J based FAD assessment of a

cylinder with a surface crack

15th July 2020
Contents
• Introduction
• Configuration of cylinder
• Mechanical properties
• Finite element modelling using ANSYS/Workbench
• Crack modelling
• Nonlinear analysis results
• Linear analysis results
• Construction of J based FAD
• Observations
• Conclusions
• References
Introduction
• Aims :
1. To construct the Failure Assessment Diagram of a cylinder under internal
pressure having an axial surface crack on the OD, directly from 3D finite
element analysis
2. To evaluate the ultimate pressure carrying capacity of the cylinder in the
presence of the above crack
• J based methodology is used for plotting the FAD
• ANSYS/Mechanical Workbench is used for modelling the cylinder and
the part through crack. Two analysis were done:
1. Linear elastic analysis
2. Elasto plastic analysis
 Configuration of cylinder

• Inner diameter : 200 mm

• Outer diameter : 216 mm
• Wall thickness : 8 mm
• Length : 200 mm
• Loading : Internal pressure
• Material : Aluminium alloy AA2219
• Support conditions : Fully clamped at one end
Mechanical properties
• Young’s modulus : 70000 N/mm2
• Poisson’s ratio : 0.33
• Yield strength : 276 N/mm2
• Plane strain fracture toughness, KIc : 900 MPamm
AA 2219
450
400
350
Stress (N/mm2)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Plastic strain (mm/mm)

True stress strain graph of AA2219

Finite element modelling using ANSYS/Workbench
Crack modelling
• a x 2c = 3.5 x 7 mm (NASA specified min
detectable size using UT and X ray)
• a/c = 1, a/t = 0.44
• Crack mesh details
✓Meshing method : Hex dominant
✓No. of crack front divisions : 20
✓No. of circumferential elements around
crack tip : 16
✓No. of radial elements (called no. of mesh
contours) around crack tip : 6
✓Radius of largest contour : 0.2mm
Nonlinear analysis results
• Last converged pressure loading (collapse press) : 33 Mpa
• No. of substeps used : 15
• At collapse pressure:
✓Max deformation : 8.26 mm
✓Max eq. stress : 424 N/mm2
✓Max pl. strain (in crack tip region) : 745%
✓Max pl. strain (in cylinder membrane region) : 0.7%
✓Max Jtot : 328.8 mJ/mm2 (Mpa.mm)
Deformation contours
Equivalent stress contours
Equivalent plastic strain contours
Variation of Jtot along crack front
Linear analysis results Pressure KI (from linear FEA) Jel
Mpa Mpa mm^.5 Mpa mm
0 0 0
• At 33 Mpa: 2.2 71.93333333 0.0537
4.4 143.8666667 0.21
✓Max KI : 1079 Mpamm
6.6 215.8 0.48
✓Max Jel : 12.07 mJ/mm2 (Mpa.mm) 8.8 287.7333333 0.88
11 359.6666667 1.34
13.2 431.6 1.93
15.4 503.5333333 2.63
17.6 575.4666667 3.43
19.8 647.4 4.35
22 719.3333333 5.37
24.2 791.2666667 6.49
26.4 863.2 7.73
28.6 935.1333333 9.07
30.8 1007.066667 10.52
33 1079 12.07
Variation of KI along crack front
Variation of Jel along crack front
 Construction of J based FAD
Variation of Jel with loading Variation of Jpl with loading
14 350
12 300
10 250

Jpl (mJ/mm2)
Jel (mJ/mm2)

8 200
6 150
4 100
2 50
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressue (Mpa) Pressure (Mpa)

Variation of Jtot with loading

Variation of Jel, Jpl, Jtot with loading
350
350
300
300
250
Jtot (mJ/mm2)

250 Jtot Jel Jpl

200

J (mJ/mm2)
200
150
150
100

50 100

0 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
Pressure (Mpa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pressure (MPa)
 Construction of J based FAD Failure Assessment Diagram
Pressure Jel Jpl Jtot Lr Kr 1.2
Mpa Mpa mm Mpa mm Mpa mm 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0.8 Q
2.2 5.37E-02 0 5.37E-02 0.066667 1
0.6

Kr
4.4 0.21 0 0.21 0.133333 1 P
0.4
6.6 0.48 0 0.48 0.2 1
8.8 0.88 0 0.88 0.266667 1
0.2 O
11 1.34 0.05 1.39 0.333333 0.98185 0
13.2 1.93 0.15 2.08 0.4 0.963268 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
15.4 2.63 0.81 3.44 0.466667 0.874377 Lr
17.6 3.43 1.95 5.38 0.533333 0.798465
19.8 4.35 4.27 8.62 0.6 0.71038 Failure assessment point (P)
22 5.37 8.7 14.07 0.666667 0.617789
Pressure : 11 Mpa
24.2 6.49 21.03 27.52 0.733333 0.485622
Lr = 11/33 = 0.33
26.4 7.73 42.55 50.28 0.8 0.392096
KI : 360 Mpa mm (from linear FEA at 11 Mpa)
28.6 9.07 78.48 87.55 0.866667 0.321866 KIc : 900 MPamm
30.8 10.52 135 145.52 0.933333 0.268873 Kr = 360/900 = 0.4
33 12.07 314.93 327 1 0.192123 FOS against fracture : OQ/OP=2
 FAD for increasing loading
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
Kr

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Lr

From FAD approach From KIc approach

Fracture point : Lr = 0.6, Kr = 0.7 Ultimate pressure (at which KI = KIc) : 27.4 MPa
Ultimate pressure : 0.6 x 33 = 19.6 MPa
Observations
• The J integral based FAD has been plotted for the cylinder
• The K, J and limit (collapse) pressure solutions are obtained directly
from FEA than from closed form solutions (Newman-Raju for K
solutions, EPRI handbook for J and limit pressure solutions)
• The X axis of the FAD has been taken to be Lr = applied
pressure/collapse pressure, thus having a peak value of 1
• This is against the reported procedures in literature [1-4].
• Failure pressure has been found to be 19.6 Mpa as against 27.4 Mpa
from KIc based linear analysis, which is conservative.
Conclusions
• The analysis was done in an Intel Core i5 8th generation processor based HP
laptop with 8 GB RAM with a total of 8 processors, running under Windows
10 Home using ANSYS Workbench (Version 18.1)

• Improved solutions can be expected with a faster computer with:

✓Finer mesh (for both crack as well as cylinder regions)
✓More number of load steps

• In the proposed method, weld mismatch stresses can be directly modelled

in 3D FEA for calculation of the limit load (collapse pressure) as well as J
computations.
References
1. Anderson, T.L, “Fracture Mechanics : Fundamentals and
Applications”, 4th Edition, 2017, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
2. V.Kumar, M.D.German, C.F.Shih, “An engineering approach for
elastic-plastic fracture analysis”, EPRI handbook, 1981.
3. C.Tipple and G.Thorwald, “Using the Failure Assessment Diagram
Method with fatigue crack growth to determine Leak before
Rupture”, Proceedings of the 2012 SIMULIA Customer Conference.
4. Greg Thorwald and Pedro Vargas, “Cylinder axial crack reference
stress comparison using elastic plastic FEA 3D crack mesh J integral
values”, Proceedings of the ASME 2017 Pressure Vessel and Piping
Conference, 2017.