PSI - Issue 83

Teresa Morgado et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 83 (2026) 286–294

291

5. Results and Discussion To validate this research, an error study was made between the stress intensity factor (SIF Ref ) and the element finite simulation (SIF Num ), JIT Ref and JIT Num for the different crack locations and element types, and for each additive manufacturing build direction (Data Set A, Data Set B and Data Set C correspond to XZ, ZY, and XY planes, respectively). The error study for fatigue analysis was performed between a crit and a Num . Figure 3 a) presents the SIF percentual error versus crack length from the 3D analysis without contact. The SIF percentage error presents results from 0.26% to 6.65%. These results are very good, remaining below 10%. Figure 3 b) presents the J- Integral error versus crack length from the 3D analysis without contact. From Figure 3b), it is observed that the J-integral percentage error values range from 0.4% to 16.10% (value satisfactory, remaining below 20%).

Fig. 3. 3D Analysis without contact: a) SIF percentual error versus crack length; b) J-Integral percentual error versus crack length . For the mesh-convergence study, eight tests were conducted (Figure 4). The converged values vary slightly from test 4 onward. By comparing the initial and final percentage error values of the test, it is observed from Figure 4 that SIF and J-Integral increased. Nevertheless, the SIF value remains below 10% while the J-Integral value stays above 10%. Therefore, it can be affirmed that the convergence test had a slight impact on the results of the 3D study without contact.

Fig. 4. Mesh Convergence test results of three-dimensional analysis without contact.

From the 3D study with contact forces, the SIF percentual error presents results from 0% to 3.18% (Figure 5 a), while the J- Integral percentual error values range from 0.25% to 8.33% (Figure 5 b). Consequently, the application of contact forces significantly reduced the percentage of error values.