0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Effects of Negative Biaxial Loadings and Notch on Failure Assessment Diagrams

[+] Author and Article Information
K. Ragupathy

Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, Indiaragupathy.kannusamy@honeywell.com

K. Ramesh

Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, Indiakramesh@iitm.ac.in

D. Hall

 Honeywell Aerospace, South Bend, IN, 46628doug.hall@honeywell.com

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 132(1), 011403 (Dec 15, 2009) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4000357 History: Received January 01, 2009; Revised May 13, 2009; Published December 15, 2009; Online December 15, 2009

The failure assessment diagram (FAD) is a simplified and robust flaw assessment methodology, which simultaneously connects two dominant failure criteria: linear elastic fracture mechanics on one end and plastic collapse on the other end. This interaction is in the realm of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. It is popularly known as the R6 approach, which graphically characterizes the impact of plasticity on crack driving force. In recent years, there has been continuous interest in using FADs to assess the failure of cracked structures subjected to biaxial loadings. Biaxiality is defined as the ratio of stress applied parallel and normal to the crack. Some pressure loaded aircraft components operate under negative biaxial ratios up to −0.5. In this paper, a detailed study on FAD was conducted using finite element analysis computed J-integral methods to investigate the effect of biaxial loading using different FAD approaches for geometries with notches. Geometries with a crack that emanates at a fillet region were simulated with various biaxial loading ratios from −0.5 to +0.5 using 2014-T6 material. FAD curves were numerically generated for cracks at notched regions subjected to various biaxial loadings using J-integral values from finite element analyses. These results were compared with standard FAD approaches. All comparison studies were made between uniaxial and biaxial loading cases with FAD curves created using four different crack sizes. Under small scale yielding, this study clearly shows that FAD curves are not influenced by negative biaxial loading at low load (up to 40% of yield strength). It was clearly confirmed that the majority of previously developed analytical FAD curves do not effectively account for notch and plasticity effects due to negative biaxiality. Based on this study, tension normal to the crack and compression parallel to the crack is the worst combination, and it has a very pronounced effect on FAD curve shapes. The standard analytical FAD curves are nonconservative compared with the approach recommended here, particularly under the worst case condition. FAD curves developed are shown to predict lower failure loads as compared with the currently accepted analytical FAD approaches defined in existing standards, e.g., R6 and API 579. The impact of negative biaxial loading can be investigated directly using a J-integral FAD approach but can be compared with ease by plotting both approaches in a FAD format.

Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Different levels in the failure assessment diagram

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

True stress-strain curve for AL2014-T6 material

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Flat plate model with hole under biaxial loading

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

FE model with biaxial loading and focused mesh at the crack front

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Effect of biaxiality on yielding

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Crack driving force values from linear analysis of four different crack ratios (a/R=20%, 40%, 80%, and 100%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Uniaxial loading a/R=20%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Uniaxial loading a/R=40%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Uniaxial loading a/R=80%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Uniaxial loading a/R=100%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Negative biaxial loading a/R=20%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Negative biaxial loading a/R=40%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Negative biaxial loading a/R=80%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Negative biaxial loading a/R=100%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Positive biaxial loading a/R=100%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Positive biaxial loading a/R=80%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Positive biaxial loading a/R=40%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Positive biaxial loading a/R=20%

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Crack driving force values from nonlinear analysis of four different crack ratios (a/R=20%, 40%, 80%, and 100%)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In