PSI - Issue 39

R. Yarullin et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 39 (2022) 364–378 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000

372

9

The distributions of the SIFs K I along several crack fronts for both alloys at pure tension loading conditions are plotted in Fig. 9. K II and K III are nearly zero during all propagation steps (consequently, K eq and K I values nearly coincide), therefore were not reported. The legend in the figures indicates the step which the curve refers to and F1 or F2 (the normalized crack front abscissae range in [0,1] or in [1,2] , see Fig. 6) indicates the first or the second front, respectively.

Fig. 9. SIF K 1 distributions for several crack fronts in (a) D16T and (b) B95AT aluminum alloys. The distributions of the SIFs along several crack fronts for D16T alloy under tension/torsion loading conditions are shown in Fig. 10. It is possible to note during the propagation the increasing tendency for values (Fig. 10a), the decreasing trend for (Fig. 10c), whereas goes rapidly to zero as soon as the crack kinks (Fig. 10b); the equivalent SIF (Fig. 10d), presents the same trend, except for the step 0, in which all three fracture modes are relevant. In general, it is worth to appreciate the SIFs symmetry or anti-symmetry, as theoretically expected, but for some slight numerical irregularities.

Fig. 10. SIF distributions for D16T aluminum alloy under tension/torsion loading condition.