F-16 Block 15 Crack Growth Analysis of

Lead Crack Wing Damage Enhancement Test

Frank Grooteman
frank.grooteman@nlr.nl

Gas Turbines & Structural Integrity department (AVGS)

Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium – National Aerospace Laboratory NLR

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by

Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF)

Fuerza Aérea de Chile (FACh)

2
Content
 Introduction

 F-16 Block 15 Wing lead crack growth analysis

1. Finite element model Wing and model at BL71
2. Unit actuator loads
3. Detailed model of rectangular cut-out and spar
4. Crack paths in sub-model
5. Normalised SIF solutions
6. Load sequence
7. Crack growth analysis

 Conclusions

3
Introduction
 Stress distribution around crack tip
𝑲𝑰 𝑲𝑰𝑰 𝑲𝑰𝑰𝑰
𝜎 𝑟, 𝜃 = 𝑓𝐼 𝜃 + 𝑓 𝐼𝐼 𝜃 + 𝑓 𝐼𝐼𝐼 𝜃 + 𝐻𝑂𝑇
2𝜋𝑟 2𝜋𝑟 2𝜋𝑟

 Stress decays rapidly with 1/r

 K describes the severity of the stress intensity
 Stress Intensity Factor SIF (opening) modes: KI, KII, KIII

 Crack growth life assessment

𝑁
3
𝑎 = 𝑎0 + 𝐶 𝑲𝒎𝒂𝒙,𝒊 − 𝑲𝒐𝒑,𝒊
𝑖=1

 25% error in K(a) or S yields factor 2 in life!

4
Crack growth lifing framework
 Improved crack growth life Framework
assessment
 Finite element determined SIF
solutions
– Crack tip elements
– XFEM
 Allows complex geometries and
loads

 Automatic crack(s) advance

 Coupling CAD + FEM: ABAQUS
 Parameterised (crack) geometry
 Should support
– Crack geometry definition
– Automatic update of FE
model from CAD

 Coupled with CRAGRO++

 Capable to handle unlimited
number of load cases
 Can handle multi modes

5
Crack growth life analysis F-16 Wing Lead Crack
 Objective
 Determine life prediction with lifing framework for F-16
Wing lead crack configuration
– Compare against fatigue test result
– Compare against Lockheed Martin DADTA result
 Supports validity of wing test

 Input
 Existing F-16 Wing coarse mesh FE model
 Applied load sequence for all 23 actuators

6
F-16 Wing test lead crack location at BL71

BL 71
BL 120

7
F-16 Wing test lead cracks location at BL71

8
F-16 Wing test lead cracks location at BL71

Crack-4

Crack-2

Crack-1

Crack-6

9
F-16 Wing test lead cracks location at BL71

10
F-16 Wing FE model test setup

sub-model

11
1. Construct sub-model of Wing area BL71
 Coarse FE Wing model represents stiffness, but not
suitable for accurate stress predictions

 Sufficient size of sub-model in wingspan direction to

compensate for influence crack growth

12
2. Extract displacements and loads for
each unit actuator load
Actuator locations

13
2. Extract displacements and loads for
each unit actuator load
 Combined complex
displacement + load
controlled SIF solution!

14
3. Adapt coarse sub-model with
detailed model of rectangular cut-out and spar

15
3. Adapt coarse sub-model with
detailed model of rectangular cut-out and spar

6900 Q8 (was 37 Q4) 2607 Q8 (was 10 Q4)

16
3. Adapt coarse sub-model with
detailed model of rectangular cut-out and spar

17
4. Insert crack paths in sub-model

18
4. Insert crack paths in sub-model
 Crack in Spar #6
 No history information
– Only 1 marker found
 Assumptions
– Initial crack of 0.05 inch at
each hole edge (4 cracks)
 Final crack length known

 Influence on lead crack

examined

 Scenario 1
 Spar crack starts at same time
as lead crack in cut-out
 Worst-case

 Scenario 2
 Spar crack starts when lead
crack is in between two rivet
holes
 More-likely

19
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

Lead crack

Spar crack Spar crack

scenario 1 scenario 2

20
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load
 Automated step

 Assumptions
 Real crack configuration cut-out modelled
– Obtained from fractography data
– Shielding of lead crack-1 by crack-2
– Influence of neighbouring crack-4 and crack-6
– Crack in spar #6
 No rivet holes modelled due to interference fits
 Release of rivet when crack arrives at hole
 Crack grows across hole diameter, conservative re-initiation time
 Through crack at rivet hole after initiation (conservative)

 SIF decreases due to

 Load redistribution towards spars
 Shielding of crack-1 by crack-2

21
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

22
 5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load
Example analysed crack configuration

Crack-2

Crack-1

Crack-6
Crack-4

23
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

Mode I

Mode II

24
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

25
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load
Actuator locations

26
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

27
5. Compute normalised SIF solutions
(a) for each actuator load

Mode I

2
3

Mode II

28
6. Compute load sequence at lead
crack and apply rainflow counting

117,732 load steps * 23 actuators

29
6. Compute load sequence at lead
crack and apply rainflow counting
 Test load sequence file with load steps per actuator
simulating baseline spectrum

 Compute stress field at lead crack location for each load

step (117,732)

23

𝜎𝑖 = 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝛽𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝑎𝑐𝑡=1

 Generate analysis load sequence

 Remove intermediate points 4 6 4 4',6
+
6
+
4 4'

LMAero rain flow counting

2 2' 2 2' 2 2'

remote stress
3 5 5 3 3 5

– For crack growth analysis 8 8 + 8

7 7 7' 7 7'

1 9 1 9 1 9

30
7. Compute crack growth life
 LMAero crack growth analysis
 Forman equation
𝑛
𝑑𝑎 𝐶𝑓 ∆𝐾 𝑓
=
𝑑𝑁 1 − 𝑅 𝐾𝑓 − ∆𝐾
 Generalised Willenborg model
(Rol=2.65)
 CC: ainit = 0.05” (1.27 mm)
 Baseline load spectrum
 Corrected handbook SIFs
 Same crack path as obtained
in test!

31
 W = 20 inch

7. Compute crack growth life r

BEGIN END
 LMAero DA results
0.39
0.20 in
0.624
0.56 in 0.996
0.812 in
3,300 FH  Run A: > 16,000 FH
– 0.005 inch  0.03 inch
Run A:

0.27 in
t=0.084
Ø 0.188 in

 LMAero DTA results

Run B:
3,300 FH  Run A: 3,300 FH
 Run B: 7,200 FH
 -------------------
7,200 FH  Total: 10,500 FH
Run B:
 Ninsp: 5,300 FH

 LMAero analysis  Crack history

 Interference fit fasteners  F-16A FSD Durability Test
 Continuing damage analyses Aircraft at 15,228 FH (left)
 acr = 1.308 inch, fuel leakage and 16,000 (right)
 Stress correction factors  None found on F-1C Block 10
– SMFEM,SMcorr,SMgage,SMlol Durability Test Aircraft after
 Run B was previously 15,827 FH
unconservative  No Block 10/15 reports (2006)
32
7. Compute crack growth life
 NLR crack growth analysis
 Same Forman equation
 Same Generalised Willenborg model (Rol=2.65)
 Same material properties
 Same ainit = 0.05” (1.27 mm)
 Same LMAero rain flow counted test load sequence (baseline)
 FEM determined SIFs

 Analysis performed with in-house tool Cragro++

– Full object oriented C++ implementation
– Supports infinite number of cracks
– Supports infinite number of load cases
– Supports mixed-mode loading
𝐾𝐼2 + 𝐾𝐼𝐼2 2
𝐾𝐼𝐼𝐼
𝐺 = 1− 𝜈2 + 1+𝑣
𝐸 𝐸
– Comes with generic FEM interface (Abaqus applied here)
 Automatic crack advance
 For complex crack geometries and loads
33
7. Compute crack growth life (lead crack-1)

34
Conclusions
 Framework successfully applied to lead crack
configuration F-16 wing test
 Without framework too time consuming

 NLR analysis
 Crack growth analysis correlate well with wing test result
lead crack
 Crack growth prediction matches well up to first rivet hole
 Conservative after re-initiation at first rivet hole
– No re-initiation and through crack assumed instead of
corner crack

 LMAero analysis
 Crack growth prediction matches well up to first rivet hole
 Very un-conservative after re-initiation at first rivet hole!

 Yields reduced initial inspection interval by 3000 FH

35
Thanks for your attention!

36
37