Engineering topics

McClung, R. C.

Publications and source records attributed to McClung, R. C..

7 records

NASA NTRS1999

Development of a Practical Methodology for Elastic-Plastic and Fully Plastic Fatigue Crack Growth

A practical engineering methodology has been developed to analyze and predict fatigue crack growth rates under elastic-plastic and fully plastic conditions. The methodology employs the closure-corrected effective range of the J-integral, delta J(sub eff) as the governing parameter. The methodology contains original and literature J and delta J solutions for specific geometries, along with general methods for estimating J for other geometries and other loading conditions, including combined mechanical loading and combined primary and secondary loading. The methodology also contains specific practical algorithms that translate a J solution into a prediction of fatigue crack growth rate or life, including methods for determining crack opening levels, crack instability conditions, and material properties. A critical core subset of the J solutions and the practical algorithms has been implemented into independent elastic-plastic NASGRO modules. All components of the entire methodology, including the NASGRO modules, have been verified through analysis and experiment, and limits of applicability have been identified.

McClung, R. C.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These guidelines integrate state-of-the-art elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a road map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the road map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the art fracture technology employed in these guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T3511, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and multiple-cycle proof testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors.

Chell, G. G.↗

NASA NTRS1999

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semielliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT versus SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗

NASA NTRS1999

Development of a Practical Methodology for Elastic-Plastic and Fully Plastic Fatigue Crack Growth

A practical engineering methodology has been developed to analyze and predict fatigue crack growth rates under elastic-plastic and fully plastic conditions. The methodology employs the closure-corrected effective range of the J-integral, (Delta)J(sub eff), as the governing parameter. The methodology contains original and literature J and (Delta)J solutions for specific geometries, along with general methods for estimating J for other geometries and other loading conditions, including combined mechanical loading and combined primary and secondary loading. The methodology also contains specific practical algorithms that translate a J solution into a prediction of fatigue crack growth rate or life, including methods for determining crack opening levels, crack instability conditions, and material properties. A critical core subset of the J solutions and the practical algorithms has been implemented into independent elastic-plastic NASGRO modules. All components of the entire methodology, including the NASGRO modules, have been verified through analysis and experiment, and limits of applicability have been identified.

McClung, R. C.↗

NASA NTRS1997

NASA Contractor Report: Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These Guidelines integrate state-of-the-art Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a Road Map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the Road Map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the-art fracture technology employed in these Guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy IN-718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T351 1, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and Multiple Cycle Proof Testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on to how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors.

Chell, G. G.↗

NASA NTRS1996

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗

NASA NTRS1996

A Comparison of Single-Cycle Versus Multiple-Cycle Proof Testing Strategies

Single-cycle and multiple-cycle proof testing (SCPT and MCPT) strategies for reusable aerospace propulsion system components are critically evaluated and compared from a rigorous elastic-plastic fracture mechanics perspective. Earlier MCPT studies are briefly reviewed. New J-integral estimation methods for semi-elliptical surface cracks and cracks at notches are derived and validated. Engineering methods are developed to characterize crack growth rates during elastic-plastic fatigue crack growth (FCG) and the tear-fatigue interaction near instability. Surface crack growth experiments are conducted with Inconel 718 to characterize tearing resistance, FCG under small-scale yielding and elastic-plastic conditions, and crack growth during simulated MCPT. Fractography and acoustic emission studies provide additional insight. The relative merits of SCPT and MCPT are directly compared using a probabilistic analysis linked with an elastic-plastic crack growth computer code. The conditional probability of failure in service is computed for a population of components that have survived a previous proof test, based on an assumed distribution of initial crack depths. Parameter studies investigate the influence of proof factor, tearing resistance, crack shape, initial crack depth distribution, and notches on the MCPT vs. SCPT comparison. The parameter studies provide a rational basis to formulate conclusions about the relative advantages and disadvantages of SCPT and MCPT. Practical engineering guidelines are proposed to help select the optimum proof test protocol in a given application.

McClung, R. C.↗