You are on page 1of 38

NASA

Technical

Paper

3554

.:' - "12 C

" L_-'

Analysis of Stress Concentration at Holes in Components Made of 2195 Aluminum-Lithium
R. Ahmed

F- 73
_',ntS)_)ttUSTRATION_
-)

(NASA-TP-3554) ANALYSIS CONCENTRATION AT HOLES COMPONENTS MADE OF Zlq5 ALUMINUM-LITHIUM (NASA. Space Flight Center)

OF IN

STRESS

N95-30613

Marshall 33 p Hl139

Unclas

0056566

May

1995

NASA

Technical

Paper 3554

Analysis of Stress Concentration at Holes in Components Made of 2195 Aluminum-Lithium
R. Ahmed Marshall Space Flight Center • MSFC, Alabama

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center ° MSFC, Alabama 35812

May

1995

.

........................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................... .............................................................. °°° 111 ........................................................................................................................................................... METHODOLOGY ....................... ...........................................................................................................................................................................................TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ANALYSIS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES ...................................................... 1 1 2 2 3 3 26 ............................................................................................................................. ....................................

.

ultimate 14............ Maximum ultimate stress versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi....................... ultimate o versus far-field stress........................ 2............. Maximum hole stress 18 Fty = 77 ksi......................... far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi........................ ....................................... 4.........06 .......... 13 Maximum hole strata Fty = 73 ksi............................................................ 12 Maximum hole Fty = 77 ksi........................... 11 Maximum hole Fty = 77 ksi................ Maximum ultimate strata 17 hole Fty = 77 ksi... versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi............. far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 82 ksi................06 ......................... ultimate 16.............04 ........... Maximum Fty = 73 ksi.......... strain = 0.................... 11............................................... Geometry MSFC 2195 2195 used ANSYS A1-Li A1-Li and and hole in plate model 2219 2219 strata with used hole in plate Title analysis .............. strain = 0....06 ...... 15 hole Fty = 75 ksi........LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.......................... ultimate 15.................. versus strain versus strain far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 80 ksi...................... strain = 0................... strain = 0..........................06 ................................................ versus strain versus strain versus strain versus strain versus strain far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi......06 . Maximum hole stress 2O Fty = 79 ksi.............. versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi............... far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 82 ksi..... ultimate 10..................................... = 0............ o ultimate stress = 0...................... versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi........ 12... 21 ......................... far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 78 ksi............... Maximum ultimate strata = 0.. 14 Fty = 73 ksi.04 ................04 .06 ........................ Maximum hole stress = 0............................. Maximum hole strata 19 Fty = 79 ksi.............. curves .06 ......................... = 0............................ 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi......... Page 6 7 8 9 with hole curves A1 stress-strain A1 stress-strain .............. 16 hole Fty = 75 ksi... analysis .............. 5....... ultimate ... 13....... strain = 0...............................06 ............................................ far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 80 ksi. ultimate strata = 0.............. ultimate = 0.........................................04 ...................................... 3....... 10 Maximum hole stress Fty = 73 ksi........

.......... 22 versus far-field stress......... 2195 A1-Li...........08 ....08 . Fty = 73 ksi...... Page Fty = 77 ksi.......... far-field Plot of axial strain for 2195 ultimate strain = 4 percent.. Maximum hole stress Fty = 77 ksi..... Plot of yon Mises stress for 2195 plate with hole...... 24 20.. ultimate 18.. strain = 0......... Ftu = 78 ksi. Ftu = 78 ksi..................................... ultimate = 0...... Ftu = 78 ksi..... Ftu = 78 ksi..... 2195 A1-Li.............. plate with hole........ 23 19....................... stress = 60 ksi .. Fty = 73 ksi.............................. ultimate strain = 4 percent......... far-field stress = 60 ksi ............LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Figure 17.... Maximum hole strain versus strain far-field Title stress............ 25 vi ..

............ Page 4 .................................. vii ........... stresses and strains versus far-field stress for various A1-Li materials ........................................................................ Hole 2195 Hole 2195 Title stresses and strains versus far-field stress for various A1-Li materials .................LIST OF TABLES Table 1.........................................................

.

this paper concerns itself only with the hole analyses. respectively. 2219 had a yield-ultimate delta of 13 ksi with a maximum strain of 10 percent. To accomplish this. the 2195 A1-Li alloy showed a lower yield-ultimate delta than the 2219 alloy used previously. ET engineers became concerned over how this material would behave in regions of stress concentration. stiffer. ET designers and analysts became concerned that 2195 might not redistribute the load around stress concentrations adequately enough to prevent failure at far-field stresses below yield. This paper deals with the effect of stress concentration at holes on the material behavior of 2195 and the concerns this raised over vehicle robustness. Corresponding analysis was performed for holes using the 2219 alloy for comparison. Design changes were also proposed to take advantage of the increased strength and modulus of the new alloy over 2219. NASA and Martin Marietta (the prime contractor for the ET) proposed replacing most of the 2219 aluminum used in the current ET with the lighter. thus relieving the stress and preventing failure as long as the stress and strain of the highest loaded position in the body remains below the ultimate value. This culminated in the design of the super lightweight ET (SLWT ET). Such locations have local areas of much higher stress than would be found or expected in larger. elastic-plastic structural analyses of typical stress concentration configurations were made. For instance. and other areas that tend to create load and stiffness gradients. more uniform sections.000 lb. As a result. whereas the corresponding worst-case values for 2195 were 5 ksi and 4 percent. welds. These included areas around holes and a typical weld land geometry found in the liquid oxygen (lox) tank. Since the 2195 alloy initially used in the SLWT ET program had a small (less than 5 ksi) difference between the yield and ultimate strengths when compared to 2219 (about 13 ksi difference). in a linear elastic analysis the maximum stresses around a hole under uniform tension are three times the nominal far-field stress. fillets. Since the weld land analyses showed only a very slight plastic strain. In order to accomplish this stress redistribution effectively. To examine this behavior more closely.TECHNICAL PAPER ANALYSIS OF STRESS CONCENTRATION AT HOLES MADE OF 2195 ALUMINUM-LITHIUM IN COMPONENTS INTRODUCTION To enable the space shuttle to reach the space station high-inclination orbits with adequate payload. . These include holes. an effort was made in the early 1990's to reduce the weight of the space shuttle external tank (ET) and/or the solid rocket boosters (SRB's). BACKGROUND In the design of a space vehicle such as the ET. The effort concentrated primarily on analysis of holes. Loads of this magnitude tend to be redistributed to regions farther away from the hole as a result of the plastic behavior of the material. and stronger 2195 aluminum-lithium (AI-Li) alloy. particular attention must be paid to areas of stress concentration. this area is governed both by the material's ultimate strain capability and the difference between the ultimate and yield strengths (henceforth referred to as the yield-ultimate delta). weld lands. since these have the highest stress concentration factors. During preliminary design of the SLWT ET. whose goal was to reduce ET weight by at least 8. inserts. and local plastic yielding will occur wherever the hole stress is greater than or equal to the yield stress. the material must have a sufficient area under the plastic region of the stress-strain curve.

896 four-noded quad ANSYS SHELL43 elements and 2. gradients. The model was run with several different stress-strain curves for comparison (figs. By taking advantage of symmetry planes. 2 . ultimate strength. The model consisted of 1.75-in wide. 0. with the analysis being performed by the ANSYS finite element solver. The model was sufficiently long to avoid a significant reduction of the boundary forces resulting from yielding of the material. From these data.ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The analysis was performed via a quarter-symmetric. Investigations were made of the effects of changing various parameters. such as yield strength. 12-in long test specimen with a 0. This minimized the model size.375-in diameter hole in the center (fig.3-in thick. Appropriate symmetry boundary conditions were applied. and displacements ANSYS' built-in postprocessing capability. nonlinear plastic finite element model of a 3. Of primary interest was determining the highest axial stress and strain at the hole perimeter. strain and displacement were graphically displayed via color contour plots using This produced attractive. and fixed displacements corresponding to the applied forces were applied on the loaded edge in order to ease convergence. and ultimate strain. The material properties and stress-strain data used for these analyses were taken from preliminary data supplied by both NASA and Martin Marietta. 3 and 4). fine resolution color plots that values. The model was generated using the PATRAN preprocessing code.009 nodes with a concentrated mesh around the hole to provide greater accuracy near the area of stress concentration. 19 shown in tables 1 and 2. RESULTS The tabulations of maximum axial hole stresses and strains versus far-field tensile stress are 18. clearly showed stress. In all cases run. only one-fourth of the specimen needed to be modeled. the far-field stress required to induce failure at the hole could be determined for each material combination. (Using applied forces at the boundary created substantial convergence problems and significantly increased run time). The axial stress and axial strain were then plotted as a function of far-field axial stress for each combination of yield strength. The corresponding graphs of these quantities are shown in figures 5 through Sample plots showing a typical stress distribution from one of the analysis runs are shown in figures and 20. Stresses. the maximum longitudinal stress and strain occurred at the hole locations whose tangents are parallel to the specimen longitudinal direction. and ultimate strain. ultimate strength. and trends. The finite element model is shown in figure 2. 1). strains.

However. . the far-field stress capability of the 8-percent ultimate strain A1-Li indicated a significant increase in overall stress capability. If the two values are very close to each other. the model size must be tailored such that the ratio of hole diameter to specimen width is sufficiently low. the most important factor influencing the far-field strength of the material was the ultimate strain. The far-field stress lowest of all the materials material that would be used strength). strain capability of the material increases the far-field stress required response curve (stress versus strain) at the hole edge significantly decreases the far-field load-carrying An important point of consideration in these analyses and in the corresponding tests is comparing the failure stress at the hole with the net section-failure stress (caused by the absence of material at the hole). indicating that hole stress concentrations had no significant effect on tension failure for this material and geometry.DISCUSSION The following phenomena were observed from the analysis data: change as the yield (1) The far-field strength approaches stress required to induce failure at the hole does not appreciably the ultimate strength while holding the ultimate strain constant. exhibiting a significant reduction in load carrying capability due to reaching ultimate stress and strain at the highest stressed position on the hole. To mitigate this effect. the material does not appreciably change.This was exactly equivalent to the stress required for net section failure. for the specimen geometry tested. The analyses showed that. (3) capability Decreasing the ultimate of the structure. However. A 70-ksi far-field stress was required to cause failure at the hole. Regions of the SLWT ET or any vehicle using current versions of 2195 AL-Li that contain holes and/or inserts must be designed to keep the stresses below these reduced values to ensure the structural integrity of the vehicle. This was a serious and was actually lower than aluminum alloy. capability of the 4-percent ultimate strain A1-Li material was by far the examined---only 60 ksi was required to cause failure at the hole for the in the SLWT ET liquid hydrogen tank (with 73-ksi yield and 78-ksi ultimate reduction in strength capability over the nominal 78-ksi ultimate strength the 64 ksi required to cause failure in an identical geometry made from 2219 On the other hand. (2) Increasing the failure strain capability to induce failure at the hole. not much can be said about whether or not stress concentrations have a serious impact on structural performance. CONCLUSIONS The analyses showed that hole stress concentrations were a serious issue of concern for the 2195 A1-Li material with less than 4-percent ultimate strain capability. yield-ultimate deltas ranging from 1 to 5 ksi did not result in a significant variance in the far-field stress capability of specimens of a given ultimate strength and ultimate strain.. 2195 material with a 4-percent ultimate strain must be loaded at a far-field tensile stress below 60 ksi to prevent failure at the hole edge. Thus.

o _ L_ _ _ _ _ i _ _b _J 0 II tw_ c_ E_ I_ i_ i_ _ _ _l_ _ H i_ _ __ _ L_ _l_ _ _r_ t_ 4 .

-I _ Ir_ _ _r_ .._ H H Ir_ Ir_ _ _O I_ .II C_ _ t_ r_ _ _ _ H c_ oo L_ _ _C_ _" _ I_ _ If _m4 o _ °._ _ _1 L _ po _j II _ _1__ I_l _ _'_ _ _ I_ I_ H m_ II _s Et_ I_ _ _l _ .

6 .sig_/ TTT 3. Geometry used in plate with hole analysis.750 0.000 X Figure 1.375 12.

l° _r 0 r_ ..w_ p.i_ cs_ o B..

I -. __.._0 [ . o OO o_o_o_ "1"I "11 "11 "11 "I'I "11 II • -_ II O_ "11 II '-" "11 II GO __. 0 0 . . ._ ..h.. F . -n _a ii Co 0 _ II Co ro -n m . _._ . __..a ._ .. q_ ° tal o tJ 0 ¢_ ._ --- o 0 .i CO CO CO -I [[[[ (D ¢(I) eCD C C ..STRESS [ksi] 0 0 0 0 0'1 0 UI 0 01 0 tJ1 0 U1 0 0"1 0 01 0 01 0 UI _..-... II II -..

..0) r" _ E: O_ E 0") ! i 'iTIT "iTiT" o _ "rl _ "11 _ -n "rl =7g=7 "1"1 II II "T1 II "1"1 "rl II -.. __.O (.-" fl} II (3O _-II G0 _-II _1 _ II "-. (n.-k 0 0 0 0 01 0 _rl \ 0 0 \ \ t.0 _ (.I _" __.STRESS [ksi] .-*0 0 0 t. E 0 .J t_ I II _ II 4.'I (. I f...O L_ I. _.-I 01 Z r_ 0 (33 ('3 --_ . (n.O r.. O O .rl (. (n.(p "-I m _ m -n_ m .E" E . __.

_ ° _.MAX HOLE STRAIN o 0 PO O 0 o 0 (/1 o 0 0 p 0 (.M o E .i° c_ o \ \ \ \ E_ .r 0 r-" m GO .< o \ X. _='_..11 o C) C} o 0 0"1 p 0 0 o 0 f_ o 0 0 r_ \ m p..-t -_ /0 Z .e t" . o \ \ \ il g o .

. 0'1 0'I ii g O_ 0 ¢ O_ 01 0 -'tO rm 0_ rn ..I! MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) 1_3 PO GO GO _ _ 01 01 03 O_ "..-• 0 \ "_gB ._ N' -< O1 \ 0'1 0 \ \ \ \ x..4 _1 GO b PO 0 cn o m b b_ o b_ o b_ b b_ b \ i-i° GO 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ OX GO 01 H _ M I.

i • \ cl f_ \ (.) (..o o _ .n \ \ A E_ _° f_ o \ \ cI) on o -\ \ o) o-i E o -r 0 r" m z ..MAX HOLE STRAIN o o o o o o _ o o o o o _ o o o .o o o o Q _ o c:) C) o o fJ'l o o 0 01 c_ o \ \ \ 0.n l.

. Ill _.o_ o) on -\ \ o x "I" 0 rm og :o m og __.4 "-4 _1 -'4 _ O0 O0 _ CO CO gO o ro o b_ b b_ b b_ o b_ o _ b b_ b _ o ro _n S..< Ol o \ b..< _' .Ix o i \ \ "X .< . ..4 "4 "4 ".MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) ". o ..< ..._ o-i \ .° \ o \ k = : o0 \ .

_ II .. .L 0 0 b _ 01 0 0 I'0 0 0 0 DO 0"1 o b o o o in o o o o b o-i o b o o o oi o b o o b in o o o =r II _ .e h._° -r 0 r m _D .MAX HOLE STRAIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 -.

.° _J 0 X T C) rm rn _o cn _._ 0. J_ 0 J_ Cn Ul _.MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) PO 0 . .J \ O3 > "7" t" p.o 01 0 \ i === \ C_ u 01 01 O3 0 C_t.... I DO 01 \ \ \ \ \ 0_ CD GO 0 C_ 01 . /5.=.

Y MAX HOLE STRAIN o o o o o b 0 0 P0 o o 0 0"I o -_0 b . o E "1" 0 lm 00 z .-L 0"I b PO 0 o o Oq o o 0 o o 01 .o o 0 o b 0"I .o o 0 o o 01 o o 0 o b O_ o o 0 o'I \ o \ 0_ on \ o0B o II (.n w oi o \ oi oi o_ o O_hJ _D o-i L-_==i.

7 MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) b _o o "m b 01 o "_ b _ b 01 "o I'o 01 GO o \ \ Go 01 t. .d ° o_ ol \ o "10 r" m Go m Go Go /7 __... _b o C_l'o \ > _._° \ \ o H 01"1 A w 01 o \ ol 01 \ \ %.

I z ."t ..o 0 0 o 0 tn o 0 0 \ o \ \ o \ \ II ¢_ • -4_ "< • _..._ = g o"t o \ \ \ \ t.. ! o'1 on or) o > _ ° 0') o"t o -10 Ira o0 -.o 0 0 o 0 (..0 o _ ol o o o o o ol o o o 0 O't .o 0 0 o 0 01 o 0 0 o 0 01 .MAX HOLE STRAIN •o o I'. '.

MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) ro o DO O'1 0_ GO O ¢= GO O1 J_ O _° _A -< 4:= \ O1 O \ \ O1 O1 O_ O \ % O_t.3 O3 (31 > _J O x -r 0 rm -'4 m o3 .

m -I _. 0 .> .3 0 p 0 CO f._o ".. 0 "X N.o 0 "_1 0 PO 0"1 (r0 (.._.o 0 -I_ _ o 0 0"1 0 o 0 O1 0"1 o 0 0') 0 o 0 0') 01 ..._.0 0 \ \ (. o 0 0"1 -\ \ \ \ w.MAX HOLE STRAIN o 0 ro o o 0 o 0 o 0 p 0 o 0 p 0 (.31 \ _. O) 0 _o I ! ! i >.I 0 -r 0 I. 0') i._ o 0 .

g b" o \ o1 > _ ° o X T 0 rm m ?J) m _( .I ° .....MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi) DO O o1 O_ o O_ ol o E_ Ol o o'1 ol t.

-=. .J .< j_ oi _'< ° \ B _ o \ \ \ (._o i i o_ oq o E -r" O I'Ill GO _ _ _ _" r_ _ fJ _ _ ..> I.n (.. o \ \ \ \ II _ .n OO t'.MAX HOLE STRAIN o 0 0 o 0 0"I o 0 0 o 0 01 o 0 0 o 0 0"] o 0 0 o 0 O_ o 0 0 o _ 05 p 0 0 o 0 O_ o 0 0 o 0 O_ o 0 0 o ro oi I I 0"O c0 o \ : i L \ ol .J o'_ o ..

(/) = w 0: 1111 J 0 "IX 0 r_ < _7 0 .I._J4 E 0 ° °m v m 0 u'3 0 c_ °_ 0 (!S)l) SS31d.S 370H XVIN 23 .

2.q LT.-q O O 0_..II LL.4 ORiGiNAL PAGE COLOR PHOTOGRAPH .. L_ O II °....._ _'m" 0.

{= _a _.II LI.) cq _ 0 LL IIIli_INAL PAGE filler PHOTOGRAp_ 25 . • ° .

Timoshenko. 1969.REFERENCES 1. Swanson Analysis Systems.0).N. J. ANSYS." 1970.. 3.: "Theory of Elasticity. (formerly 1992.): "ANSYS User's Manual (Revision 5.P. December Inc.: and Goodier.E. Inc. Prentice-Hall." of a Continuous McGraw-Hill. S. Malvern." 2. L. "Introduction to the Mechanics 26 . Medium.

Form Approved REPORT Public reporting burden for this collection gathering collection Davis and maintaining of information. Management 1. stress concentration. (Rev Z39-18 2-89) . PERFORMING ORGANiZATiON NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER National Aeronautics and Space Washington. Alabama 35812 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER Flight M-781 g. George C. Suite 1204. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 32 16. This report details the initial analysis performed by NASA to the material properties required to ensure structural integrity in these critical areas. AUTHOR(S) R. the data including Arlington. DC 20503. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. DOCUMENTATION of information is estimated to average to of 1 hour and reviewing this burden. 12a. and completing suggestions for reducing VA 22202-4302. comments Directorate Reduction OM8No. Science and Engineering Directorate. REPORT DATE 3. careful attention must be paid to concentration in the SLWT ET. PRICE CODE A03 20. DISTRIBUTION CODE 13. Paperwork the time for reviewing of information. Washington. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) Because lower stress the 2195 aluminum-lithium of the super lightweight external tank (SLWT ET) has a toughness than the 2219 aluminum used in previous ET's. tO the Office the collection Washington PAGE per restx>nse. SUBJECT ERMS T external tank. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 1995 Technical Paper 5. nonlinear analysis. aspect of this 1215 Jefferson needed.Ozo_-oIss instructions.DiSTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 39 12b. aluminum-lithium SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 19. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Prepared by Structures and Dynamics Laboratory. determine 14. liquid hydrogen plasticity. Marshall Marshall Space Space Flight Center Center. 17. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED May 4. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18. and Highway. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Unclassified Unclassified Standard Prescrib¢_l 298-102 by Unlimited Form ANSI 298 Std. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. searching existing data sources. NUMBER OF PAGES tank. FUNDING NUMBERS Analysis 2195 of Stress Concentration at Holes in Components Made of Aluminum-Lithium 6. DC 20546-0001 Administration NASA TP-3554 11. Ahmed 7. or any other and RepOrts. including Send Services. re_arding this burden estimate ?or information OI0erations Project (0704-0188). Headquarters and Budget. 15.