XFEM裂纹扩展范例.pptVIP

*/36 Crack Path Discussion Maximum stress is generally ?yy, which agrees with horizontal growth trend Initial growth direction is south west - ?yy and ?xy are dominant Future iterations of growth are more challenging to discern Constantly changing crack tip coordinate system Constantly changing ratio between biaxial components N = 1 N = 5,000 N = 10,000 N = 20,000 N = 30,000 */36 1Black, Structural health monitoring: Composites get smart, 2008. 2Coppe, Simplified damage growth models can still yield accurate prognosis, submitted. 3An, Experimental study on identifying cracks of increasing size using ultrasonic excitation, 2011. Acoustic Emission Sensors Data Estimate of Damage Size3 Estimate of Material Properties/Remaining Life2 Add Weight Conditional Maintenance Uncertainty in Location/Size Traditional Sensors Data Convert Data to Stress History Damage Growth on Digital Twin Life Estimate of Panel/Airplane In Development */36 Structural Health Monitoring Use crack growth history to identify material properties C and m Estimate remaining life Instead of having accurate ?K, can equivalent C and m be identified? Generated crack growth history using exact XFEM reanalysis Currently considering variable amplitude loading and different fatigue models 1Coppe, Simplified damage growth models can still yield accurate prognosis, submitted. */36 Conclusions Fatigue crack growth is expensive due to number of cycles to failure Choice of ?a or ?N reduces cost, but poor choice affects accuracy of crack growth prediction; may not be valid for all fatigue problems Surrogate models enable high-order integration of fatigue crack growth model and provide means to dynamically adjust integration step size without need to choose ?a or ?N Exact XFEM reanalysis makes repeated crack growth simulations more affordable through the direct modification of an existing Cholesky factorization The exact XFEM reanalysis was used in the fatigue crack growth analysis of a panel subjected to n