]. 3.11 Conclusions

Static analysis of a SENT specimen 2024 T3 Al alloy with varying crack lengths is carried out using the finite element analysis package ANSYS. The results in terms of von-mises stresses, stress intensity factors (KI) are obtained for the above problems. The theoretical solutions are obtained for all varying crack lengths (a).the results were compared tabulated and plotted against crack length Vs stress intensity factor. And the results show good correlation between theoretical and fem (analytical) for different crack length values.

REFERENCES
1. Prediction of Fatigue crack growth and residual life using on exponential model: part I (constant amplitude loading) by J.R Mohantyaa, B.B Vermaa, P.K. Rayb. 2. Finite Element procedures by Klaus- Jurgen Bathe, professor Mechanical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

{[KI (Theoretical) KI (FEM)] / KI (Theoretical)}X100 (Percentage Change in SIF is in %) 9.24 1.42 3.93 11.05 16.35

KI (FEM) in MPam

KI(Analytical) in MPamm

Sl. No.

International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering Volume 1, Issue 2, October-December, 2013, www.iaster.com

3. Volume 31 Number 3 2009 ISSN 418-424 International Journal of Fatigue of Fatigue crack growth and residual life using on exponential model: part-I (constant amplitude loading). 4. Daniel P Raymer, Aircraft Design-A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. Washington, DC 1992. 5. Cambridge solid state science series fatigue of materials by S. Suresh-Richard, P. Simmons Professor, Department of materials science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge Massachusetts. Editors: professor E.A .Davis, Department of Physics, university of Leicester. Professor I.M. ward, FRS Department of Physics University of Leeds. 6. Fracture Mechanics eighteenth symposium sponsored by ASTM committee E-24 on Fracture testing ASTM Publication Code Number (PCN) 04-94500-30 (FX, 1; CLPN88). 7. Hertzberg RW. Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons inc.; 1996. 8. Brown WF, Srawley JE. Plane strain crack toughness testing of high strength metallic materials, vol. 410.Philadelphia, USA: ASTMSTP, ASTM: 1996. 9. Jaap Schijve, Fatigue of Structures and Materials, Springer Netherlands, May 08, 2007. 10. Thomas C. Corke, Design of Aircraft, Pearson Education, 2005. 11. David F. Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, Understanding Flight, McGraw-Hill, 2001. 12. T.H.G Megson, Aircraft structures for engineering students, Butterworth-Heinemann, Third Edition, 1999. 13. Raymond Brow ell, ANSYS White paper on fatigue, ANSYS Inc., March 29, 2006. 14. A textbook of Machine Design by R.S KHURMI & J.K GUPTA Reprint 2005 Topic Variable Stress in Machine Parts P.No. 158 -175. 15. Engineering Fracture Mechanics by S.A. MEGUID (FX, 1; CL N89). 16. Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications Second Edition by T.L. Anderson. (FX, 1; CL N95) 76206. 17. Introduction to Finite Element in Engineering, 3rd Edition by Tirupathi Chandrupatla and Ashok D. Belegundu. 18. Rice J.R. 'A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks', J.Appl.Mech, 7,143-156, 1968. 19. Landes J.D. & Begley J.A. 'Recent developments in JIC testing', ASTM STP 632, 57-81, 1977. 20. F.Z. Li, C.F. Shih and A. Needleman, A comparison of methods for calculati ng energy release rates Engineering Fracture Mechanics 21, 1985, pp 405-421. 21. Practical Finite Element Analysis first edition by Nitin S Gokhale. Sanjay S Deshpande, Sanjee V. Bedekoran and Nthite. First printing January 2008 (Page No. 219).

You might also like