sas

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 2

Size effects on residual stress and fatigue crack growth in friction stir welded 2195-T8 aluminium â€“ Part II_ Modelling

sas

© All Rights Reserved

- MinMach-HomePage01
- Engineering Failure Analysis
- AGARD-AG-201-VOL-2
- Fatigue
- 6_478ryeryerye
- Fatigue Failure Resulting From Variable Loading (1)
- Applications of Fracture Mechanics.docx
- Multi Axial Fatigue Experiments-I Modelling
- Cracking Tendences Fillet Welds
- ductile fracture analysis
- Acoustic Emission Study of Fatigue Crack Growth
- ME Web Module
- TSC
- 89_fatigue Analysis of Truss-2169
- Fatigue Ppt
- 265714304-A-Coupled-Uncoupled-Deformation-and-Fatigue-Damage-Algorithm-Utilizing-the-Finite-Element-Method-pdf.pdf
- Residual Stress Distribution
- AWST-11-94
- Application_of_Risk_Based_Inspection_Methodology_t.pdf
- 316_1A.pdf

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijfatigue

Size effects on residual stress and fatigue crack growth in friction stir welded

2195-T8 aluminium – Part II: Modelling

Yu E. Ma a,b, P. Staron c, T. Fischer c, P.E. Irving b,⇑

a

School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, China

b

Damage Tolerance Group, School of Applied Science, Cranﬁeld University, UK

c

Institute of Materials Research, Geesthacht, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of residual K (Kres) approaches for prediction of fatigue crack growth rates in residual stress

Received 29 October 2010 ﬁelds was studied. Finite element models of the samples were built and the measured residual

Received in revised form 18 April 2011 stress data put into the model. The virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) was used to calculate Kres

Accepted 2 May 2011

(stress intensity factor from residual stress) together with its changes with crack length using data

Available online 10 May 2011

from the part I paper. Local Kres values were used to calculate effective R values. Kop and DKeff values

throughout the crack path in the weld. The master curve approach was used to relate these to corre-

Keywords:

sponding values for crack growth rates. Predicted crack growth rates were compared with experimental

Friction stir weld

Residual stress

results. Changes in crack growth rate found as the crack grows through the weld can successfully be

Fatigue crack growth predicted via application of this closure based model. Agreement between predictions and experimen-

Closure model tal data was best for tensile residual stress ﬁelds and was not as exact in compression. Possible reasons

Prediction for this discrepancy are discussed.

Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction where h(x, a) is the weight function, available for several geometries

and conditions [7]. rres(x) is the residual stress distribution before

In the past few years it has been realised that calculation of crack propagation. However, if redistributions of residual stress

stress intensity associated with a crack in a residual stress ﬁeld is arising from crack propagation are not taken into account, errors oc-

a fruitful way of accounting for the effects of residual stress ﬁelds cur in calculation of Kres. This has been pointed out by a number of

on fatigue crack growth [1–5]. There are however a number of dif- researchers e.g. [8,10,11].

ferent techniques to calculate or otherwise obtain Kres values for a For calculation of the effect of changes in Kres on fatigue crack

crack growing in a varying residual stress ﬁeld such as might be growth rates, two complementary approaches can be used: one

associated with a weld. Current techniques are as follows. The is the superposition approach [2,12-14]; the other uses the crack

cut compliance technique [2–5], for instance uses slitting to cut closure model [1,9,11,15–18], as originally proposed by Elber

the sample [5]. The residual stress distribution can then be calcu- [18], and modiﬁed by Newman [15].

lated via discretisation, taking account of the weight function from In the superposition approach, shown in Fig. 1, the cyclic max-

Kres. imum and minimum stress intensity factors Kmax,tot, Kmin,tot derived

Another method uses weight functions, as suggested by Buech- from superposition of both external and residual stresses are given

ner [6] using one of the other functions for different sample geom- by:

etries produced by Glinka and Shen [7]. The ﬁnite element method

K max;tot ¼ K max;app þ K res

[8,9] can be applied after residual stress proﬁles have been mea- ð2Þ

sured. For the weight function method, the equation to be solved K min;tot ¼ K min;app þ K res

for Kres is: The stress intensity factor range and effective stress ratio Reff are

Z a calculated:

K res ¼ hðx; aÞ rres ðxÞ dx ð1Þ

a0

DK ¼ K max;tot K min;tot ¼ ðK max;app þ K res Þ ðK min;app þ K res Þ

¼ K max;app K min;app ¼ DK app ð3Þ

Reff ¼ ð4Þ

E-mail address: p.e.irving@cranﬁeld.ac.uk (P.E. Irving). K max þ K res

0142-1123/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2011.05.008

Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434 1427

Nomenclature

K stress intensity factor Dc element size

Kres stress intensity factor from residual stress E the Young’s modulus (modulus of elasticity)

N cycle (fatigue load) Rnom applied load R ratio

da/dN crack growth rate Reff R ratio with the presence of residual stress

G strain energy release rate DKeff the effective stress intensity factor range

Fj the reaction force on j node So the crack opening stress

ui the total displacement from i node Smax, Smin the applied maximum, minimum stress

da

¼ gðDK eff Þ ð9Þ

dN

where Sopen/Smax was given by Newman [15], as shown in Eqs.

(12)–(17) thereafter.

da

Following Newman [15], Eqs. (6), (7), the different curves of dN

versus DKapp measured at different R ratios can be replaced by a

da

single ‘‘Master’’ curve of dN versus DKeff. The master curve of DKeff

vs da/dN can be obtained [15] from three crack growth rate

curves measured at different tensile R values. For samples con-

taining a residual stress, values of Reff and DKeff can be calculated

Fig. 1. Superposition approach for calculation of fatigue crack growth rates under da

residual stress ﬁelds. from Kres as described above and then related to dN via the master

curve.

Both approaches use calculations of Kres to derive changes in

For Kres = zero Reff will be identical to Rapp the R ratio of the crack tip R ratio as the crack tip moves through the residual stress

externally applied loading. ﬁeld. However the two approaches differ in their calculation of

In this approach, the stress intensity factor range DK is indepen- growth rates in that the superposition technique uses experimen-

dent of residual stress and of Kres, however the effective stress ratio tal crack growth rate data from parent plate at the relevant R val-

Reff is signiﬁcantly affected. Then fatigue crack growth rates are a ues, whereas in the closure approach the derived master curve can

function of DKapp and Reff: be applied to all values of Reff, including negative ones, from data

from just three positive R ratio tests.

da

¼ f ðDK app ; Reff Þ ð5Þ However, Lam [8] has shown that there is a factor of four dif-

dN

ference in calculated Kres depending on whether redistribution of

Kres and Reff will change as the crack grows through the residual residual stress with crack growth is considered. Lee [10] and LaR-

stress ﬁeld and the growth rate at each crack length can be obtained ue and Daniewicz [11] accurately predicted fatigue life using a

either from relevant experimental da/dN data obtained at Reff or de- crack closure model after considering the redistribution of resid-

rived from da/dN at other values of R by use of the Forman [19] or ual stress. This suggests that predictions of fatigue crack growth

other expressions. The experimental da/dN data easiest to obtain rates in residual stress ﬁelds should always account for the redis-

will be obtained on parent plate, but ideally should be material with tribution of residual stress with crack growth in deriving Kres

the same strength and microstructure as the weld and HAZ without values.

the residual stresses. In this work ﬁnite element models were built using ABAQUS

For the crack closure approach, shown in Fig. 2, the effective [20] for welded samples of C(T) and ESE(T) geometries in three dif-

stress intensity factor DKeff, the range of the applied load cycle ferent sizes tested as described in the companion Part I paper [22]

for which the crack is open, can be calculated [15] as: Sample geometries and sizes are given in Table 1. Half of each

DK eff ¼ U DK app ð6Þ geometry was modelled because of symmetries of load. The SIGINI

subroutine in ABAQUS can be used to input the initial stress. This

1 Sopen =Smax subroutine can be programmed by FORTRAN. A FORTRAN program

U¼ ð7Þ was written to input the measured residual stress proﬁles (see

1 Reff

Fig. 6–8 in Part I [22]) into ﬁnite element models using the SIGNI

DK eff ¼ K max;tot K open ð8Þ subroutine. This was the initial step of the analysis.

Table 1

Sample dimensions C(T) and ESE(T).

length width

Crack parallel to weld C(T) 84 87.5 70

120 125 100

240 250 200

(a) da/dN versus ΔK app (b) da/dN versus ΔK eff

Crack perpendicular to weld ESE(T) 148 40 40

185 50 50

Fig. 2. Crack closure concept for calculation of fatigue crack growth rates in residual 370 100 100

stress ﬁelds.

1428 Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434

50

Residual stress

40 6

Weld zone Kres

X 30

Y 4

Weld zone

m)

20

Y X

2

Kres (MPa

10

Notch 8.0mm

Scan line Scan line 0 0

0 10 20 30 40

-10

-2

-20

-4

-30

Fig. 3. ESE(T) and C(T) samples.

-40 -6

Crack length a (mm)

(a)

0.8

Reff =(Kres+Kmin)/(Kres+Kmax)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

-0.2 Reff-0.1

-0.4 Rnom-0.1

-0.6 Reff-0.6

Notch 8.0mm

-0.8 Rnomi-0.6

-1

0 10 20 30 40

Crack length a (mm)

Fig. 4. Calculated effects of crack growth on residual stress distribution in 148 40

ESE(T) sample.

(b)

Fig. 7. Kres and Reff in the smallest ESE(T) sample (148 40). (a) Calculated Kres and

the measured residual stress proﬁle in the smallest ESE(T) sample (148 40 mm).

(b) Changes in Reff with crack length in the smallest ESE(T) sample (148 40 mm)

with external load cycle of R = 0.1 and R = 0.6.

stress proﬁles shown in Figs. 6–8 in part I of this work [22], are

from discrete measurements along a line within and parallel to

the eventual crack plane and are not complete ﬁelds. Before the Kres

analysis, a static procedure was used to calculate the equilibrium

Fig. 5. Calculated effects of crack growth on residual stress ﬁelds in 125 120 C(T) self balanced stress state for the ﬁnite element model. In this step,

sample (CP = 48 is crack tip position at 48.0 mm away from sample edge, the others

ABAQUS/Standard was set up to check the stress ﬁeld for equilib-

are the same).

rium and to change the stresses via iteration to achieve equilib-

rium. For CT and ESET samples, only the stresses perpendicular

to the crack plane were applied to the self balance routine. Stresses

parallel to this plane were not represented. In placing the experi-

mental residual stress ﬁelds into the FE model it was assumed that

the same proﬁle for stresses longitudinal to the weld existed at all

points normal to the crack plane up to the sample boundary. Be-

cause the weld line is parallel to the long axis of the ESE(T) sample,

stresses in this geometry will be largely invariant with distance

along the weld until the sample boundary is approached and this

assumption is justiﬁed.

For CT samples crack growth is along and parallel to the weld

line. The residual stresses contributing to crack growth in this case

will be perpendicular to the weld line. As Fig. 7b in [22] shows,

these stresses are relatively small (maximum of 40–50 MPa) and

reduce signiﬁcantly at distances in excess of 20 mm from the weld

line. Hence the assumption of residual stress proﬁles which do not

change with distance away from the weld line is not as well justi-

Fig. 6. Virtual crack closure technique. ﬁed, in contrast to the situation with ESE(T) samples.

Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434 1429

10 although the compressive peak in stress immediately ahead of the

5 crack tip remains large. Double stress peaks are still predicted on

Kres (MPam0.5)

either side of the weld line but the ﬁrst one is much reduced. Crack

0

growth to 20 and 30 mm length further modiﬁes and reduces cal-

-5

culated residual stresses to trivial levels as the stress ﬁeld further

-10 148x40

redistributes.

-15 185x50

In Fig. 5, for the C(T) sample 125 120 mm, the solid line with

-20 370x100 diamond points is the measured residual stress on the uncracked

-25 sample, while the solid line without points shows the calculated

-30 residual stress after balancing and before cracking. As was the case

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 for the ESET sample in Fig. 4, the balanced compressive residual

Distance from weld centre (mm) stress at the uncracked notch tip was large, in this case about

(a) 210 MPa. With crack growth to 65, 85 and 115 mm, calculated

balanced compressive and tensile residual stresses are reduced

with the same trends as for the ESET sample. Larger CT samples

showed the same trends.

sity factor Kres from residual stress by using ABAQUS. The models

were built using Quadrilateral shell elements around the notch

tip and along the crack lines. The element size was 0.05 mm; trian-

gular elements were used in the transitional area and elements

with four nodes in the far ﬁeld with the edge of 2 mm length in

order to save run time. Rigid elements were used to avoid overlap-

(b) ping material due to over-closure effects from the compressive

residual stress. In all ﬁnite element models contact elements were

Fig. 8. Kres and Reff changes with crack tip position in three sizes of ESE(T) samples. used to simulate the applied pin loads. The virtual crack closure

(a) Changes in Kres with crack tip position. (b) Changes in Reff with crack tip position. technique (VCCT) [21] was used for calculating strain energy

release rate for unit sample thickness with the formulation:

F j ui

G¼ ð10Þ

When residual stresses were put into the model, in both sam- 2t Dc

ples some small rebalancing occurred. For ESE(T) samples these

where Fj is the reaction force on j node; ui is the total displacement

were believed to be partly due to the nearby sample edge free sur-

from i node; t is thickness of samples and Dcs element size, see

faces, and partly due to incompatibilities between measured par-

Fig. 6.

tially deﬁned ﬁelds and the assumed ﬁelds in other parts of the

For plane stress, the relation between the strain energy release

samples. The changes arising from rebalancing were greatest in

rate and stress intensity factor (SIF) is as follows:

the CT samples; this probably arises as a consequence of the

assumptions discussed above. K2

G¼ ðPlane stressÞ

E

2.2. Redistribution of residual stress with crack growth ð1 tÞK 2

G¼ ðPlane strainÞ ð11Þ

E

After stress rebalancing, a crack was inserted in the FE model

and allowed to grow by removing nodes in the model. As the crack If residual stresses are input to this model, Kres can be derived

grew Kres was calculated by the virtual crack closure technique from Eqs. (10) and (11).

(VCCT) [21] from the ﬁnite element model. Kres values in each sam-

ple size were compared. Differences of Kres in specimens of differ- 3.1. Kres and Reff in ESE(T) samples

ent size will arise from differences in residual stresses. The Reff

changes with crack length were calculated, and then DKeff was cal- Following Eqs. (4), (10), (11), Kres and Reff were calculated. Fig. 7a

culated using Eqs. (6)–(9). Using the crack growth rate data from shows residual stress proﬁle and Kres for the smallest ESET sample.

the parent plate shown in part I, the master curve plot of DKeff vs It is clear that residual stress has a double peak of about 40.0 MPa

da/dN was calculated. Crack growth rates for DKeff were derived and 28.0 MPa at crack lengths of about 16.0 mm and 29.0 mm

from this curve. respectively, while Kres has a double peak as well about 1.5

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

The residual stress ﬁeld from a 148 40 ESET sample after MPa m and 0.2 MPa m at about 19.0 mm and 33.0 mm, a longer

equilibrium calculations but before a crack is introduced, is shown crack length than the peaks in residual stress.

compared to the measured residual stress data in Fig. 4. For this Fig. 7b shows a comparison of the nominal and the effective R

sample, the solid line connecting the square points is the measured ratio Reff for this test sample for nominal R ratios of 0.1 and 0.6.

residual stress proﬁle in the uncracked state, while the continuous For the nominal R = 0.1, Reff starts from 0.8 then attains 0.9 at

line without data points shows the same ﬁeld after balancing. To a crack length of around 10.5 mm. The Reff then steadily increases

balance the measured tensile stress data, the region without exper- with increasing crack length tending to Reff = 0.1 at a crack length

imental data between the notch root and the ﬁrst experimental around 30.0 mm. Kres totally changed the curve of Reff. For the nom-

point should contain a local compressive ﬁeld of 128 MPa. Intro- inal R ratio of 0.6, Reff starts from 0.5, then tends to 0.6 at 18.0 mm

duction of the crack modiﬁes this initial ﬁeld and at a length of and is constant with increasing crack length after this. For this

1430 Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434

sample experiments [22] show that residual stress has signiﬁcantly reﬂecting the relative sizes of the residual stress distributions

more effect on crack growth rate for a nominal R = 0.1 than for a (shown in Fig. 6 of Part I [22]).

nominal R = 0.6. This is shown in Fig. 9 of Part I, [22]. This explains Changes in Reff with distance from the weld line are shown in

why it is difﬁcult to initiate a pre-crack under the load R ratio 0.1. Figure 8b where Rapp = 0.6. Reff tends to Rapp = 0.6 at crack tip dis-

For the larger sample, such as 185 50 mm and 370 100 mm, tances of greater than 8–10 mm beyond the weld line. At smaller

the compressive residual stress is larger still than in the smallest crack lengths, when the crack tip is before the weld line, Reff is

148 40 mm samples and fatigue cracks could not be initiated much reduced approaching 0.1 in the largest sample and 0.35

and grown at R = 0.1. Crack growth occurred in these samples at and 0.5 in the samples 50 mm and 40 mm wide. This reﬂects the

R = 0.6 only. larger negative Kres in this region. At crack tip positions before

Following Eqs. (4), (10), (11), Kres and Reff in all three ESE(T) sam- 15 mm, Kres becomes increasingly negative, and Kmin and Kmax re-

ple sizes at nominal R of 0.6 were calculated and are compared in duce further as the crack length is small. When (Kres + Kmin) be-

Fig. 8a and b. Fig. 8a shows the changes in Kres for cracks growing comes negative, Reff becomes increasingly negative, the crack

across the three sample widths of 40, 50 and 100 mm. Sample being largely closed during the compression part of the load cycle.

widths are represented as distances from the weld centreline; When (Kres + Kmax) becomes negative as well then Reff will change

the smallest sample width will be from 20 to +20 mm, the middle sign and become positive; all of the load cycle being in compres-

from 25 to +25 mm, and the largest from 50 to +50 mm. The sion. The regions of negative and positive Reff in compression are

calculated Kres lines begin just ahead of the notch tip for each sam- not shown in Fig. 8b as they are difﬁcult to represent graphically.

ple. Kres values in each sample start negative and move into tensile

(positive) values with increasing crack length. Positive values of 3.2. Kres and Reff in C(T) samples

Kres are achieved at crack tip locations 8–10 mm from the weld

centre line in all sample sizes. As the crack tip grows beyond the Fig. 9 shows the changes in Kres and Reff as the crack tip grows

weld, values of Kres tend towards zero in all samples, again with across CT samples. As in the ESET samples, residual stresses around

the longest crack length being required in the largest samples. This the notch tip are compressive for stresses perpendicular to the

p p

reﬂects the diminution of residual stress as the stress relaxes at weld. Kres at the notch roots are 5.0 MPa m, 8.0 MPa m,

p

long crack lengths. The three sample sizes show big differences and 18.5 MPa m for samples 87.5, 125 and 250 mm wide, the

in Kres, particularly in the notch region. The biggest samples show values increase with increasing Kres, becoming positive at long

the largest values in both tension and compression, once again crack lengths. As in the case of the ESET samples, Kres tends to zero

at long crack lengths, with the largest sample requiring the longest

crack length to become zero, reﬂecting the redistribution behav-

iour of the residual stresses as the crack length increases in the

three samples.

10

Fig. 9b shows that when the crack length is small, Reff in CT sam-

p

5

ples is 0.3, 1.5 and 3.5 MPa m for samples of 87.5, 125 mm

and 250 mm, implying DK is partially in compression, and DKeff

Kres (MPam0.5)

much of the load cycle. With increased crack length, Reff moves into

-5 tension, and tends to R = 0.1. In the biggest specimen, Reff tends to

84x87.5 0.2 as Kres becomes signiﬁcantly tensile. As in the case of Fig. 8b the

-10 120x125 values of Kres in the region nearest to the notch are not plotted in

240x250 Fig. 9b as they are either fully in compression and positive, or have

-15 very large negative values.

-20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 4. Fatigue life predictions in welds using the closure model

Distance from notch tip (mm)

The equations introduced in [16] by the crack closure model can

(a) be used to calculate a crack opening stress level So for these tests as

follows.

1

Reff=(Kmax +Kres)/(Kmin +Kres)

0.5 So

Rnom=0.1 ¼ A0 þ A1 R þ A2 R2 þ A3 R3 for R P 0 ð12Þ

0 Smax

-0.5 and

-1

So

-1.5 ¼ A0 þ A1 R for 1 6 R < 0 ð13Þ

Smax

-2

84x87.5

-2.5 when So P Smin . The coefﬁcients used [15–16] were:

120x125

-3 240x250 A0 ¼ ð0:825 0:34a þ 0:05a2 Þ½cosðpSmax =2r0 Þ1=a ð14Þ

-3.5

-4 A1 ¼ ð0:415 0:071aÞSmax =r0 ð15Þ

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance from notch tip (mm) A2 ¼ 1 A0 A1 A3 ð16Þ

(b)

A3 ¼ 2A0 þ A1 1 ð17Þ

Fig. 9. Kres and Reff for three sizes of C(T) samples. (a) Changes in Kres with crack tip

position in three sizes of C(T) samples and (b) changes in Reff with crack tip position For plane stress conditions, a = 1, while for plane strain conditions,

in three sizes of C(T) samples. a = 3. The ﬂow stress r0 is taken to be the average between the uni-

Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434 1431

see Table 2 in Part I. In this paper, a was set as the intermediate

value a = 1.5.

Then the effective stress intensity factor range DKeff is given by

So

1 Smax

DK eff ¼ DK ð18Þ

1R

Reff was used in Eqs. (12)–(18) instead of R. For Reff < 0, Eq. (13) was

So

used to calculate Smax :

Crack growth rate data for parent material at three different R

ratios of R = 0.1, 0.35, 0.6 was taken from [22], These data are

shown in Fig. 10. DKeff and the master curve can be calculated

using the equations above. The resultant plot of da/dN vs DKeff is

da

shown in Fig. 11. The relationship of dN (m/cycle) with DKeff

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

(MPa m) in parent material 2195-T8 can be represented as:

da

¼ 3:0 1011 ðDK eff Þ4:5332 ð19Þ Fig. 11. ‘‘Master curve’’ of 8.0 mm thick 2195-T8 Parent material derived from Fig

dN

10 data.

For the 100 mm wide ESET sample, values of DKeff vs crack

length represented as distance from the weld centreline, was cal-

culated for the test at R = 0.6. The results are shown in Fig. 12, for

45

the situations with and without residual stress. The line without

40

residual stress is the normal unwelded situation. With residual

ΔKeffctive (MPa m)

370x100-No RS

35

stress, before a crack length of 12 mm, DKeff is reduced to

p 30 370x100-With RS

2 MPa m, about one quarter of DK without residual stress. DKeff

increases rapidly after 10 mm, merging with the line without 25

residual stress. In Fig. 13, DKeff for the three sizes of ESE(T) sam- 20

ples are compared. In the 370 100 mm, DKeff is much smaller 15

than the smaller sample because the residual stress is much high- 10

er there. 5

0

-50 -30 -10 10 30 50

4.1. Crack growth rates in ESE(T) samples

Distance from weld centreline (mm)

Fig. 14a shows the predicted crack growth rates for the three

Fig. 12. Comparison of DKeff with and without residual stress in 370 100 mm

ESET sample sizes. There is little difference between the curves ESET samples with external loading at R = 0.6.

for the two smallest samples of 40 and 50 mm wide. The

100 mm wide sample is predicted to have signiﬁcantly reduced

crack growth rates at shorter crack lengths near the notch; the dif-

ference between all curves reduces at long crack lengths and the

Table 2

Mechanical properties of 2195-T8 aluminium alloy.

580 615 79 9

1.00E-05

R=0.1

1.00E-06 R=0.35 Fig. 13. Changes in DKeff with crack tip position in all three sizes of ESE(T) sample

da/dN (m/cycle)

R=0.6

1.00E-07

largest DK values. Fig. 14b shows a comparison of predicted and

experimental data for the smallest sample; agreement is excellent

1.00E-08 near the notch with some error (less than a factor of 2) in growth

rate at the largest growth rates. The same comparison for the larg-

est 100 mm wide sample is shown in Fig. 14c. Here there is over

1.00E-09 prediction at both near the notch and at long crack lengths. Exper-

1 10 100

imental growth rates are generally smaller than calculated ones,

ΔK (MPa√m)

implying that calculated DKeff is slightly greater than is found

Fig. 10. Crack growth rates vs DK at R = 0.1, 0.35, 0.6 in 8.0 mm thick 2195-T8 experimentally. It is interesting that the region in which the crack

parent material. tip is crossing the weld line is where agreement is closest.

1432 Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434

Fig. 14. Predictions and experimental results in ESE(T) samples at R = 0.6. (a)

Predicted crack growth rate da/dN vs DKapp for three size ESE(T) samples with

external loading at R = 0.6. (b) Comparison of predicted and experimental fatigue

crack growth rates for the smallest ESE(T) sample (148 40) at R = 0.6; shaded area

denotes the extent of the weld nugget. (c) Comparison of predicted crack growth Fig. 15. Predictions and experimental results in C(T) samples at R = 0.1. (a)

rates with experimental ones for the largest ESE(T) sample (370 100 mm) at Comparison of predicted crack growth rate da/dN for three sizes of C(T) samples.

R = 0.6; shaded area denotes the extent of the weld nugget. (b) Comparison of predicted crack growth rates with experimental ones for the

smallest C(T) sample (87.5 84 mm) tested at R = 0.1. (c) Comparison of predicted

crack growth rates with experimental ones for the largest C(T) sample

(250 240 mm) at R = 0.1.

4.2. Crack growth rates in C(T) samples

Fig. 15a shows the predicted crack growth data for the three the three curves. Fig. 15b shows the comparison between pre-

sizes of CT samples. In many ways the CT samples show the same dicted and experimental for the smallest sample. Here there is

trends as the ESET in Fig. 13. There is little difference in the good agreement with a slight over prediction near the notch and

predicted lines for the two smallest samples. The largest sample under prediction at long crack lengths. The same comparison for

has growth rates near the notch signiﬁcantly smaller than the the largest sample is in Fig. 15c, there is an increased tendency

other two, at long crack lengths there is little difference between to overpredict growth rates in the near notch region. There is no

Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434 1433

tendency to underpredict growth rates. At no point is the error on parent plate material. For the ESET sample, this assumption is

greater than a factor of 2. valid for most of the time, as the crack spends only a short dis-

tance propagating through the weld nugget; most of the life is

spent propagating through parent material. For CT samples,

5. Discussion

crack growth is initiated in the weld nugget, and then grows

out from the nugget to thermal mechanical affected zone. In

5.1. Redistribution of residual stress in FE calculations

Fig. 11 of Part I [22] there are no obvious discontinuities in crack

growth rates associated with this transition in crack path, which

In this work, the Mode I opening mode only was taken into ac-

might suggest that microstructure greatly inﬂuenced crack

count for crack propagation, so only residual stress perpendicular

growth rate. dos Santos et al., [23] have measured using micro-

to crack plane was input to the ﬁnite element model. Measured

tensile samples ductilities of between 20% and 30% on FSW nug-

residual stress parallel to the weld direction (X-direction) is much

get material. This is considerably greater than parent plate

bigger than the stress perpendicular to the weld (Y-direction) for

ductility and suggests that fatigue crack growth resistance will

the crack plane perpendicular to the weld, (shown in Figs. 6–8 in

be superior in the nugget and provides a rationale for crack devi-

Part I [22]). For ESE(T) samples, cracks grew perpendicular to the

ation to a weld region where growth is faster. The greatly re-

weld, therefore residual stress parallel to the weld (X-direction)

duced hardness values recorded in the welds in this study

was considered. For the ESE(T) samples this was 50–120 MPa max-

(Fig. 3 of part I [22]) support this conjecture. However, while

imum depending on the sample size. Residual stresses perpendic-

the effects of microstructure on crack path are clear, effects of

ular to the weld (Y-direction) were much smaller than this and

it on crack growth rate are not obvious.

were ignored. Local changes in stress near the notch only were nec-

A comparison of Figs. 14b and 15b, showing the da/dN values for

essary to achieve balance.

ESET and CT samples, shows that for the smallest specimens, there

For C(T) samples, the biggest residual stress (X-direction) was

is little difference in growth rates in the two sample geometries,

not input to the model. The local stress minimum on the crack

even though one is propagating in parent plate and the other is

plane when the crack is propagating on the weld line is almost

growing in nugget material ﬁrst, then moves out of it to the ther-

equibiaxial tension (Figs. 7 and 8 of part I [22]) and only 50 MPa.

mal affected zone. This suggests that effects of microstructure

The stress maxima parallel to the weld are displaced either side

and hardness are less important in comparison to effects of DKeff.

of the weld line and it is unclear if crack growth will promote

Equally, there is little difference in accuracy of the predictions in

any stress redistribution other than to the stress perpendicular to

ESET and CT (Figs. 14 and 15) samples, despite the use of parent

the crack plane – which is small in any case. These stresses parallel

plate data throughout.

to the crack plane were not put into the model, and may cause

changes on rebalancing. In C(T) samples stresses perpendicular to

the crack plane reduced by 30% on ﬁnite element balancing. This

change is felt to be unrealistic and it may be that other components 6. Conclusions

of stress not represented in the analysis act to maintain the bal-

anced ﬁeld at the measured values. For these samples, residual (1) Experimentally measured residual stress data points

stresses in both directions may need to be input at the same time. can imply a residual stress ﬁeld which is not self bal-

Despite this change the predicted crack growth rates were in close anced; when they are put into an FE model of the sample

agreement with experimental ones. rebalancing may result in signiﬁcant changes to the mea-

sured ﬁelds.

(2) Numerical models of residual stress redistribution with

5.2. Using DKeff and Reff in crack growth predictions

crack growth show that stresses and Kres values reduce sig-

niﬁcantly as the crack grows.

For both types of sample, the residual stresses around the notch

(3) For ESET and CT welded samples, the edge notch root was in

tip were always compressive, leading to difﬁculties of crack initia-

a compressive residual stress ﬁeld causing greatly reduced

tion and reduced initial crack growth rates. The nominal R ratio

DKeff values and reduced crack growth rates.

and DKapp are replaced with effective R ratio Reff and DKeff, these

(4) Measured fatigue crack growth rates were strongly depen-

being a function of the local Kres. Under the measured notch com-

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ dent on the residual stress intensity Kres together with the

pressive residual stress, Kres was calculated as 25 MPa m for the

pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ applied R ratio, and the inﬂuence they jointly had on DKeff

largest ESET sample and 18 MPa m for the largest CT. Under

and Reff.

external cyclic loading at R = 0.1 (Kmax + Kres) < 0 and the entire

(5) Effects of residual stress ﬁeld on fatigue crack growth rates

range of DK is in compression. This situation can be physically

appear to dominate over effects of microstructure and local

interpreted as a region where crack faces are closed and no crack

mechanical properties; crack path appears inﬂuenced addi-

growth can occur. If the R ratio is increased to 0.6, (Kmax + Kres)

tionally by local microstructure and mechanical properties.

can become positive and DKeff will be >0. Provided that DKeff > D-

(6) A closure model based on calculation of DKeff using a master

Keffth the threshold for crack growth, then crack growth can occur.

curve of parent plate crack growth data has been successful

As crack growth proceeds, residual stress will decrease, Kres and Reff

at predicting fatigue crack growth rates in welded samples

become less negative and DKeff gradually increases, with conse-

of a wide range of sizes, residual stresses and crack orienta-

quent increasing crack growth rates.

tions with respect to the weld.

Acknowledgement

The predictive model used here has assumed that the effects

of the weld on fatigue crack growth are largely a consequence of The project was funded by the European Commission through a

the residual stress distribution, its size and shape in relation to Framework Programme 6 project entitled ‘‘cost effective integral

the growing fatigue crack, and its effect on DKeff as it grows structures (COINS)’’ under contract number AST5-CT-2006-

through the weld. The effect on crack growth rate of changes 030825. Grateful thanks to Rob Maziarz, Airbus UK for supply of

in DKeff has been interpreted in terms of growth rates measured FSW plates.

1434 Y.E. Ma et al. / International Journal of Fatigue 33 (2011) 1426–1434

References [12] Dalle Donne C, Biallas G, Ghidini T, Raimbeaux G. Effect of weld imperfections

and residual stresses on the fatigue crack propagation in friction stir welded

joints. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium on friction stir

[1] Pouget G, Reynolds AP. Residual stress and microstructure effects on fatigue

welding, Gothenburg, Sweden; June 2000.

crack growth in AA2050 friction stir welds. Int J Fatigue 2008;30:463–72.

[13] Dalle Donne C, Raimbeaux G. Residual stress effects on fatigue crack

[2] Fratini L et al. Fatigue crack growth in 2024-T351 friction stir welded joints. Int

propagation in friction stir welds. In: Tenth international conference on

J Fatigue 2008.

fatigue ICF10, Hawaii, USA; 2001.

[3] Laﬂy Anne-Laure, Donne Claudio Dalle, et al. Role of residual stress on fatigue

[14] Nelson DV. Effects of residual stress on fatigue crack propagation. Residual

crack propagation of FSW 6056-T78 aluminium joints under various

stress effects in fatigue. ASTM STP 776, American Society for Testing and

technologies. Mater Sci Forum 2006;519–521(July):1089–94.

Materials; 1982. p. 172–94.

[4] Pasta S, Reynolds AP, Frantini L. Residual stress effects on fatigue crack growth

[15] Newman JC. A crack opening stress equation for fatigue crack growth. Int J

in Ti-6-4 friction stir welds. Associazione Italiana Per L’Analisi Delle

Fract 1984(24):131–5.

Sollecitazioni XXXV Convegno Nazionale; 13th–16th September 2006.

[16] Newman JC. Fratran-II-A fatigue crack growth structural analysis program.

[5] Milan MT, Bose Filho WW, Tarpani JR, et al. Residual stress evaluation of

NASA Technical memorandum 104159; February 1992.

AA2024-T3 friction stir welded joints. J Mater Eng Performance

[17] Finite element analysis of plasticity-induced fatigue crack closure: an

2007;16(1):86–92.

overview. Eng Fract Mech 2004; 71: 149–71.

[6] Buechner HF. Weight functions for the notched bar. Z Angew Math Mech

[18] Elber W. The signiﬁcance of fatigue crack closure damage tolerance in aircraft

1971;51:97–109.

structures. In: ASTM STP 486; 1971. p. 230–42.

[7] Glinka G, Shen G. Universal features of weight functions for cracks in mode I.

[19] Forman RG, Kearney VE, Engle RM. Numerical analysis of crack propagation

Eng Fract Mech 1991;40(6):1135–46.

cyclic-loaded structures. Trans AMSE J Basic Eng 1967;89(3).

[8] Lam YC, Lian KS. The effect of residual stress and its redistribution on fatigue

[20] ABAQUS Version 6.7.

crack growth. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1989;12:59–66.

[21] Krueger Ronald. The virtual crack closure technique: history, approach and

[9] Daniewicz SR, Collins JA, Houser DR. An elastic–plastic analytical model for

applications. NASA/CR-2002-211628.

predicting fatigue crack growth in arbitrary edge-cracked two-dimensional

[22] Ma YE, Fisher T, Irving PE. Size effects on residual stress and fatigue crack

geometries with residual stress. Fatigue 1994;16(February):123–33.

growth in friction stir welded 2195 T8 aluminium Part I: experiments. Int J

[10] Lee Yong-Bok et al. Effects of redistributing of residual stress on the fatigue

Fatigue, accepted for publication, 2011.

behavior of SS330 weldment. Int J Fatigue 1998;20(8):565–73.

[23] Dos Santos J. GKSS report to COINS project; May 2008.

[11] LaRue JE, Daniewicz SR. Predicting the effect of residual stress on fatigue crack

growth. Int J Fatigue 2007;29:508–15.

- MinMach-HomePage01Загружено:miningnova2
- Engineering Failure AnalysisЗагружено:Fernando Iván Medina
- AGARD-AG-201-VOL-2Загружено:greatsteel
- FatigueЗагружено:Sam Wilcock
- 6_478ryeryeryeЗагружено:ankitsarvaiya
- Fatigue Failure Resulting From Variable Loading (1)Загружено:Timothy Martinez
- Applications of Fracture Mechanics.docxЗагружено:AndrésGonzález
- Multi Axial Fatigue Experiments-I ModellingЗагружено:Gennaro Mozzillo
- Cracking Tendences Fillet WeldsЗагружено:Andrea Caldera
- ductile fracture analysisЗагружено:Rajueswar
- Acoustic Emission Study of Fatigue Crack GrowthЗагружено:Pravasini Kuanr
- ME Web ModuleЗагружено:AndrewFrancisco
- TSCЗагружено:Sanjay Chakraborty
- 89_fatigue Analysis of Truss-2169Загружено:Joni Stulic
- Fatigue PptЗагружено:abraham
- 265714304-A-Coupled-Uncoupled-Deformation-and-Fatigue-Damage-Algorithm-Utilizing-the-Finite-Element-Method-pdf.pdfЗагружено:HriraOni
- Residual Stress DistributionЗагружено:nilesh_092
- AWST-11-94Загружено:Herd Iman
- Application_of_Risk_Based_Inspection_Methodology_t.pdfЗагружено:AdamSultansyah
- 316_1A.pdfЗагружено:Mohammad Fawwaz
- Indent_Single.pdfЗагружено:Saptarshee Mitra
- Heavy Spalls Originating in the cores of chromium Rolls.pdfЗагружено:fahrgeruste3961
- ## - Relations between the S-N, eps-N and da_dN-K Curves of MaterialsЗагружено:anon10102020
- Pd 8010 2 Presentation April 2005 NewЗагружено:Suphi Yüksel
- IJEAS0304021Загружено:erpublication
- PVP2010-26156Shuaibetal (1)Загружено:claude_01
- 03zhang_msthesisЗагружено:darafeh
- lec8Загружено:Abhishek Arora
- AuthorsЗагружено:Balu Ukamanal
- Publ en 462 VSU PaperЗагружено:tinchofran

- Solutions Manual - Materials Processing in Manufacturing DemargoЗагружено:Shujjat Abbas
- Linear Elastic fracture mechanics report.pdfЗагружено:Lisa Roberts
- materials-07-05012Загружено:boho
- Crack propagationЗагружено:Parth Shah
- btech 4th year me pesit batch 2014-18Загружено:api-294538209
- Nonlinear AnalysisЗагружено:Narendra Palande
- Abaqus Fracture Mechanics Training ClassЗагружено:Bruce Lee
- Review Critical PlaneЗагружено:Jay Srivastava
- Elevated Temperature Fatigue of Pressure Vessel SteelsЗагружено:John
- MTech ME Syllabus 31aug2010Загружено:Hay Conserve Ecology
- FailureЗагружено:Alexia Armas
- Assessment Method of Reformer Tubes.pdfЗагружено:Andrea Caldera
- Nafems India Webinar Fem for Engineering AnalysisЗагружено:Balaji Nallaval Chinnaswamy
- AIChE Wilhelm April 08 Process SafetyЗагружено:mostafa_1000
- Fracture Mechanics 2Загружено:Jagannadha Reddy
- 1-s2.0-S0301679X1000263X-main (1)Загружено:seansoto
- A Practical and Systematic Review of Weibull Statistics ForЗагружено:aliosmant6
- Fatigue 2010Загружено:Gaze
- 195.PDFЗагружено:sdhrtwr
- RailEng Abstracts.pdfЗагружено:Ali Tavakoli Nia
- Thesis LazarЗагружено:Deni haryadi
- DS68_9-597.pdfЗагружено:Ramon Fraga
- Tutorial 15b CT XFEMЗагружено:Varghese Mathew
- KAPAFAQs.pdfЗагружено:Jangdini
- Modeling Layered Composites the Simple WayЗагружено:Adil Kaplanseren
- 13. Statoil, Lars Magne Haldorsen.pdfЗагружено:mayav1
- Applications of Fracture Mechanics.docxЗагружено:AndrésGonzález
- ESDEPЗагружено:Elvis Osorio Santander
- 10 X-Ray-diffraction Approach for Studies on Fatigue and CreepЗагружено:Son Tran
- Cumulative Damage PredictionЗагружено:gakonruby