PSI - Issue 7

Marton Groza et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 7 (2017) 438–445 M. Groza et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000–000

444

7

to visualize the predicted crack initiation at the fatigue limit, which is the case for the D2 defect at the area signed by red color ( 1 DSG k ≥ ). This result could serve as basis for a direct comparison with the conducted tests.

Table 3. Summary of computation results.

,max FEA elas −

,max FEA ep −

.

.

,max Cr σ [MPa] EIM

Cr σ

Cr σ

,max h σ [MPa]

,0 Cr σ [MPa]

Defect No.

(A;B;C)

Local R (elastic) [-]

2, a J [MPa]

max area

DSG k [-]

[mm]

[mm]

[MPa]

[MPa]

D1

(2;2;1)

1,25

-42

33

0,1

-15

48

48

-

0,15

D2

(3;2;1)

1,53

174

118

0,1

143

315

294

281

1,1

D3

(1;1;2)

1,25

48

38

0,1

102

241

231

211

0,81

c

d

e

f

g

h

Fig. 5. (a) Comparison of the cyclic elastic-plastic behavior of the hot-spots for the three defects: relevant stress- vs. relevant strain tensor components for D1-D3 with ten simulated load cycles, (b) comparison of the stress distributions in surface normal direction from the hot-spot, (c,e,g) the computed Crossland equivalent stress (MPa) result fields, (d,f,h) the DSG utilization factor (-) result fields for the three defects, respectively.