Home Contact

Official AFGROW Blog

Information and insight from fracture mechanics experts

Suggested Improvements

by Administrator 22. January 2009 13:26
The following suggestions have been made for ways to improve AFGROW and the AFGROW Web Site:

AFGROW Improvements:

  • Add Residual Strength Plotting Capability
  • K-Solution for an Offset Loaded Lug
  • Stress-Life Crack Initiation Model
  • Expand Multi-Crack Capability
  • Include the Bending Stress Fraction in the Bearing Stress Fraction Calculator Option
  • Ability to Model Cracks in a Bonded Metallic Repair Patch
  • Ability to Edit Parameters by Selecting an Item in the Status View
  • Include Warning to Save Data Before Closing AFGROW

Web Site Improvements

  • Publish AFGROW Tips and Tricks
  • Retardation Parameter "Rules of Thumb"
  • Add Material Data/Documentation

Currently rated 5.0 by 3 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , ,

General | New Features

New AFGROW Features

by Administrator 22. January 2009 12:33
Spectrum Filtering Options: Tension and Compression Modification

This will allow users to adjust spectrum tension and compression values independently. The primary purpose of this capability is to allow users to model interference fit pins as a pre-load which may be considered to be a function of crack length. The modifications will be in either equation or tabular form. The general capability will allow for a number of input parameters to be used in order to make the capability as flexible as possible.

Compression Factors for Stress Intensity Solutions

Stress intensity solutions for the crack opening mode are applicable under tensile loading conditions. Examples include a crack at an open hole, and a crack at a hole under bearing load. In the first case, the stress field in the assumed crack plane under remote tension, is quite different in magnitude under remote compression. In the second case, the crack will not see any compression due to the geometry. Although K is not defined under compression loading, the K-values calculated under compression use the same solution as the values calculated under tension loading. These values are then used to determine a crack growth rate for the resulting R-value. The ability to correct this situation may help improve crack growth life predictions for load spectra that includes significant amount of compression loading.

Beta Correction for Advanced Through-the-Thickness Cracks

AFGROW currently allows users to apply beta correction factors to classic models and corner cracked advanced models. The capability will be added to the advanced through crack cases. This will provide additional modeling flexibility for these cases.

K-Solution for an Edge Notch in a Plate

A new advanced solution for corner or through crack at an edge notch in a plate is being developed. This will permit users to continue life predictions for continuing damage cases in which a crack has grown from a hole to the near edge, and another crack was growing simultaneously on the opposite side of the hole. Some have reported using an edge crack to simulate this continuing damage condition, but the result will be extremely conservative since the hole radius will tend to reduce the actual K-value for this geometry. The availability of this new solution will provide better accuracy for these types of problems.

Comments/suggestions are welcome

Currently rated 5.0 by 2 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , , ,

General | New Features

Curve Fit Crack Growth Rate Data

by Tom Deiters 7. January 2009 08:43

(NASGRO 3 versus NASGRO 4?)

The real question that needs to be asked is: where is the “dadN test data” upon which the NASGRO 3 and NASGRO 4 databases are based?  I’ve heard arguments about the differences in the Forman equation for years now and believe we have become blinded to the central issue … BOTH ARE CURVE FITS.  Somehow the community has been lead to believe that curve fit equations are better than honest test data. 

The inaccuracy pointed out in ignoring the double knee indicated by the real test data versus curve fit da/dN is far more significant than the threshold issue, which NASGRO 4 supposedly addresses.  Of course it is wrong to ignore either but to make a point.

If one would download http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar05-15.pdf or the reference located on the AFGROW documentation web page, and go to FIGURE B-4a. NASGRO EQUATION FIT FOR 2024-T3 CLAD AND BARE SHEET, L-T (M2EA11AB1) WITH POSITIVE R VALUES on page B-8, we might be able to understand all the tumult by examining what curve fitting does.

For example suppose a spectra which has many R=0 cycles.

And consider the following:

Delta K

5

10

20

Actual dadN

2.0E-7

6.5E-6

2.0E-7

Curve Fit dadN

3.5E-7

3.5E-6

3.0E-7

Act/CF

0.57

1.85

0.66

 

The point is:

The life prediction at DK = 5 would be 0.57 times shorter than it should be.

The life prediction at DK = 10 would be 1.85 times longer than it should be.

The life prediction at DK = 20 would be 0.66 times shorter than it should be.

Your guess is a good as mine as to how accurate the cumulative life prediction would be but this certainly throws some doubt on it … right?

I mean with this kind of accuracy I could just about make up some dadN and be just as accurate.

Currently rated 5.0 by 5 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , ,

Life Prediction

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0
Theme by Mads Kristensen