PSI - Issue 2_A

R. Hannemann et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 2527–2534

2533

R. Hannemann et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

7

Fig. 5: Definition of rotation angle θ and relative crack front position γ

0 . 8

θ = 0 ◦ θ = 45 ◦ θ = 70 ◦ θ = 90 ◦ θ = 125 ◦ α K = 1.32 α K = 1.18 α K = 1.10

0 . 7

0 . 6

0 . 5

0 . 4

Y

0 . 3

0 . 2

0 . 1

0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 0

γ

Fig. 6: Correlation between stress concentration factor α K and rotation angle θ , Loadcase: bending

0 . 9

θ = 0 ◦ θ = 45 ◦ θ = 70 ◦ θ = 90 ◦

0 . 8

0 . 7

θ = 125 ◦ θ = 180 ◦ bending bending + press-fit ( ζ = 0.02) press-fit ( ζ = 0.04)

0 . 6

0 . 5

Y

0 . 4

0 . 3

0 . 2

0 . 1

0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 9 1 0

γ

Fig. 7: Correlation between rotation angle θ and press-fit load

The exception is the pure press-fit load. In this load case for every rotation angle the geometry function has the same trend along the crack front. This means that the press-fit load is independent from the rotation angle. For a rotation angle of θ = 90 ◦ partially crack closing occurs at a pure bending load. If the pure bending load is superimposed with a press-fit load, the tensile stresses in a surface near area opens the crack. However, this prediction is only valid for the calculated crack geometry. At higher crack depth this statement has to be analysed.