4.7 Article

Crack growth modeling and simulation of a peridynamic fatigue model based on numerical and analytical solution approaches

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.tafmec.2021.103026

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, fatigue crack growth assessment of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy was conducted using a peridynamic fatigue model, and the remaining-life equation was solved through numerical and analytical approaches. It was found that the analytical approach was more accurate and stable in predicting crack growth rates and simulating material deformation under various loading conditions, while the numerical approach had shortcomings in accurate predictions for different loading conditions. Additionally, the computational time of the analytical approach was considerably shorter compared to the numerical approach.
Fatigue crack growth assessment of 2024-T3 aluminum alloy is carried out on the basis of a recently developed peridynamic fatigue model. The governing remaining-life equation of the peridynamic fatigue model has been solved by two different approaches i.e. numerical and analytical approaches to perform fatigue-crack growth simulations for 2024-T3 aluminum specimen with a pre-existing crack. Remaining-life parameters of the numerical and analytical solution approaches are determined by calibrating with the experimental crack growth data. Fatigue crack growth predictions, and associated material deformation of the specimen under various loading conditions are simulated by the two approaches. Predicted results show that the numerical approach has shortcomings in accurate predictions of crack growth rates for the application of different loading conditions, while the analytical approach can be applied for a wide range of loading conditions with good prediction accuracy and stable simulations of the material deformation with a growing crack. Furthermore, it is found that the computational time of the analytical approach is considerably shorter in comparison with the numerical approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据