Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available
Available online
online
StructuralIntegrity at at00www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia (2018) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Structural
Structural IntegrityIntegrity
Procedia1400(2019)
(2016)442–448
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018
2nd International Conference on Structural Integrity and Exhibition 2018
Structural Integrity Assessment of a Propellant tank in Presence of Welding
Structural Integrity Assessment of a Propellant
Residual Stresses tank in Presence of Welding
XV Portuguese Conference on Fracture, PCF 2016,
Residual 10-12 February 2016, Paço de Arcos, Portugal
Stresses
a b c d e
V. Viswanath *, A.K. Asraff , Jayesh.P , Suresh Mathew Thomas , Krishnakumar R ,
Thermo-mechanical
V. Viswanatha*, A.K. Asraff modeling
b
, Jayesh.P c
of
Muthukumar. a high
, Suresh R f
Mathewpressure
Thomasd,turbineKrishnakumar blade Re, of an
Muthukumar. Rf ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
a
a
b airplane gas turbine engine
Deputy Head, Fatigue & Fracture Studies Division, SMAG/ SDAG, MDA/ LPSC,
Group Director, Structural Dynamics & Analysis Group, MDA/ LPSC, ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
c Deputy Head, Fatigue & Fracture Studies Division, SMAG/ SDAG, MDA/ LPSC, ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Scientist/
b Engineer, Earth Storable Tankages Design Division, ESTDG/ MDA/ LPSC, ISRO,Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Group Director, Structural Dynamics & Analysis Group, MDA/ LPSC, ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
d
a MDA/ LPSC/ ISRO,
Group Head,Structural Mechanics & Analysis Group, b Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram,
c 695547, India
c
Group Director,
d
P. Brandão , V. Infante , A.M. Deus *
eScientist/ Engineer, Earth Storable Tankages Design Division, ESTDG/ MDA/ LPSC, ISRO,Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Earth storable Structures & Tankages Design Group, MDA/ LPSC/ ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Group
f Head,Structural Mechanics & Analysis Group, MDA/ LPSC/ ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Deputy Director, Mechanical Design & Analysis Entity, LPSC/ ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
aeGroup Director, Earth storable Structures & Tankages Design Group, MDA/ LPSC/ ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
f
Deputy Director, Mechanical Design & Analysis Entity, LPSC/ ISRO, Valiamala, Thiruvananthapuram, 695547, India
Portugal
b
IDMEC, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Abstract Portugal
c
CeFEMA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1, 1049-001 Lisboa,
Abstract Portugalpropellants with liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX)
Upper stage of India’s new generation launch vehicle makes use of cryogenic
as fuel and oxidizer respectively. The propellants are stored in tanks fabricated of Aluminum alloy and contain various openings. As carrying
Upper stage of India’s new generation launch vehicle makes use of cryogenic propellants with liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX)
out proof test at operating environment is not feasible, the tanks are subjected to proof pressure test at room temperature (RT). During the RT
as Abstract
fuel and oxidizer respectively. The propellants are stored in tanks fabricated of Aluminum alloy and contain various openings. As carrying
proof pressure test of LOX tank, high strains, greater than 8000, were recorded by gauges at three locations where weld rework had been
out proof test at operating environment is not feasible, the tanks are subjected to proof pressure test at room temperature2 (RT). During the RT
undertaken. From structural analysis, the maximum welding residual stress at these locations is evaluated to be 95N/mm . From stress analysis
proof pressure test of LOX tank, high strains, greater than 8000, were recorded by gauges at three locations where weld rework had been
point of view,
During positive marginsmodern
their were observed withengine
respectcomponents
to failure of the tank even in presence of these residual stresses.
undertaken. Fromoperation,
structural analysis, theaircraft
maximum welding are
residual stress at subjected to increasingly
these locations is evaluated to demanding
be 95N/mm2. operating
From stressconditions,
analysis
However, since the tankpressure
is operating at cryogenic temperature, though there is anthese
increase intothe yield and ultimate strengths of the tank
point of view, positive margins were observed with respect to failure of the tank even in presence of these residual stresses. of time-dependent
especially the high turbine (HPT) blades. Such conditions cause parts undergo different types
material, there isone
degradation, a reduction
of which inisductility
creep. (lower
A modelpercentage
using theelongation).
finite Therefore, evaluation
element of structural integrity of to
thebehardware from
However, since the tank is operating at cryogenic temperature, though there method (FEM)inwas
is an increase the developed, in order
yield and ultimate strengths able to predict
of the tank
fracture point of view is of paramount importance. A study was undertaken to investigate the influence of residual stresses on integrity of the
the creep
material, therebehaviour
is a reductionof HPT blades.
in ductility Flight
(lower data records
percentage (FDR)Therefore,
elongation). for a specific aircraft,
evaluation provided
of structural by aofcommercial
integrity the hardwareaviation
from
tank in presence of minimum detectable crack sizes using conventional NDE techniques. The location where maximum strains were observed,
company,
fracture were
point of viewused
is ofto obtain thermal
paramount and A
importance. mechanical data for three
study was undertaken differenttheflight
to investigate cycles.
influence In order
of residual to create
stresses the 3Dofmodel
on integrity
post proof test, is considered for fracture evaluation. Directional stresses at location of interest are predicted through detailed finite element
the
tank in presence
needed of minimum
for the FEM detectable
analysis, a crack
HPT sizes
bladeusing conventional
scrap was was NDE techniques.
scanned, The location where maximum strains were observed,
analysis. Subsequently, generalized Failure Assessment Diagram drawn and
basedits
on chemical composition
Elasto-Plastic and material
fracture mechanics properties
principles and margin were
post proof test,
obtained. Theis considered
data for fracture
that was evaluation. Directional stresses
modelatwaslocation of interest are predicted through detailed finite element
against ultimate load ensured. Thegathered
tank was was
used fed
in a into
launchthevehicle
FEM which and different
successfully simulations
flown in Junewere
2017.run, first with a simplified 3D
analysis. Subsequently,
rectangular block shape,generalized
in order Failure Assessment
to better establishDiagram was drawn
the model, based
and then on Elasto-Plastic
with the real 3D meshfracture mechanics
obtained from principles
the blade andscrap.
margin The
against ultimate load ensured. The tank was used in a launch vehicle which was successfully flown in June 2017.
overall expected behaviour in terms of displacement was observed, in particular at the trailing edge of the blade. Therefore such a
© modelThe
2018
© 2019 can
The be useful
Authors.
Authors. in the by
Published
Published goal
by of predicting
Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. turbine blade life, given a set of FDR data.
This
This is an
is an open
open access article
article under
accessPublished under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2018 The Authors. by Elsevier B.V.
© 2016
Selection
Selection The
and
and Authors.
peer-review
peer-review Published
under
under by Elsevier
responsibility
responsibility of B.V.
of Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility
under responsibility of
of the
the SICE
SICE 2018
2018 organizers.
organizers.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Selection under responsibility
and peer-review of the Scientific
under responsibility Committee
of Peer-review of PCF 2016.
under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
Keywords:Residual stress; Failure Asessment Diagram; Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics; Proof test
Keywords: Highstress;
Keywords:Residual Pressure Turbine
Failure Blade;
Asessment Creep;Elasto-Plastic
Diagram; Finite Element Method;
Fracture 3D Model;
Mechanics; Proof Simulation.
test

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-471-256-7826; fax: +91-471-256-7791.

E-mail address:v_viswanath@lpsc.gov.in
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-471-256-7826; fax: +91-471-256-7791.
*E-mail
Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218419991.
address:v_viswanath@lpsc.gov.in
2452-3216©
E-mail2018 The Authors.
address: Published by Elsevier B.V.
amd@tecnico.ulisboa.pt
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
2452-3216© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
2452-3216
This ©access
is an open 2016 The Authors.
article under Published by Elsevierlicense
the CC BY-NC-ND B.V. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Selection under responsibility
and peer-review of the Scientific
under responsibility Committee
of Peer-review
2452-3216  2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
of PCF 2016.
under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Peer-review under responsibility of the SICE 2018 organizers.
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.05.054
 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448 443
2 V Viswanath/ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

1. Introduction

Liquid propellant tanks, which form a major structural component of any launch vehicle system, are designed for internal
pressure loading. The upper stage of a new generation launch vehicle of ISRO is a liquid stage carrying Cryogenic propellants,
Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX) stored at 20K and 80K respectively in propellant tanks. An Aluminum Alloy
compatible with these propellants at low temperatures and possessing high specific strength is employed. However owing to its
poor weld efficiency, of the order of only 40%, additional thickness has to be provided at the weld locations. The transition from
the higher thickness at the weld regions to lower thickness is achieved by means of steps through chemical milling process.
These tanks are of cylindrical configuration with domes welded at its ends as shown in fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Configuration of the propellant tank.

These domes are fabricated by welding together formed petals and then welding to end rings of cylindrical shells to make a
complete tank. To cater to functional requirements, openings, called nozzles are provided on these domes that are reinforced by
thick rings to compensate for stress concentration effects. These openings are provided for pressurisation, venting, measurement
cable lines, thermal conditioning, human access (manhole) etc. These nozzles are attached to the dome petals of the propellant
tank by welding after shrink fitting. Whenever there are unacceptable weld defects, it will result in manual weld rework at those
local zones.
Welding on the domes is done by TIG welding due to its high strength. Aluminum alloys as compared to steel has high
thermal conductivity, large coefficient of thermal expansion and lower modulus of elasticity. Therefore, welds in Aluminum
alloys have more shrinkage. This shrinkage gives rise to residual stresses in welds. Also, Aluminum alloys are more prone to
weld porosities. These, if above acceptable limits, are removed by carrying out a local weld repair which results in additional
residual stress. In one such propellant tank shown in fig 1; high residual strains of more than 8000 were observed at two nozzle
welds in a direction perpendicular to the weld after a successful proof pressure test. The structural integrity of the tank is
evaluated in presence of these residual stresses from fracture mechanics point of view, which is the subject matter of this paper.

Nomenclature

a Depth for a surface flaw

c Half-length for a surface flaw
K Stress Intensity Factor
KI Applied tensile stress intensity factor
K Ip Stress intensity factor due to primary stresses
K Is Stress intensity factor due to secondary stresses
KIC Plane strain fracture toughness of the material
Kmat Material toughness measured by stress intensity factor
Kr Crack driving force in terms of stress intensity factor normalised by fracture toughness of material
Lr Ligament yield parameter
Lr(max) Permitted limit of Lr
MOS Margin of safety
t Wall thickness
V Plasticity correction factor
flow Flow stress, average of yield and ultimate strength of the material
ref Reference stress
444 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448
V Viswanath/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 3

u Ultimate strength of material

y Yield strength of material

2. Residual stress during welding

Residual stress is that which exists in a body even in the absence of any external load and are generated when a body is
subjected to non-uniform temperature change. Residual stress in a welded plate develops during shrinkage of the weld pool from
the melting point to ambient temperature. Tensile stresses are developed along the weld direction near the molten zone while
compressive stresses are developed away from the weld pool to equilibrate the tensile stresses.
Distribution of temperature and stresses in various sections of a butt-welded plate is given in Fig 1(a). Since these stresses
exist without any external force, the resultant force and moment are always zero. i.e.

   dA  0 and  dM  0 on any section (1)

Also, the residual stresses are always limited to yield stress of material as beyond yield residual stresses are compensated by
plastic deformations. Along section A-A thermal stresses due to welding are zero. At section B-B stresses below the welding
torch are zero as the metal is in molten state. Stresses in the region at a short distance from weld are compressive because of
restriction in expansion by the surrounding material at lower temperature. At section C-C the metal has started to cool and
contract. This gives rise to tensile stresses in weld and compensatory compressive stress in area away from weld. Section D-D
shows final stress field in the weld. The metal has completely cooled down and high tensile stresses are present in the weld region
and compressive stresses are there in away from weld region.
Fig 2(b) gives the schematic of a circular weld patch. Residual stresses in such welds are produced basically due to:

 Shrinkage of weld metal in direction parallel to weld

 Shrinkage of weld metal in direction perpendicular to weld.

Combined effect of these two factors is shown in Stress distribution for a circular patch weld in Fig 2(c).

Fig. 2.(a) Mechanism of development of residual stresses in a welded plate (b) Circular weld patch (c) stress distribution across a circular patch weld [Koichi
Masubuchi (1980)].

3. Proof pressure testing of propellant tank

All flight hardware are subjected to proof/ acceptance tests prior to integration in a launch vehicle for flight. By subjecting the
hardware to a proof load, which is higher than the maximum expected load experienced by the hardware during its life, the
evidence of satisfactory workmanship and material quality is ensured. The structural integrity of the hardware is also assured as
this process helps in screening any initial flaws if present in the hardware.
 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448 445
4 V Viswanath/ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

3.1. Procedure

The proof testing of the tank is carried out at room temperature using R Grade Nitrogen gas at 0.46MPa (absolute
During proof pressure testing of the tank, the following were observed:

 High strains of 11372 were observed at a nozzle weld location in a direction perpendicular to the weld line.

 Maximum post test residual strain of 8200 was observed at the location after removal of the pressure.

3.2. Estimation of residual stress

The strain gauges that measured the residual strains are in the weld rework area. Therefore, to evaluate the residual stresses;
finite element analysis, using assumed residual stresses at these locations, is carried out. Constraint equations are used to simulate
the initial residual stress at the heat affected zone (HAZ). The analysis is carried out using version 14.5 of ANSYS finite element
package. Fig 4 depicts the axi-symmetric model of a typical nozzle in the propellant tank dome. While the dome and closure
plate are modeled using PLANE182 (4 noded linear solid of revolution) elements, the bolts used for the cover plate are simulated
using BEAM4 (2 noded linear beam) elements.
The only other load, the tank internal pressure, is also applied as shown in Fig 3.

Fig. 3.Finite Element Model of a typical nozzle location with pressure loads & boundary condition

Strain data at the gauge locations were found to have a good match with the test data with an assumed residual stress of
95N/mm2 which was arrived at by trial and error. Fig 4 gives the comparison of test and post test prediction with residual stress
of 95N/mm2.

10000

8000
micro strain

6000

4000

2000

0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600
Pressure MPa (abs)
Test data Post test prediction

Fig. 4.Strain Vs Internal pressure during proof pressure test of the propellant tank.

4. Evaluation of structural integrity of the tank

To carry out fracture mechanics based evaluation of integrity of any structure, three parameters namely stress, crack size and
fracture toughness of the material under consideration are to be known apriori. While, fracture toughness is a material property
that is evaluated through mechanical testing, the crack sizes will be available through non destructive evaluation techniques like
radiography or Ultrasonic testing. The stress in the region under consideration is referred to as reference stress and is estimated
through finite element analysis.
446 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448
V Viswanath/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 5

4.1. Crack sizes assumed for analysis

No defects have been reported at the weld locations for this propellant tank. However, for fracture analysis, cracks are a
necessity as there is no fracture analysis in absence of any defect. Therefore, the minimum detectable crack sizes specified by
NASA STD 5003 (2005), standards corresponding to ultrasonic and radiographic inspections are used for evaluation purposes are
used for analyses.

4.2. Reference stress used for evaluation

The longitudinal residual stress assumed at this location is 95 N/mm2. The stress corresponding to internal pressure of
0.46MPa (absolute) is to be known before fracture mechanics based analysis can be attempted. This is evaluated from the true
stress strain curve of the tank material given in Fig 5.
300
Stress at total strain of
12771µε is 175N/mm2
250

200
Stress, N/mm2

150 Stress due to internal pressure of

0.46MPa (abs) = 80N/mm2

100

Residual stress of
50 95N/mm2 corresponding Welding residual stresss = 95N/mm2
to strain of 1400µε

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Strain, mm/mm

Fig. 5. True stress strain curve of tank weld material at RT.

From the Fig 6 the strains corresponding to stress of 95N/mm2 is 1400. Adding the peak strains measured during the test to
these residual strains, the total strain is 12771 and stress corresponding to this strain is 175N/mm2. Therefore, the stress due to
tank pressurization is the difference of the two i.e. 80N/mm2viz the primary stress.

4.3. Fracture toughness of weld material

With lack of test data on fracture toughness for the tank weld material, the data from NASA FLAGRO (2005) material
database is used for analysis. Plane strain fracture toughness of 23.08MPam and 25.27MPam at RT and cryogenic temperature
are considered.

4.4. Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD)

FAD is the most widely used approach for Elasto Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) based analysis of structural components
as discussed in Zerbst et al (2007),Anderson (2005) and British Standard 7910: 2005 (2005). FAD is derived from elastic-plastic
J-integral solution. A generalized approach, using two parameter formulations, is used in this paper. The two parameter FAD
consists of Failure Assessment Curve (FAC) and Failure Assessment Points (FAP). The axes of the FAD are the non-
dimensional ratios Lr (plastic collapse ratio) on the x-axis, and Kr (brittle fracture ratio) on the y-axis.
FAC is the limiting envelope of FAD. For the FAP lying below FAC, the structure would be safe and unsafe otherwise. The
generic expression to draw FAC for LrLr(max) is given below:


K r  1  0.14Lr  0.3  0.7e 0.65 Lr 
2
 6
 (2)

The maximum Lr cutoff value should also be applied to the computed FAD curve to determine the plastic collapse limit. Cut
off value of Lr is given by the expression:

Lr max  
 y u 
(3)
2  y
 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448 447
6 V Viswanath/ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000

The crack FAP is computed using the stress intensity factor from an elastic analysis and the reference stress at the given load.
Lr is evaluated using the equation (4) where ref is the reference stress at the evaluation load, usually the design or operation
load.

 ref
Lr  (4)
y

The Kr value is computed using the elastic stress intensity, KI, and the material toughness Kmat with equation (5):

KI
Kr  (5)
K mat

KIis evaluated using the Newman-Raju relation given by Newman et al (1984).

The stress at the assumed weld crack location has two components namely due to tank internal pressure and due to residual
stress. In fracture analyses, the stress arising from the applied mechanical load, in the current case internal pressure, is classified
as primary stress. While the residual stress due to welding is classified as secondary stress. Secondary stresses being self-
equilibrating across the structure, the net force and bending moment are zero as has been explained earlier in section 2. This
separation is imperative since primary stresses contribute to plastic collapse while secondary stresses do not. However, the K-
factor determination is based on both primary and secondary stresses, with only the primary stresses accounted for the
determination of reference stress for evaluation of ligament yielding factor Lr.
p s
For small scale yielding, KI may be taken to be the sum of K I and K I . However, the situation becomes complicated for
contained and net-section yielding due to plasticity and relaxation effects where in the resulting K-factor is no longer the sum of
K Ip and K Is . In such cases, an additional interaction or correction term, ‘V’, is incorporated, where in, Kr is given by equation
(6)

K Ip  V  K Is
Kr  (6)
K mat

A simplified route for evaluation of ‘V’ is given in Zerbst et al (2007) which is used in this paper.
In absence of availability of fracture toughness corresponding to tank thickness, the plane strain fracture toughness is used for
s
Kmat. FAD for tank weld material is given in Fig 6.It may be noted that K I exists even in absence of any loading (primary
s
stress). Therefore, the origin of the loading curve in FAD shifts to (0, K I ). Point ‘A’ on FAD is the FAP corresponding to crack
3. Table 1 gives the parameters and MOS against failure in presence of the three cracks.

Table 1: Margin of safety (MOS) for the three assumed cracks at weld location
Crack No Surface crack size (2c x a) KIsMPam KIpMPam p, N/mm2 V Lr Kr MOS
Crack 1 7.62 x 0.76 5.12 4.31 80 1.143 0.5714 0.409 0.67
Crack 2 3.3 x 1.65 5.31 4.47 80 1.143 0.5714 0.424 0.65
Crack 3 6.44 x 3.22 8.62 7.26 80 1.143 0.5714 0.689 0.23

Fig. 6.Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) for the nozzle weld region in presence of residual stress.
448 V. Viswanath et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 14 (2019) 442–448
V Viswanath/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2018) 000–000 7

5. Results and Discussion

The propellant tank had withstood the room temperature proof test at pressure of 0.46MPa (absolute). Positive margin of
safety, against failure by fracture, is observed for the welds in presence of the three minimum detectable crack sizes.
At cryogenic temperature, there is an increase in strength and plane strain fracture toughness of the welds by 30% and 10%
respectively compared to room temperature (proof test is carried out at RT). Moreover, with the operating pressure being
0.43MPa (absolute), the reference stress is also lower. These factors together contribute to increasing the margin of safety
against failure from fracture mechanics point of view.

6. Conclusion

The structural integrity of the weld region of a propellant tank used in a new generation launch vehicle, in presence of high
welding residual stress, has been evaluated from fracture mechanics point of view. Positive margins against failure by fracture
are observed for RT proof test.
With the weld having higher toughness at cryogenic temperature and with lower reference stress, higher margin of safety
against fracture would be available while in operation.

References

Koichi Masubuchi, 1980, ‘Analysis of welded structures, residual stresses, Distortion and their consequences’, 1st Edition, Pergamon Press.
J.C Newman, Jr& I. S. Raju, 1984, ‘Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in Three-Dimensional Bodies Subjected to Tension and Bending Loads’, NASA
TM 85793, NASA, Hampton, Virginia, USA
Anonymous, 1996, ‘fracture Control Requirements for Payloads Using the Space Shuttle’, NASA STD 5003,
Anonymous, 2005 ‘Guide to Methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in Metallic Structures’, BS7910: 2005, British Standards Institute.
T. L. Anderson, 2005, ‘Fracture mechanics- Fundamentals and Applications’, 3rd Edition, CRC press, Taylor & Francis group
UweZerbst, Manfred Schödel, Stephen Webster, Robert A. Ainsworth, 2007, ‘Fitness-for-Service Fracture Assessment of Structures Containing Cracks’,
Academic Press.
Anonymous, 2005, ‘NASA FLAGRO material database’,