FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING RESEARCH GROUP (FEMRG) Labo …

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING RESEARCH GROUP (FEMRG)

Labo Soete, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University

http://www.finiteelementresearch.ugent.be/

http://www.finiteelementresearch.ugent.be/

Staff

Head of Research Group: Prof. dr. ir. Magd Abdel Wahab

Full time Researchers:Dr. Yong Ling, Vu Huu Truong, Samir Khatir, Dang Bao Loi, Hau Ngoc Nguyen, Truong Phuong, Shengjie Wang, Qingming Deng, HoaTran, Huong Duong Nguyen, Ho Viet Long, Tran HieuNguyen, Roumaissa Zenzen, Duy Khuong Nguyen

Finite element modelling of fretting fatigue

SpecimenFretting crack

Fretting indenterQ

F

P(x)

q(x)

σ axial

σ axial

Lap-joint

by Jason Kimura


MPC

σ axial

Multi-point constraints


Fretting fatigue total lifetime

Ni

No damage

Total lifetime Nf= Ni+ Np

Sudden failure

Np

DamageMechanics

Fracture Mechanics

Initiation Propagation


Fretting fatigue crack initiation



Initial positionX0

Initial lengtha0

Initial orientationθ0

Specimen

Indenter

θ0

a0

(x0, 0)

X

Y



Loading phase difference

φ=0°

φ=180°φ=90°


Fretting fatigue crack initiationFretting fatigue crack initiation

criteria

Critical plane approach

Stress invariant approach

CDMapproach

Fretting specific Ruiz parameter

Smith-Watson-Topper

parameter

Findley parameter

Liu parameterMcDiarmidparameter

Rolović -Tipton parameter

Shear stress range parameter

Brown-Miller parametre

Fatemi-Socieparameter

Crosslandparameter

Lemaitre damage model

Bhattacharya and Ellingwood (B-E) damage model

Initiation parameter F2

Stre

ss b

ased

Stra

in e

ner

gy b

ased

Strain based

Wear parameter F1

Chabochedamage model

Extension by Hojjati Talemi

and Abdel Wahab

Extension by Quraishi et al.

Extension by Chaudonneret




Findley Parameter

McDiarmid Parameter

Smith Watson Topper

Fatemi Socie parameter




Brown and Miller parameter

Liu 1 (tensile mode failure)

Liu 2 (shear mode failure)




Write Stresses/strain

data from Abaqusr

Store data in Matlab for each

step

Read data for one node

Apply transformation

equations

Compare SWT (local) for each

node

n = 1:nodes

n = 1:nodes

Compute Niiteratively



Critical plane approach φ=0°



Critical plane approach – effect of phase difference

Damage parameter

FP 35 -37/38 -35

MD 36 -38/40 -37

FS 35 -38/40 -35

BM 27 -28/39 -27

Liu 2 38 -40/49 -39

Liu 1 -5 -3/4 5

SWT -4 2 3

Sign convention for critical plane orientation



Continuum Damage approach







SWT FS CDM

Ni_90/Ni_0 Ni_90/Ni_0 Ni_90/Ni_0

1 23.29 28.45 1.102 37.78 54.52 1.123 29.35 33.47 1.194 75.63 140.43 1.065 39.82 49.98 1.156 67.46 81.19 1.527 22.33 29.73 1.09

Ratio of out-of-phase to in-

phase life is much higher with

critical plane approach







Re-meshing Initial crack size

Calculus of KI KII θ

Automatic geometry generation

(fatigue path : spline defined by i+1 points)

Automatic re-meshing

Solve - Stress analysis

Calculus of KI KII θ

Cycles for this step and

accumulated cycles

New crack tip location (x y )

i= 1

i= i+1

Displacement correlation technique (DCT)

Maximum circumferential stress criterion


Fretting fatigue crack propagation

Fracture and initial crack parameters

Fretting fatigue Python script in

ABAQUS

Apply Paris law

a>afDetermine number

of cycles, Np

YES

Update model

Updat geometry

Calculating KI , KII

and ϴ for crack ‘a’

NO

a0

Da

Da

Da

Re-meshing



Initial crack▪ near the contact edge▪ initiation angle: app. 40°▪ evolves inward

Propagation phase▪ Mixed-mode (depth <

2a)▪ Perpendicular to σa

(depth > 2a)

Crack path from experiments

200μm

2a

Specimen

Pad

Crack path

σaxialσaxial

Hojjati et al. (2014)



Crack propagation direction



Crack Propagation Direction

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Propagation Lifetime

-1

-0,8

-0,6

-0,4

-0,2

0

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8

Y (

mm

)

X (mm)

KII=0

MTS

MERR

Predefined Path

MTS: Maximum tangential stress criterion

MERR: Maximum energy release rate criterion



Obtaining orientation angle

▪ Fretting fatigue case

▪ Constant F, cyclic axial loading σaxial

▪ FEM analysis → KI and KII

▪ KI and KII → 𝑘𝐼∗ 𝜃, 𝑡 and 𝑘𝐼𝐼

∗ (𝜃, 𝑡)



Orientation criteria for non-proportional loading

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Load

Time step

F

σaxial

F

σreaction σaxial

1

2

3

45

-40

10

60

110

0 50 100

123

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

0 50 100

𝑘𝐼𝐼∗ (𝜃)

𝑘𝐼∗(𝜃)

𝜃 [°]

𝜃 [°]

∆𝑘𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥∗

∆𝑘𝐼𝐼,𝑚𝑖𝑛∗

𝑘𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥∗

𝑘𝐼𝐼∗ = 0

𝜃𝑝



Predicted paths considering crack face

contact

-1,4

-0,9

-0,4

-1,75-1,25-0,75-0,250,25 0,75 1,25 1,75

∆𝑘_(𝐼,

[mm]

[mm]

2𝑎 ≈ 1𝑚𝑚

∆𝑘𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥∗

𝑘𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥∗

Criterion: 𝐤𝐈,𝐦𝐚𝐱∗

▪ Propagation outwards contact ▪ Simplistic analysis

Criterion: 𝚫𝐤𝐈,𝐦𝐚𝐱∗

▪ Inwards contact ▪ Perpendicular to axial load

(depth 2a)



Total Life

Propagation Life

Initiation Life

DamageMechanicsApproachHojjati-Talemi et al. (2014)

Paris' Law𝑑𝑎

𝑑𝑁= 𝐶(Δ𝐾𝑒𝑞)

𝑛

Mixed-Mode

Δ𝐾𝑒𝑞 = Δ𝐾𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥2 + Δ𝐾𝐼𝐼,𝑚𝑎𝑥

2



1E+4

1E+5

1E+6

1E+7

1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7

±50%

Nf,

pre

dic

ted

[cyc

le]

Nf, experimental [cycle]

Conservative life predictions

Can we do better?



Finite element modelling of fretting wear

What is fretting wear?

Wear

2

a

PP

δ

b

b < a

fretting wear

Frettingsmall move surface damage

debris stays

in the interface

δP


Fretting wear versus fretting fatigue

Fretting fatigue

P

2S

axial load

Fretting wear


Fretting Map

Partial slip and gross sliding

Debris is often retained in interfaces.

Partial slip Gross slip Reciprocating

Debris can

eject easily.

Displacement amplitude (µm)(SC 652/100C6, R=12.7mm)

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Normal load (N)

Fretting wear versus reciprocating wear


Fretting Map

Partial slip and gross sliding

Debris is often retained in interfaces.

Partial slip Gross slip Reciprocating

Debris can

eject easily.

Displacement amplitude (µm)(SC 652/100C6, R=12.7mm)

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Normal load (N)

Fretting wear versus reciprocating wear


Where does fretting wear take place?

centrifugal blade load

disk

blade

blade

vibration

Kazuhisa Miyoshi, Tribology International 36 (2003) 145–153

http://www.raa.org


Where does fretting wear take place?

A local inflammation

A key reason for failure


Objectives


Methodology Archard Model


Methodology Energy Model


Methodology

Energy Model


Simulation

P

2S

P(N) S(mm)

1200 0.075

185 0.025

Step Boundary condition(top)

Normal load

Right slip x=0.075/0.025,y=0

Right back x=0,y=0

Left slip x=-0.075/-0.025,y=0

Left back x=0,y=0

Bottom: x=0, y=0 for 5 steps


Results

50 cycles jump cycle=10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-2 -1,5 -1 -0,5 0 0,5 1 1,5 2

con

tact

pre

ssu

re (

MP

a)

x / a

1st Cycle

10th Cycle

20th Cycle

30th Cycle

40th Cycle

50th Cycle

Peak contact pressure decreases and contact width increases.

Contact pressure versus number of cycles


Results

T. Zhang, Wear 271 (2011) 1462– 1480

Contact pressure versus number of cycles

Validation with literature


Results

Isogeometric analysis for smart plate structures

Smart structures


Objectives


Isogeometricanalysis


Results

Isogeometric analysis of FG graded plates

Isogeometric analysis


IGA for plates


Results


Results

Finite element analysis of residual stresses in welds

Failure of Welds

Abrasion and corrosion of vessel’s structure

Wet abrasive wear of pumps and pipes

Abrasion and corrosion in fall pipes

Low cycle fatigue and corrosion damage of spuds

Residual stress


Stress in Welds


FEA of Welds


FEA of Welds


Initial results

heat source latent heat

Documents

FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING RESEARCH GROUP (FEMRG) Labo …