Title: Crack Growth Analysis of Critical Area in
Front Wing Spar and Verification of Model
Objective:
To illustrate the process of estimating crack growth
behavior to set inspection limits and the process used to verify the analytical
results.
General
Description:
This problem focuses on
a damage tolerance assessment of a critical area on a wing front spar for the
purpose of establishing inspection intervals. The critical area includes both the spar cap and the wing
skin. An airplane finite element model
was developed to determine the stresses and the critical area was modeled using
a standard AFGROW stress intensity factor solution. Verification testing was conducted to validate the life prediction
model.
Topics Covered: Damage tolerance assessment, finite
element analysis, crack growth analysis, inspection intervals
Type of Structure:
wing skin, wing spar cap
Relevant
Sections of Handbook: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11
Author: Peggy C. Miedlar
Company Name: University
of Dayton Research Institute
Structural
Integrity Division
Dayton,
OH 45469-0120
937-229-4417
www.udri.udayton.edu
Contact Point: Peggy C. Miedlar
Phone: 937-229-4476
e-Mail: Miedlar@udri.udayton.edu
Overview of Problem Description
This problem focuses on
a critical area on a wing front spar, shown in Figure
UD-1.1 (photograph), and further
described by the drawings of Figures UD-1.2 - UD-1.4. The
critical area includes both the spar cap and the wing skin. The spar cap was fabricated from 2024-T3511
aluminum and the skin from 2024-T3 aluminum.
The fasteners are 0.25 in diameter, and join the cap, skin and
fitting. The specific area is shown in Figure UD-1.4, with the expected crack path marked.
|
Figure
UD-1.1. Photograph of Critical Area
from Outside Wing.
|
|
Figure
UD-1.2. General Location of Critical
Area.
|
|
Figure
UD-1.3. Structural Detail for
Critical Area from Bottom of Wing Looking Up.
|
|
Figure
UD-1.4. Detail Geometry of Critical
Location Shown in Figure UD-1.3.
|
Structural Model
A finite element model was used for determining the level
of stresses in the critical area. The
loading for this geometry is tension.
Structural Model
Details
If the details of the FE model are important to the
problem, the model should be described here, using drawings to illustrate the
model.
Model Geometry Description
The critical crack geometry was modeled as a corner crack
from an off-centered hole, with the crack growing toward the short side. The corresponding AFGROW crack geometry
model is called a single corner crack at a hole, as shown in Figure UD-1.5.
A width (W) of 2.5 inches was
assumed as representative of the distance from the plate edge to the next
hole. The edge distance (B) is 0.61, thickness (t) is 0.125 and hole radius (D/2) is 0.125 inches.
Figure UD-1.6 describes the
length direction beta factor (K/s)
for several a/c ratios.
Model Assumptions
Some assumptions were made for this analysis. Most of these assumptions are conservative,
resulting in a shorter predicted life.
These assumptions include: straight shank hole, open hole, no load transfer,
no local residual stresses due to cold working, and no retardation.
|
Figure
UD-1.5. Crack Geometry Model for
Stress Intensity Factor.
|
Figure
UD-1.6. Surface Length Beta (K/s)
Factor for Corner Crack from a Hole for Several Different Crack Aspect Ratios
(a/c).
Inspection Capabilities and Crack Limits
The holes in the flange and skin are covered by the
wing-fuselage attachment fitting. With
the fasteners removed, only the inside of the holes are visible. Therefore, these areas are inspected by
X-ray. With X-ray inspection, the
minimum detectable crack size in the field is 0.5 inch crack.
Structural Loading and Stress History Description
The stress spectrum is given in Table
UD-1.1 where the flight history is
presented as a fraction of the maximum spectrum stress (10.7 ksi). There
are 1590 cycles in the spectrum, and this represents ten flights. Each flight is one hour.
Table UD-1.1. Flight History Data For Problem UDRI-1.
Step No.
|
Maximum Stress
|
Minimum Stress
|
Cycles
|
1
|
0.45
|
0.125
|
333
|
2
|
0.55
|
0.125
|
234
|
3
|
0.65
|
0.125
|
158
|
4
|
0.85
|
0.125
|
52
|
5
|
0.95
|
0.125
|
11
|
6
|
1.05
|
0.125
|
5
|
7
|
1.15
|
0.125
|
1
|
8
|
1.25
|
0.125
|
1
|
9
|
0.45
|
0.125
|
333
|
10
|
0.55
|
0.125
|
234
|
11
|
0.65
|
0.125
|
158
|
12
|
0.85
|
0.125
|
52
|
13
|
0.95
|
0.125
|
11
|
14
|
1.05
|
0.125
|
5
|
15
|
1.15
|
0.125
|
2
|
Material Property Description
The parameters for the Walker equation for the two
aluminum alloys are given in Table UD-1.2, along
with other material parameters. A
detailed description as to how Walker constants were developed is presented in
Section 5.
Table UD-1.2. Material Properties and Growth Rate Data.
Parameter
|
2024-T3
|
2024-T3511
|
Walker C
|
9.57 x 10-10
|
9.57 x 10-10
|
Walker n
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
Walker m
|
0.32
|
0.32
|
KC
|
92.0
|
92.0
|
KIC
|
35.0
|
46.0
|
sY
|
48.0
|
54.0
|
DKth
|
0.0
|
2.5
|
Solution Technique
This type of problem is conveniently solved using
AFGROW. The input file for the AFGROW
analysis is shown in Table UD-1.3.
Table UD-1.3. AFGROW Input File for Problem UDRI-1.
Data
|
Description
|
FAF012
|
|
Example
Problem
|
~{Example
problem using Walker equation and crack at off-centered hole }
|
Description
of Problem
|
1030
0
|
|
0.05
|
Geometry
data
|
0.05
0
|
0.05
0
|
0.125
|
2.5
|
1 0
0 0
|
0.25
|
-1
|
1
0.61
|
|
10500
|
|
0.33
|
|
1.25e-005
|
|
NOENVS
|
|
NORETARD
|
|
1
|
|
1
|
|
NOKMOD
|
|
NOKRES
|
|
WALKER_NEW
|
|
2024-T3 example
|
Material Data
|
1
|
9.57e-010 3.7 0.32
|
92 2
|
35 -0.3 0.99 48
|
0
|
NO_INITIATION
|
10.7
|
|
0
|
Spectrum
data
|
SPFILE
|
spectrum.sp3
|
The spectrum is contained in a separate file named spectrum.sp3, and is shown in Table UD-1.4.
Each repeat of the defined segment represents ten flights, and each
flight represents one hour.
Using AFGROW terminology, the spectrum is entered as a
blocked spectrum with one sub-spectrum.
In this case, the sub-spectrum is the block of stresses given in
Table UD-1.1.
Table
UD-1.4. AFGROW Sub-Spectrum File for
Problem UDRI-1.
Data
|
Description
|
1 15
|
Sub-spectrum number, number of levels
|
0.45 0.125
333
|
Maximum stress, minimum stress, number of cycles
|
0.55 0.125 234
|
0.75 0.125 158
|
0.85 0.125 52
|
0.95 0.125 11
|
1.05 0.125 5
|
1.15 0.125 1
|
1.25 0.125 1
|
0.45 0.125 333
|
0.55 0.125 234
|
0.75 0.125 158
|
0.85 0.125 52
|
0.95 0.125 11
|
1.05 0.125 5
|
1.15 0.125 2
|
Results
Critical crack
size/Residual Strength
Using the Irwin Criterion for fracture, i.e.,
This criterion is imbedded in the AFGROW code and is used
to determine the critical thru-thickness crack size (c) = 0.458 inches. The
corner crack transitions into a thru-thickness crack at about one-half of the
life.
Life:
Based on the calculations for growing the crack in AFGROW,
the life from initial crack size to failure is determined to be 3100
hours. The results of crack length
versus life and crack depth versus life are shown in Figures
UD-1.7 and UD-1.8, respectively. The life is given in flight hours.
Figure
UD-1.7. Crack Length versus Life for
Problem UDRI-1.
Figure UD-1.8. Crack Depth
versus Life for Problem UDRI-1.
Verification of the Life Analysis
To verify the analysis procedure, four specimens were
tested under the operational stress spectrum, and these results were compared
to the analytical results. The test
specimens were designed to represent the localized features that match the
actual aircraft structure, seen in Figure UD-1.10. The operational spectrum is given in Table UD-1.1.
The test results are summarized in Table UD-1.8.
The AFGROW program was used to predict the specimen
lives. The results of the analysis are
also shown in Table UD-1.8. The predicted results are compared to the
analytical results with the ratio of predicted life divided by actual life (NP/NA).
Figure
UD-1.10. Test Specimen.
Table UD-1.8. Test Results for 2024-T351 C(T) Specimens.
Specimen ID
|
Width (in)
|
Thickness (in)
|
Hole Diameter (in)
|
Precrack Length (in)
|
Test Flights to Failure (NA)
|
Predicted Flights to Failure (NP)
|
NP NA
|
5
|
1.220
|
0.123
|
0.250
|
0.050
|
2072
|
1616
|
0.78
|
8
|
1.221
|
0.124
|
0.249
|
0.050
|
1844
|
1697
|
0.92
|
11
|
1.220
|
0.124
|
0.250
|
0.049
|
1004
|
1626
|
1.62
|
12
|
1.220
|
0.125
|
0.250
|
0.048
|
2042
|
1736
|
0.85
|
Discussion of NP/NA
If the NP/NA ratio is equal to 1, then the analysis
predicts the actual test results. If
the NP/NA ratio is greater than 1, the analysis
is unconservative. If the predicted
life is less than the actual (NP/NA <1),
the analysis is conservative.
If the ratio is too high
or low, i.e. NP/NA=2 or NP/NA=0.5, then the analysis method and assumptions should
be reviewed to rectify the differences between the experiment and analysis
For these tests, the NP/NA ratios show a good correlation between the test
results and analysis. Three of the four
tests show that the analysis is conservative.
Inspection Intervals
The initial inspection interval is at one-half of the
life. For the predicted life of 3100
hours, the first inspection is set at 1550 hours.
Subsequent inspections are one half the life from NDI
field detectable crack size to the critical crack size. However, for this problem, the failure
occurs prior to the field detectable crack size.
Force Management Decisions
Since the critical crack size (af)= 0.458 inch is less than the NDE detectable size (aNDE = 0.5 inch), the
situation precludes the use of multiple inspections. And the structure must be classified as slow crack growth
critical. This means that once the
initial inspection period has been reached, the life limit of the structure has
been reached, i.e., the life is 1550 flights (=3100/2). Alternately, one could use the results to
assess different inspection and repair options. For example, if an inspection method can be found that will
detect the presence of 0.005 inch long cracks, then the time between
inspections becomes 6575 flights. Thus,
if after pulling the fasteners from the holes for the first in-depth
inspection, these holes are then coldworked, the lives can be extended
tremendously, and subsequent inspections might not be required.
Complementary
Sensitivity Studies
·
Cold working of holes/compressive residual stresses due
to taper-lok.
·
Filled hole load transfer.
·
Taper-lok holes – one method for accounting for fatigue
rated fasteners systems is to start the analysis with initial crack size of
0.005 inches.
·
Retardation model (currently using no retardation).