Fatigue and Damage Tolerance

Edward Herba, January 29,2004

Fatigue: Failure mechanism due to cyclic loading.
Damage Tolerance: Fail Safe Design Concept
Fatigue: Failure mechanism due to cyclic loading.
Damage Tolerance: Fail Safe Design Concept
Overview
Designing for fatigue: Safe Life vs Fail Safe
Fail-Safe: Fatigue calculation
Fail-Safe: Damage Tolerance
Case studies: Crashes involving fatigue
crack propagation
Fractography
Summary
Safe-life
1952 DeHavilland Comet: Worlds first Commercial Jet-liner.
Designed with Safe-Life concept (tested for life, SF, discarded)
Assumed no cracks during design lifetime.
Stress in area of windows was 70% of UTS
Explosive decompression due to cracking at square window
corners.
Triggered new design concept: Fail-safe based on fatigue crack
growth, inspection procedures and multiple load paths.
1950s Comet Aircraft Window
Fail Safe Design Concept
The engineer must :
1) accept all structural members to contain flaws.
2) determine the critical flaw size.
3) use reliable inspection methods and equipment to
monitor flaw size and orientation.
4) assure an appropriate interval between inspections.
5) replace components, parts and members when they
are no longer safe.
Flap track, body & linkages
Function
2nd Load paths (fails-safe, damage tolerant)
materials (2024 Al, 7075, Ti, Steel)
S-N curve
Requires many S-N curves for a Miner calc
Requires many S-N curves for a Miner calc
Haigh Diagram for Fatigue Data
R=min/max
Lines of constant endurance
R=min/max
Lines of constant endurance
Cumulative Fatigue Damage
Fatigue damage= n
1
/N
1
after n
1
cycles at
1
where N
1
is the life at
1
from the S-N curve.
Palmgren-Miner linear cumulative damage hypothesis:
Total Damage caused by a varying amplitude load
cycle is the summation of the damage caused by
each individual loading cycle.
(n
1
/N
1
+ n
2
/N
2
+ n
3
/N
3
+... ) = 1
Total damage=1/LF
DSG/Fatigue life= 1/LF
Total damage=1/LF
DSG/Fatigue life= 1/LF
Fatigue Calculation
Damage Tolerance
Function: To determine the effects of cracks in the structure
Objective: To provide an inspection program so that cracks
will not propagate to a critical size under limit load prior to
detection.
Methods of Analysis:
Deterministic Analysis
Probabilistic Analysis
Probabilistic vs Deterministic Analysis
Probabilistic Analysis (residual fatigue analysis) is a method
to determine inspection interval when there is a:
Multiple load path structure (2nd load path not inspectable)
Insufficient results from fracture mechanics (a
crit
<a
det
)
Probabilistic Analysis (residual fatigue)
Inspection Interval is determined as follows:
Inspection Interval=DSG (1-D
pre
) / FSD
afterfailure
whereDSG=Design Service Goal
D
pre
=Pre-Damage of element 2 while 1 was intact for DSG
FS=Factor of safety
D
afterfailure
=Damage in 2 after failure of element 1for DSG
*Assuming element 1 is 1
st
load path
Deterministic Analysis: Crack Growth
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics are used to
determine:
Crack Growth due to cyclic loads
Residual strength for a given crack length
Critical crack length for a given stress level
Fracture Mechanics Assumptions:
Crack propagation rate depends on K and R for a given
material and conditions.
Failure occurs when K reaches its critical value (from this
residual strength and a
crit
can be calculated)
Crack Propagation
a (n) = a
i
+ (da/dn)dn
where
ai = initial crack length (ex: detectable)
da/dn = crack propagation rate (depends on K , R)
n = number of load cycles
Crack Growth
Paris Law: da/dn=A(K)
p
Forman Law:
da/dn=C
f
(K)
nf
(1-R)K
f
- K
Stress Intensity Factor, K
K= Y ( a)
=
max
-
min
Stress Intensity factor: Fracture Toughness, K
crit
Stress Intensity factor = Stress at crack tip / nominal stress.
Fracture toughness is a material property
Stress Intensity factor = Stress at crack tip / nominal stress.
Fracture toughness is a material property
Critical Crack length & Residual Strength

limit
is determined by static stress dept.
Specimen Orientation
Fracture toughness of 7079 (40.5) is < 2024 (45.0)
Fracture toughness very dependent on thickness
Fracture Toughness affected by heat treatment (particles,
dislocations)
L-T is worse than
L-S
Shows crack
propagation rate
is dependent on
grain orientation
Sample Calc: Crack in skin over stringer
Stress Intensity Correction Function
Progression of Crack Calculation
Locations of MSD on aircraft
B737 Aloha Airlines 1988: Explosive decompression (18 section)
Failure along fuselage skin longitudinal lap joint which had been epoxy bonded
Epoxy to take most of loads
Poor bonding transferred load to rivets and crack grew from rivet to rivet.
Aloha Airlines countersunk rivet where fatigue crack started.
MSD at Lap joint
Importance of inspectability (crack was hidden behind a frame)
Small crack was spotted, joint was disassembled and a much
longer crack found underneath.
Japan Airlines B747 Crash 1985 (explosive
decompression of fuselage)
Repaired bulkhead after tail strike was not done
properly.
Doubler was not continuous putting overload on
the skin.
Fatigue cracks at rivet holes, then linked (MSD)
and then failure.
Japan Airlines: Bulkhead failure
Chicago DC-10 crash 1979
Engine fell off during take-off
Incorrect engine removal procedure caused
fracture to engine support.
Fatigue crack growth then started at this
cracked upper flange of aft bulkhead.
The residual strength of the component was
insufficient and complete failure occurred.
Fractography
SEM showing fatigue striations (1 per cycle in stageII)
multiple crack origins
Summary
Fatigue: Miner Rule of linear accumulated
damage
Damage Tolerance: Crack growth rate is
controlled by K, R
Importance of surface finish, assembly,
inspectability.