| 8:30-9:00 |
Fastener Load Transfer Post Ligament Failure in Continuing Damage Analysis
Brian Boeke - Reliant Aero
While reviewing damage tolerance analysis ground rules for the A-10 and B-52 programs, a disparity was found in the assumed load transfer at a fastener after the ligament failed in a continuing damage analysis. The A-10 program has always assumed the bearing load goes to zero, therefore BSF = 0 and ASF = 1. This is mostly due to early limitations in AFGROW and logically supported with the argument that the cracked ligament reduces stiffness such that bearing load becomes negligible. This was never evaluated through FEM tools however. The B-52 program assumes the opposite; the bearing load doesn’t change at all for the last phase of a continuing damage analysis. This is the more conservative approach but is likely inaccurate. The purpose of this work was to start looking at what an appropriate load transfer assumption should be for this final phase of continuing damage.
In order to start looking at this, a simple model of two plates connected with idealized 3D fasteners was created. Loading was developed to get approximately 100 lbs. of load transfer at each hole. The thickness of the plates was varied to get an understanding for the influence on the load transfer value. Additional work on looking at different fastener diameters and different materials is planned but not yet accomplished. The results of the initial work will be presented.
|
| 9:00-9:30 |
Continuing Damage: Simultaneous or Sequential?
Jake Warner*, Renan Ribeiro** - *Reliant Aero, **Hill Engineering
Fatigue crack growth modeling of corner cracks at a hole considering continuing damage has often been analyzed using a sequential approach, where the primary (0.05”) and secondary (0.005”) cracks grow independently, without affecting one another. Previous evaluations have shown that this approach can be unconservative relative to a simultaneous approach, where both primary and secondary cracks grow simultaneously, since the growth of the secondary crack can be influenced by the primary crack. This work evaluated both sequential and simultaneous approaches for a wide variety of B-52 fatigue details/locations.
|
| 9:30-10:00 |
PH 13-8 Mo (H1000) steel. Fracture Toughness (Kic) Discussion
Kaylon Anderson - SwRI
When creating a material fit for newly tested 13-8PH material, it was found that there are large differences in Kic values from testing, ranging from 40 ksi/sqrt-in to 100 ksi/sqrt-in. This presentation will discuss this issue with the intent to facilitate a discussion on appropriate paths forward in deciding an appropriate Kic value to use for analysis.
|
| 10:30-11:00 |
Investigating Machine Learning Models for the Development of K-Solutions
Sai Sampan Patrudu Lanka, James Lambert - LexTech, Inc
This work investigates machine-learning-based modeling as a complementary approach for representing multidimensional K-solution data used in AFGROW. Multiple nonlinear regression methods, including kernel-based models and multilayer perceptron neural networks, were evaluated for learning high-dimensional mappings between crack-geometry and loading parameters and dimensionless Beta values. The study progressed beyond conventional random train-test validation to include curve-based assessment, interpolation behavior, sparse and structured holdout testing, and evaluation of smoothness across interacting dimensions. Radial-basis-function kernel methods demonstrated smooth nonlinear approximation capability, while recent MLP models achieved strong predictive accuracy and continuous multidimensional response behavior, showing potential to reduce manual curve-fitting effort, support residual-based identification of anomalous data points, and provide compact surrogate representations for increasingly large solution spaces. The work remains exploratory for AFGROW’s existing interpolation framework, with recent ONNX export and independent inference testing providing an initial pathway toward portable model deployment and future integration studies.
|
| 11:00-11:30 |
Establishing A Programmatic Workflow for Processing Tabular Datasets
Annika Harris, James Lambert - LexTech, Inc
This presentation walks through the updated process for preparing new tabular datasets for
AFGROW implementation. Previous datasets were approached individually and often modified
manually. This approach results in variations in the methods used and a low level of
repeatability. The goal of this project was to consolidate existing methods, keep better records
of changes to each dataset, and reduce the barrier to adding new datasets. A single processing
tool was created to take raw crack front data from FEM analysis all way to a clean dataset ready
for AFGROW. The tool was developed on a corner crack at hole dataset for first infinite, then
finite plates. Main functions of the program include extracting vertices from crack front data,
and smoothing the resulting dataset for clean interpolation. The process for extracting the
vertices can be used very generally, while the cleaning currently must be tuned to the specific
dataset. Throughout the process various measurements are taken and outputs are recorded to
ensure a cohesive picture of the data is available, and no errors are missed. This new workflow
will help ensure datasets can meet a high-quality standard in less time, makes it easier to
expand and improve tabular models, and adds a previously missing component of record
keeping and repeatability.
|
| 11:30-12:00 |
Developing AFGROW Plugins Using StressCheck Automation
James Lambert - LexTech, Inc
Closing the gap between FEM results and AFGROW crack growth analysis is not always trivial. This presentation covers the process of integrating finite-element results and live analysis into an AFGROW plugin with both a tabular and live approach, while also highlighting tools that can be used to make the process easier.
|
| 1:30-2:00 |
Automatic β table generation for general model definitions in AFGROW
Adrian Loghin - Simmetrix, Inc.
A process that uses finite element models to automatically generate β tables for AFGROW has been developed. This capability is not restricted to specific geometries and loading configurations and thus gives the ability to improve KI solution accuracy by using local models that are more representative of the structure or even full component level models.
The process is implemented using a python script which calls the underlying 3D fracture mechanics modeling functionality to automatically insert cracks and perform solutions for a set of predefined crack sizes and shapes. Currently, the solution can be performed using Ansys, Abaqus or CalculiX as solvers.
KI verification benchmarking, using an exact 3D solution as a reference, is used to demonstrate solution convergence and accuracy for various elliptical crack aspect ratios.
|
| 2:00-2:30 |
Progress in AFGROW FEA Handbook Development
Alexander Litvinov*, Adrian Loghin** - *LexTech, Inc, **Simmetrix Inc
The presentation summarizes the ongoing progress in developing the AFGROW FEA Handbook, highlights the benefits of on demand finite element analysis for crack growth analysis, and outlines the project roadmap along with key implementation challenges.
|
| 3:00-3:30 |
BAMpF Update
Brent Keller - Hill Engineering
This presentation will cover the details of the upcoming release; bug reports and all things related to BAMpF!
|