PSI - Issue 46

Saurabh Gairola et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 46 (2023) 182–188 Saurabh Gairola et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2021) 000–000

185

4

Tensile data was used as input for fracture toughness simulations; the elastic region was defined using Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio, whereas the plastic region was defined using random data points in the plastic region, as shown in fig. 3(b).

Fig. 3. (a) Boundary condition and specification of CT specimen (b) Input data points in plastic regions

Fatigue crack growth simulations were performed on center cracked specimen and single edge notch tension (SENT) specimen, as shown in fig. 4. Fatigue life prediction was performed on a dog bone sample modeled as per ASTM E466 standard (Alexopoulos & Papanikos, 2008). The input data required for the stress life equation was taken from the literature (Kebir et al., 2019).

Fig. 4. Boundary condition and cross-section (a) SENT specimen (b) Center cracked specimen

3. Results 3.1. Fracture toughness

Crack growth in CT specimens under static loading is predicted through the XFEM approach using the elastic plastic approach. Fig. 5 (a), (b) indicates the von mises stress distribution during crack initiation and crack propagation. The stress field can be observed to be symmetrical across the crack length, which is a characteristic feature of mode I failure. The force versus displacement curve trend observed in the XFEM simulation corresponds well with the experimental data reported in the literature, as shown in fig. 6.