PSI - Issue 39

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

373

10

The SIFs for pure torsion case are reported in Fig. 11 for D16T Al-alloy. The initial propagation stages are not shown because, for them, a small dummy tensile load was superimposed to the torsional one in order to facilitate the numerical remeshing. Also, here, the SIFs trend is nearly symmetric or antisymmetric consistently with what theoretically expected. Step 9 is the last step before crack front separation, whereas step 10 is the first step after crack front separation. SIFs K I , K II and K III distributions for B95AT Al-alloy reflect the same tendency already showed for D16T Al-alloy and, for the sake of brevity, are not reported.

Fig. 11. SIF distributions for D16T aluminum alloy under torsion loading condition.

Therefore in Fig. 12 only the distributions of K eq are presented for tension/torsion and torsion loading conditions. Analysing the distributions of equivalent SIFs for both alloys and for all loading conditions will help for interpretation of experimental results.

Fig. 12. Equivalent SIF distributions for B95AT aluminum alloy under (a) tension/torsion and (b) torsion loading conditions.