ASIP Conference 2017

Jacksonville, FL

Pros and Cons of 3D Crack Growth

Simulation using Finite Elements

Matt Watkins
Ricardo Actis
ESRD, Inc.

Distribution A: Approved for public release, distribution unlimited.

© 2017 ESRD, Inc. All Rights Reserved. StressCheck® is a registered trademark of ESRD, Inc.
Motivation
 Substantial effort is required for simulation of 3D crack growth.
• Often relies on computing stress intensity factors (SIFs) using the finite
element method (FEM).
• Allows removal of many simplifying assumptions.
• Introduces new errors of approximation which must be controlled.
 What is the influence of small approximation errors on fatigue crack
growth prediction?
• How does it compare to aleatory uncertainty propagation?
• How accurately must input data be known?
• How accurately must crack growth models be solved?

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 2

Outline

 Background & sources of error

 Benchmark problem description
 Aleatory error example
 Epistemic error examples
 Approximation error examples
• Comparison of SIF computation techniques
 Summary & conclusions

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 3

Background
 Simulations depend on input data which have uncertainty
• Measurement error, modeling error, inherent randomness
• Mathematical models which may reduce or magnify such errors
 Fatigue & crack growth models typically magnify errors
 “All models are wrong” – George E.P. Box
• A model cannot include all physical phenomena, error is always
introduced (model-form errors)
 Simulations solve mathematical models approximately,
introducing new error
• Discretization error in the finite element method (FEM), boundary
element method, finite difference method, etc.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 4

Sources of Error

Sources of Error – Crack Growth Model

Aleatory Epistemic Numerical
(random) (model-form) Approximation
Driver of crack Computation of SIFs with
Initial stresses before CX
propagation RS
Residual stresses after Direction of crack Computation of SIFs
CX extension remote load
Interpolation and fitting of Numerical Integration to
da/dN-DK data
test data find DN

Number of control points

Model parameters Crack shape
to define the crack shape

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 5

Test Case from ERSI
 Engineered Residual Stress Implementation (ERSI)
working group, Fatigue Crack Growth Analysis
Methods Subcommittee
• Lead: Bob Pilarczyk, Hill Engineering
 Recent ERSI round robin proposed 4 benchmark
conditions for 3D crack growth.
 Simulations presented are based on benchmark #2.
• Rectangular 2024-T351 plate with centered coldworked
hole
• Residual stress profile obtained by the contour method
• Constant amplitude loading
• da/dN vs ΔK curves for different load ratios used for
growth rate determination

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 6

Problem Description
Geometry

Material: 2024-T351
+10 ksi
Residual Stress

Constant Amplitude Loading

-73 ksi
Initial Crack

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 7

Sources of Error

Sources of Error – Crack Growth Model

Aleatory Epistemic Numerical
(random) (model-form) Approximation
Driver of crack Computation of SIFs
Initial stresses before CX
propagation with RS
Residual stresses after Direction of crack Computation of SIFs
CX extension remote load
Interpolation and fitting of Numerical Integration to
da/dN-DK data
test data find DN

Number of control points

Model parameters Crack shape
to define the crack shape

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 8

Method
 Only one variable was changed at a time.
 Computed in-plane 3D crack growth for each case.
 Nominal: approx. 300k cycles to failure.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 9

Aleatory Error
Residual Stress
 What is the impact of variation in input RS?
• Can represent variation across specimens, or measurement error
 Scaled the RS field between ±10%
 Predicted life varied between 0.4x and 5x (multiple of nominal)

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 10

Epistemic Error
Crack Shape
 What is the impact of an elliptical crack shape assumption?
• Traditional & closed-form methods often assume an elliptical
crack.
• Permits larger step size (faster solve time).

1.5x
1.3x
Ref

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 11

Epistemic Error
Character of Stress/Strain Field
 Stress intensity factor (SIF) calculations often require
a plane strain or plane stress assumption.
 What is the impact of assuming plane strain for all SIF
calculations?
• Negligible impact for plane strain assumption

1.4x
Plane-stress
Ref 1x

Plane-strain

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 12

Approximation Error
SIF Computation
 What is the impact of the SIF computation error?
 Introduced constant error between -5% and +5% into SIF.
• Error in SIF from RS: predicted life varied between 0.6x and 1.6x
• Error in SIF from mechanical loading: predicted life varied
between 0.5x and 2.0x

Residual SIF Mechanical SIF

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 13

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods
 The energy release rate (ERR) 𝐺𝐼 can be converted to SIF 𝐾𝐼
• Requires plane stress or plane strain assumption.
 Can compute ERR with crack closure technique (CCT), virtual
crack closure technique (VCCT), J-integral.

1 𝜕Π 1+𝜈 𝜅+1 2
𝐺𝐼 = − lim = 𝐾𝐼
Δ𝑎→0 𝑡 𝜕𝑎 4𝐸

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 14

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods: CCT
 Compute the ERR using stresses before the crack tip is extended
(1), and displacements after it was extended (2).
 Cons:
• Requires the solution of two problems (two crack lengths).
• Requires the integration of stress between the crack tip and the Δ𝑎.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 15

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods: VCCT
 Requires self-similarity of crack front: for curved cracks this is only
valid as Δ𝑎 → 0
 Pro: Compute the ERR using stresses and displacements from one
solution (one crack length only).
 Cons:
• Requires the integration of stress between the crack tip and the Δ𝑎.
• Competing requirements for accuracy.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 16

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods
 Problem:
• Stresses go to infinity at the crack tip.
• Numerical solutions (FEM) generally do not represent infinite behavior.
• The quality of 𝐺 will deteriorate as Δ𝑎 → 0.
 For small Δ𝑎: the quality of the solution deteriorates.
 For large Δ𝑎: the crack is not self-similar.
 How much does it matter?

Integration
from 0 to Δ𝑎

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 17

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods
 Suppose that some small length 𝜀 is excluded from the ERR
computation, due to approximation errors of the point singularity.
 There is substantial influence on the computed error in ERR.
 This is difficult to circumvent with the FEM, even when using highly
graded meshes.
 Con: solution verification is difficult.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 18

SIF Computation Techniques
Energy Methods: J-Integral
 The J-integral circumvents some of these limitations
 Con: Path-area independence in 3D
• Dependency on integration radius for path integral.
 Pros:
• The area integral contribution goes to zero quickly with the integration radius.
• The path integral avoids singularity approximation issues.

~1% difference in
extrapolation to 0 radius

<1%
𝐸 plane stress
𝐾𝐼 = ෨ 𝐼
𝐸𝐽 𝐸෨ = ቐ 𝐸
plane strain
1 − 𝜈2
11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 19
SIF Computation Techniques
Direct Methods: CIM
 Contour integral method (CIM) takes advantage of known exact
solution near crack tip.
 Con: Not path independent for 3D curved cracks, has dependency
on integration radius 𝑅 which goes to zero as 𝑅 → 0.
 Pros:
• Superconvergent
• The path integral avoids singularity
approximation issues.

~1% difference in
extrapolation to 0 radius

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 20

SIF Computation Techniques
Beta Compounding
 Pros:
• Closed-form solutions can be evaluated very quickly.
• Exact solutions of geometrically-simplified LEFM problems are similar to
their 3D general counterparts.
 Con: It is more difficult to take RS into account.

1.1x

Newman-Raju single corner crack at a

hole solution, computed with AFGROW,
courtesy of Scott Prost-Domasky (APES,
Inc.). Residual stress not included.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 21

Approximation Error
da/dN Integration (Step Size)
 Multiple approaches to
“stepping” the crack front:
• Fixed dN
• Fixed da
• Proportional da
 What is the effect of the
proportional da size?
• Varied %da from 1% to 6%
• Predicted life varied from
0.96x to 1.03x

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 22

Summary
Error Type Error Source Variation Effect (Life Multiplier)
Aleatory Residual stress ±10% 0.4 to 5.0
(random) variation ±5% 0.6 to 1.6
Crack shape General or ellipse Ellipse: 1.5
Remote load distance 1 to 3 widths 0.55 to 1.01
Epistemic Plane stress/strain, Plane strain: 1.0
(model-form) Stress/strain field
or mixed Plane stress: 1.4
Analytical beta Corner crack at
1.1
factors hole with no RS
Computation of RS
±5% 0.6 to 1.6
SIFs
Numerical Computation of
±5% 0.5 to 2.0
approximation mech. SIFs
da/dN integration
1% to 6% 0.96 to 1.03
(step size)

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 23

Concluding Remarks
 Small SIF approximation errors can produce fatigue life
variation on the same order as input RS variation.
 Without tight control of the errors of approximation in
computing SIFs, it is not possible to assess the influence of
idealization errors.
 Uncertainty propagation studies for min/max RS bounds only
make sense when SIF errors are very small.
 3D crack growth simulations take considerable time.
• 3D simulation is not required for every crack; beta compounding
methods can work well.
• Recommend to do 3D simulations for “spot-checking”, especially
for problems where closed-form solutions do not apply well.

11/30/2017 ESRD, Inc. 24