4.7 Article

A comparison between FEM predictions and DIC results of crack tip displacement field in CT specimens made of titanium

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2023.104055

Keywords

Fatigue crack growth (FCG); Crack tip; Digital Image Correlation (DIC); Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD); Finite Element Method (FEM); Grade 2 Titanium

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the accuracy of a finite element model was validated by comparing its predictions with experimental results. The qualitative comparison showed a strong similarity between the displacement field predicted by the model and the experimental results. Although there were differences in the comparison of CTOD curves obtained behind the crack tip, the analysis revealed that the interior regions have a significant influence on the displacement field.
In the context of fatigue crack growth (FCG), the validation of FEM predictions with experimental results has been made in terms of crack closure and da/dN. The objective here is to compare the prediction of the displacement field, which is the primary output of FEM, with experimental results obtained with Digital Image Correlation (DIC). The qualitative comparison indicates that DIC and FEM results are very similar. The comparison of CTOD curves obtained behind the crack tip showed a good agreement between the DIC and numerical predictions obtained under plane strain conditions. This indicates the dominance of the interior regions over the surface displacements, although the small thickness of the specimen (1 mm). The more detailed analysis of the CTOD loops, through the values of plastic CTOD ranges, showed a significant difference between FEM predictions and DIC results. The robustness of the numerical model was checked considering a mesh sensibility analysis, as well as considering different sets of material parameters in the simulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available