The practical need for short fatigue crack growth rate models
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Accurate fatigue crack growth rate models in the short crack regime are essential to the design and sustainment of modern aerospace structures. In this paper we briefly recap the short crack problem space and offer a case study demonstrating the practical significance of these models in the service life prediction for combat aircraft primary structure under a complex manoeuvre plus buffet loads spectrum. The necessity of accurate fatigue crack growth rate predictions in the short crack regime is demonstrated for this practical application using two models assessed against coupon fatigue test results representative of a critical aircraft structural location. A fractography based fatigue crack growth rate model relying on direct, quantitative fractography measurements in the short crack regime, is shown to offer better predictions of both total crack growth life and crack growth rates at a range of crack depths than long crack-based models.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Federal Aviation Administration. Part 25 – airworthiness standards: transport category airplanes, subpart C – structure, section 25.571 damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure, United States Government, January 2011.
2. Department of Defense. Joint service specification guide: aircraft structures, JSSG-2006; 30 October 1998.
3. Goranson UG. Damage tolerance—facts and fiction. In: 14th Plantema Memorial Lecture. In: Blom, AF, editor, Durability and structural integrity of airframes, Engineering materials advisory services, Warley, UK, vol. I; 1993. p. 3–105.
4. Polakovics D. Aging aircraft – the US navy experience. In: International conference on aircraft damage assessment and repair; August 1991, Melbourne, Australia.
5. Ellis RM. F-35 structural design, development and certification. In: Proc: AIAA Aviation Forum; 25–29 June 2018.
6. Lessons from a fatigue prediction challenge for an aircraft wing root shear tie post10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.007 ↗
7. Lextech, Inc. Air force grow (AFGROW) version 5.03.05.24 [Online] www.afgrow.net [March 2018].
8. Fatigue and Fracture Associates, LLC. FASTRAN – a fatigue crack growth life-prediction code based on the crack-closure concept, version 5.4 user guide, [Online] www.fracturelab.com; October 2013.
9. Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). NASGRO – fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth analysis software, version 9.1 [Online] www.swri.org/consortia/nasgr; May 2019.
10. Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates, E647-15. ASTM International; 2015.
11. Economic life determination for a military aircraft10.2514/2.2512 ↗
12. A method for evaluation of in-service fatigue cracks10.1016/j.engfailanal.2004.06.002 ↗
13. Fatigue crack growth and damage tolerance10.1111/ffe.12155 ↗
14. Grooteman FP, Bos MJ. Advanced life assessment of the lead crack configuration of the RNLAF F-16 wing damage enhancement test, NLR-TP-2015-140; April 2015.
15. Airframe metal fatigue revisited10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105323 ↗
16. The quantification of fatigue crack initiators in aluminium alloy 7050–T7451 using quantitative fractography10.1108/17579861111162860 ↗
17. Typical fatigue-initiating discontinuities in metallic aircraft structures10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.10.017 ↗
18. Tiffany CF, Gallagher JP, Babish CA. Threats to aircraft structural safety, including a compendium of selected structural accidents/incidents, ASC-TR-2010-5002; March 2010.
19. A study of fatigue variability in aluminium alloy 7050–T745110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.07.004 ↗
20. Wanhill R, Barter S, Molent L. Fatigue crack growth failure and lifing analysis for metallic aircraft structures and components, Springer; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1675-6.10.1007/978-94-024-1675-6 ↗
21. Fatigue crack growth lessons from thirty-five years of the Royal Australian Air Force F/A-18A/B Hornet Aircraft Structural Integrity Program10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105426 ↗
22. The effects of environment and load frequency on the crack propagation law for macro fatigue crack growth in aluminium alloys10.1016/0013-7944(70)90003-2 ↗
23. Introducing the compliance ratio concept for determining effective stress intensity10.1016/S0142-1123(97)00024-8 ↗
24. Fatigue crack growth in a diverse range of materials10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2012.01.004 ↗
25. Initiation of fatigue cracks in commercial aluminium alloys and the subsequent propagation of very short cracks10.1016/0013-7944(75)90004-1 ↗
26. The growth of small fatigue cracks in 7075–T6 aluminium10.1111/j.1460-2695.1982.tb01251.x ↗
27. Propagation of short fatigue cracks
28. Small fatigue cracks: a statement of the problem and potential solutions10.1016/0025-5416(86)90217-X ↗
29. Forth S. The purpose of generating fatigue crack growth threshold data, NASA Johnson Space Center [Online]. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080031625.pdf.
30. Newman JC Jr, Yamada Y, Newman JA. Crack-closure behaviour of 7050 aluminum alloy near threshold conditions for wide range in load ratios and constant Kmax tests. In: Proc: ASTM/ESIS fatigue and fracture mechanics symposium, Vancouver, Canada; May 2009.10.1520/JAI102490 ↗
31. Cycle sequence sensitivity of near threshold fatigue under programmed loading – a fractographic study10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105537 ↗
32. How proper similitude can improve our understanding of crack closure and plasticity in fatigue10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.04.011 ↗
33. Fatigue crack closure: a myth or misconception?10.1111/ffe.13112 ↗
34. McClung RC, Chan KS, Hudak SJ, Davidson DL. Analysis of small crack behaviour for airframe applications. In: Proc: international symposium on advanced structural integrity methods for airframe durability and damage tolerance, Hampton, VA, FAA/NASA; 1994. p. 463–79.
35. Wanhill RJH. Some practical considerations for fatigue and corrosion damage assessment of ageing aircraft. NLR technical publication 96253 L; April 1996.
36. Main B, Russell D, Barter S, Choi J, Jones M. Component testing of the F/A-18A/B Y508 wing root shear tie. In: Proc: USAF ASIP conference, Jacksonville, USA; November 2017.
37. Reams RH, Babish CA IV. Revised damage tolerance requirements for slow crack growth design concepts for metallic structures, EN-SB-08-002 Rev C, Airforce Life Cycle Management Centre (AFLCMC), Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB) Ohio, USA; 2008.
38. Burchill M, Barter S, Chan LH. Improving fatigue life predictions with a crack growth rate material model based on small crack growth and legacy data. In: Proc: 7th Australian aerospace congress, Melbourne, Australia; 2017.
39. Measured fatigue crack growth increments versus predictions for small cracks in 7XXX aluminium alloys10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2017.07.013 ↗
40. Forman RG et al. Fatigue crack growth database for damage tolerance analysis, DOT/FAA/AR-05/15; August 2005.
41. The significance of fractography for investigations of fatigue crack growth under variable-amplitude loading10.1046/j.1460-2695.1999.00147.x ↗
42. Observations of crack path changes caused by periodic underloads in AA 7050–T745110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2007.08.021 ↗
43. Small crack growth rates from simple sequences containing underloads in AA 7050–T745110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2009.01.014 ↗
44. Synergy of crack closure, near-tip residual stress and crack-tip blunting in crack growth under periodic overloads – a fractographic study10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.08.004 ↗