Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017

DOI 10.1007/s00170-017-0069-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Prediction of fatigue life by crack growth analysis

A. Bahloul 1 & CH. Bouraoui 1 & T. Boukharouba 2

Received: 1 August 2016 / Accepted: 16 January 2017 / Published online: 3 February 2017
# Springer-Verlag London 2017

Abstract This work proposes an improved mechanical driv- Nomenclature

ing force parameter for crack growth analysis. The proposed a Crack length [mm]
parameter investigates fatigue crack growth FCG under con- a0 Initial crack length [mm]
stant amplitude loading, considering the influence of residual af Failure crack size [mm]
stress distribution near the crack tip. A 2D FE Analysis is C,m Material parameters
developed in order to compute the stress distribution in the D Hole diameter of the lug [mm]
vicinity of the crack tip with in the framework of elastic- E Young’s modulus [GPa]
plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Elastic stress intensity EPFM Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanic
factors are computed using both analytical solution and the FCG Fatigue Crack Growth
extended finite element method (XFEM). Residual stress in- fw1 Finite width correction factor
tensity factors are determined using the weight function f1 Bowie correction factor
through numerical analysis. The authors estimate the residual G1 Pin correction factor
fatigue crack growth life of 7075-T6 Aluminum alloy attach- Kmax , t , Kmin , t Maximum and minimum total SIFs [MPa m1/2]
ment lugs with single through-thickness crack under various Kres Residual stress intensity factor [MPa m1/2]
loading conditions. Moreover, a comparison with the avail- ΔK Stress intensity factor range [MPa m1/2]
able experimental data is performed. It is proved that this ΔKrc Residual-corrected stress intensity factor
improved mechanical parameter so-called residual-corrected [MPa m1/2]
stress intensity factor can better predict fatigue life with a L Length of the lug [mm]
greater accuracy compared with experimental results. m (x,a) Weight function
LEFM Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanic
N Number of cycle [cycles]
Keywords Residual fatigue life . Attachment lugs . R Load ratio
Residual-corrected stress intensity factor . EPFM . XFEM rp Plastic zone size [mm]
SIF Stress Intensity Factor
W Width of the lug [mm]
t Lug thickness [mm]
* A. Bahloul σres Residual stress [MPa]
bahloulahmad1@outlook.fr σ0 Applied stress [MPa]
ϑ Poisson’s ratio
1
Laboratoire de Mécanique de Sousse, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs
de Sousse, Université de Sousse, Bp. 264 Erriadh,
4023 Sousse, Tunisia 1 Introduction
2
Laboratoire de Mécanique Avancée, l’Université des Sciences et de
la Technologie Houari Boumediene, BP.32, El Alia, 16111 Bab The most mechanical components in various mechanical sys-
Ezzouar, Algiers, Algeria tems are subjected to cyclic loading in which micro-cracks can
4010
be initiated and propagated. One of the most critical engineer-
ing structures which can lead to an intolerable failure in the
aeronautical industry is the attachment lug. It is used to as-
semble components with other mechanical structures. When a
crack occurs, the prediction of remaining life of these struc-
tures becomes necessary to predict correctly the safety behav-
ior of such component. In fracture mechanics, looking for a
model or criterion which can evaluate the fatigue crack growth
rate for an engineering structure with an acceptable confi-
dence level still remains among a challenging topic for several
research works.
In this context, various empirical crack growth models
have been proposed. The first empirical relationship describ-
ing the fatigue crack growth (FCG) rate was introduced by
Paris and Erdogan [1]. They considered that FCG rate is only
governed by the stress intensity factor range. Ahmed et al. [2]
used the same model in their study. They suggested the exis-
tence of a correlation between C and m (Paris coefficients)
which leads to express the Paris model with a single parame-
ter. Elber [3] introduced the effective stress intensity factor
range in order to take into account the crack closure phenom-
enon during crack propagation. Furthermore, a two-parameter
driving force model was proposed by Erdogan [4] and Walker
[5]. They correlated the stress intensity factor range with the
maximum stress intensity factor for investigating FCG rate.
Later, Baljanovic and Maksimovic [6] reformulated the same
computational model for predicting mixed mode crack growth
with/without overload.
In order to take into account the instability of the FCG rate
when SIF reaches its critical value, Forman [7] suggested a
new model by improving the Walker’s model in which both
region II and III could be described in the FCG rate curve.
Thereafter, Toyosada et al. [8] proposed a new driving force
parameter by considering the effect of cyclic plastic zone near
the crack tip. A recent model known as “NASGRO Equation”
was developed by NASA [9]. The proposed model examines
FCG by accounting the mean stress effect and the plasticity-
induced crack closure phenomenon. The model‘s ability for
predicting FCG rate and FCG life was proved through a com-
parison study with experimental data [10, 11]. Recently, and
due the fact that the plastic zone around the crack tip has a
significant effect on fatigue crack growth rate, Li et al. [12, 13]
developed an analytical solution to account the influence of
the plastic deformation during cyclic loading. Thus, a
plasticity-inducted stress intensity factor expression was given
under small-scale yielding conditions [14, 15].
Since lug type joint is a sensitive component in mechanical
systems, several works have dealt with the problem of fatigue
crack growth for the cracked lug using various methods. Kim
and his coauthors [16] investigated the service life of cracked lug
under random spectrum loading through experimental and ana-
lytical studies. They showed that an increase in the clipping load
level reduces the fatigue life of the cracked attachment lug. Using
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017
Fig. 1 Detailed geometry of the attachment lugs with single crack
the weight function technique and the Unigrow model,
Mikheevskiy et al. [17] predicted the residual fatigue life of an
attachment lugs subjected to cyclic loading. Baljanovic and
Maksimovic [18] used the quarter-point (Q-P) singular finite
element to extract the SIF of the attachment lugs with single
through-thickness and single corner crack. Fatigue life prediction
was evaluated using the two-parameter driving force model [4,
5], under constant amplitude loading. In the same concept, a
recent work was performed by Naderi and Iyyer [19] for model-
ing fatigue crack growth of cracked attachment lugs. They used
the Extended Finite Element Method (XFEM) [20–22] and the
Walker model for estimating the stress intensity factors SIFs and
the FCG life, respectively.
It should be noted that all these studies regarding the resid-
ual fatigue life estimation of the cracked lug were performed
within the framework of linear elastic fracture mechanic
(LFEM).
The aim of this paper is to develop an improved computa-
tional model by taking into account the effect of residual stress
distribution due to plastic deformation around the crack tip for
predicting fatigue life under cyclic loading. Attachment lugs
with single crack are considered in the FE analysis. For the
residual FCG life estimation, the Paris’s law coupled with the
residual-corrected stress intensity factor is employed. A com-
parison between the proposed model and the available exper-
imental data is performed.
2 Analytical solution for SIF calculation
For most mechanical structures, the residual life evaluation
requires a knowledge of the stress intensity factor SIF at the
crack tip for each crack increment. For an attachment lugs
(Fig. 1) with a single through-thickness crack, the stress inten-
sity factor can be calculated by the following expression [3,
18, 24, 28]:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiu
u 1
K 1 ¼ σ0 πaf w1 f 1g1u   ð1Þ
t πD
cos
2w
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017 4011

where fw1 represents the finite width correction factor which

can be expressed as follows:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u 1
f w1 ¼ u   ð2Þ
t πD þ a
cos
2w−a

The Bowie correction factor for the cracked attachment

lugs is computed as [29]:

f 1 ¼ 0:707−0:18γ þ 6:55γ 2 −10:54γ 3 þ 6:85γ 4 ð3Þ

where

1
γ¼ ð4Þ
2a
1þ
D
The fretting contact between pin and lug can generate a Fig. 2 Finite element mesh of the cracked lug
crack initiation, followed by crack propagation. Through the
complexity of this phenomenon, a correction factor [28] was
proposed to describe the interaction effect between pin and lug where σres and m(x, a) are the residual stress in the vicinity of
on the stress intensity factor calculation. crack tip and the weight function expression [35], respectively.
  x 3 = 
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2  x 1 =  x 1
mðx; aÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 þ M 1 1− þ M 2 1− þ M 3 1−
2 2
1 w D
G1 ¼ þ ð5Þ 2πða−xÞ a a a
2 πðD þ aÞ D þ 2a
ð7Þ
Moreover, the extended finite element method (XFEM) The coefficients M1 , M2 , and M3 are dependent on the
embedded in ABAQUS is performed for extracting stress in- cracked component geometry. More details concerning these
tensity factor of the attachment lug using a Python script code. parameter values are given elsewhere [36, 37]. In order to take
into account the residual stress effect in FCG rate, the Paris
model coupled with the residual stress intensity is implement-
ed in the present work. It was assumed that for a positive stress
3 Numerical procedure for FCG life estimation ratio, only the maximum stress intensity factor is affected by
the crack tip residual stress distribution, without significant
In fatigue fracture analysis, empirical FCG models exam- changes in the minimum stress intensity factor [38, 42].
ine the fatigue crack propagation based on linear elastic Hence, the maximum and minimum total SIFs are computed,
fracture mechanic (LEFM). However, a crack tip plastic respectively, as follows:
zone can be almost developed when a growing crack oc-
curs in ductile materials. The size of this plastic zone de- K max;t ¼ K max þ K res ð8Þ
pends on many parameters, such as the specimen thick- K min;t ¼ K min ð9Þ
ness, the temperature, the crack size, the applied load,
and the yielding stress. A residual stress distribution in- where Kmax and Kmin are the maximum elastic stress intensity
duced by reversed plastic deformations will result in this factor and minimum elastic stress intensity factor, respective-
zone during unloading. This residual stress distribution ly. Therefore, the residual-corrected stress intensity factor
surrounding the crack tip zone has an important effect for (RC-SIF) can be written as:
predicting fatigue life under cyclic loading. Since stress
ΔK rc ¼ ΔK el þ K res ð10Þ
intensity factor is defined as a driving force parameter for
predicting crack growth [27, 31], it is necessary to quantify The modified Paris model [26] describing the effect of the
the residual stress impact in terms of SIF. Using the weight crack tip residual stress distributions can be described as fol-
function method [34], this residual stress can be converted lows:
to residual stress intensity factor Kres as follows:
da
x¼a
K res ¼ ∫x¼0 σres mðx; aÞdx ð6Þ ¼ C ðΔK rc Þm ð11Þ
dN
4012 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017

Table 1 Cyclic fatigue properties for AL 7075-T6 is shown in Fig. 1, having L = 200 mm, D = 38.1 mm,
C(1)
(MPa) C(2)
(MPa) γ(1)
γ (2)
Q (MPa) b t = 12.7 mm, and two different widths (w = 2.25D and
w = 3D). During its service life, the stress concentration is
175,000 9000 3500 180 140 40 localized near the lug hole, in which a crack may occur.
Therefore, to properly simulate what is really happening, a
crack is positioned near the hole edge with an initial size
The fatigue life of an attachment lugs with single crack is a = 0.635 mm as illustrated in Fig. 1.
evaluated using the residual-corrected stress intensity factor All fatigue tests for the attachment lug have been carried
(RC-SIF) range in which the final number of loading cycles out using MTS servo-hydraulic machine for an initial crack
can be estimated by integrating (Eq. 11). size a = 0,635 mm and constant amplitude loading σ0max
af equals to 41.38 MPa.
1
N¼ ∫ m da ð12Þ In order to compute the stress distribution in the vicinity of
a0 C ðΔK rc Þ
the crack, a structurally refined mesh has been modeled
where a 0 and a f are the initial and final crack length, around the crack region with 0.05-mm element size. The mod-
respectively. el is analyzed with “CPE4R” element type (i.e., standard 4
node isoparametric, plane strain elements with reduced inte-
gration). The FE mesh of the cracked lug is illustrated in
Fig. 2.
4 FE modeling
Moreover, a damage zone, in which plasticity occurs, will
be generated in the vicinity of the crack tip during crack
A 2D FE analysis using ABAQUS commercial software was
growth. This fracture damage zone tends to change continu-
implemented. The attachment lug was considered to estimate
ously according to the applied load type (static or cyclic
the residual fatigue life under cyclic axial loading. Two load
ratios (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5) are used. The geometry of the lug
Specimen dimensions, stress rao, inial
crack size, failure crack size , mesh,… as
Aachment lug + input parameters input parameters
(actual crack length , detailed
geometry, stress rao...)

XFEM material properes

Define crack as XFEM crack
Number of contour for calculaon of SIF
Calculang ∆ Elasc-plasc
using XFEM analysis

Create and submit the job

Calculang
using the weight Read from history output
funcon

Calculang ∆ = +∆ Save Stress intensity factor

No
= +∆ if >
No
Increase the If <
crack length

Yes
Yes

Life predicon Extracng Stress intensity factors

Fig. 3 Proposed procedure for fatigue life estimation Fig. 4 Python code for evaluating SIF using XFEM
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017 4013

Fig. 5 a Stress intensity factor

calculation. b Crack growth path

loading) [23], and it is much smaller than the size of the plastic where K, σ, and εp are respectively the stiffness tensor,
zone, which is defined by Irwin [25] along the crack line as Cauchy stress tensor, and plastic strain tensor, which is de-
follows: fined as follows:
 max 2
1 K el ̇ ∂F
rp ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ p
ε̇ ¼ λ ð16Þ
4 2π σy ∂σ
where K max
el is the elastic stress intensity factor at maximum where λ is a scalar multiplier and F represents the yield func-
applied load and σy is the yielding stress of the material. tion which is described by the following expression:
Actually, there is no longer a clear criterion that can accurately rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
estimate the damage zone size. Thus, the effect of damage 3
F¼ ðS−X Þ : ðS−X Þ−Y ð17Þ
zone is not implemented during finite element simulation. 2
In the present study, the nonlinear isotropic/kinematic
where S is the deviatoric part of the stress tensor, X is the
hardening model, developed upon ABAQUS code, is
deviatoric part of the back stress tensor, and Y represents the
used. This plasticity model is capable to characterize the
radius of the yield surface, which are expressed by the follow-
material behavior during cyclic loading considering the
ing equations:
Baushinger effect, mean stress relaxation, ratcheting, and
cyclic hardening. Their basic equations are described as 2 ̇p
Ẋ ¼ Cε −γX ṗ ð18Þ
follows [33]: 3

Y ¼ σy þ Q 1−e−bp ð19Þ
̇ ̇e ̇p
ε ¼ε þε ð14Þ
having C, γ, Q, and b as material parameters evaluated
experimentally. The accumulated plastic strain p is defined
σ ¼ K : εe ð15Þ by the following equation:
4014 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
̇ 2 ̇p ̇p
p¼ ε :ε ð20Þ
3

In the FE simulation, a growing crack is considered. When

the applied load reaches its maximum value, a constant crack
growth increment length is released during a loading cycle.
The residual stress distributions near crack tip are evaluated at
each crack growth increment at the end of the unloading step,
from which the residual stress intensity factor can be evaluated
using the weight function (Eq. 6).
The mechanical material parameters for 7075-T6 alumi-
num alloy are as follows [30, 39]: elastic modular 70 GPa,
Poisson’s ratio 0.3, yield strength 420 MPa, ultimate strength
510 MPa, and plastic elongation 12%.
Table 1 summarizes the cyclic fatigue parameters for 7075-
T6 aluminum alloy [39]. The flowchart adopted for predicting
the fatigue life of the cracked lug is presented in Fig. 3.

5 Results and discussion

5.1 Comparison between analytical solution and XFEM

for evaluating SIFs

The stress intensity factor SIF is defined as a driving force pa-

rameter for crack growth prediction. In order to properly model
FCG rate, the stress intensity factors and the crack growth path of Fig. 6 Von Misses stress distribution of attachment lug for R = 0.1 and
the attachment lug are determined using the XFEM embedded in W/D = 3
ABAQUS. In this context, a numerical fatigue crack growth code
was developed within the framework of Python script to extract
configurations are analyzed (W/D = 3 and W/D = 2.25) with
the SIFs and to simulate FCG path. The flowchart of the Python
two different stress ratio (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5).
code is presented in Fig. 4. In the first step, model geometry,
Figure 6 presents the evolution of Von Misses stress distri-
material parameters, mesh generation, boundary, and loading
bution of attachment lug around the crack tip during fatigue
conditions are implemented in ABAQUS. Then, the Python code
crack growth simulation at the load ratio R = 0.1 and maxi-
was called to generate crack in which stress intensity factor was
mum applied load equals to 41.38 MPa. It can be seen that the
extracted at each crack length. In the XFEM, ten contour inte-
maximum stress value is localized in the region surrounding
grals are implemented in which the first five are used for evalu-
the crack tip in which the residual stress distributions have
ating the average stress intensity factor. Comparing with the finite
been evaluated along the crack line after the unloading step.
element method (FEM), a remeshing technique at each step is not
Figure 7a plots the residual stress distribution along the
requested for modeling fatigue crack growth in XFEM.
crack line of the attachment lug for different crack sizes
Figure 5a shows a comparison between stress intensity fac-
(a = 10 mm, a = 15 mm, and a = 20 mm). The compressive
tors evaluated by analytical solution and by the XFEM
part of these residual stresses appears at some extension of the
(σ0max = 41.38 MPa and R = 0.1). A good agreement is
crack tip vicinity. These compressive residual stresses increase
found between analytical and numerical method. Figure 5b
in their absolute values with a growing crack size. In terms of
shows the crack growth trajectory of the cracked attachment
distribution form, these residual stresses are similar to those
lug using XFEM.
referred in the literature [40, 41].

5.2 Stress distribution near the crack tip

In this section, the stress distributions near the crack tip of
attachment lugs with a single through-thickness crack are
evaluated. All FE analysis is carried within the framework of
elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM). Two lug
5.3 Effect of residual stress distribution on the SIF

Figure 7b presents the experimental FCG data (tested da dN vs
ΔK) and the analyzed da dN vs ΔKrc for stress ratio equals to
0.1 and 0.5, respectively. It is observed that there is no
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017
Fig. 7 a Residual stress
distribution along the crack line. b
FCG data for 7075-T6 Al alloy
attachment lugs [32] as a function
of ΔK (hollow symbols) and ΔKrc
(solid symbols)
significant difference betweenΔK and ΔKrc for small crack
lengths (in this study, an initial crack length equals to
0.635 mm is considered). However, when crack grows, the
plastic zone ahead the crack tip increases, and as a conse-
quence, the compressive residual stress increases as shown
in Fig. 7a.
In order to highlight the influence of residual stress
distribution around the crack tip on the stress intensity
factor (SIF) range, a numerical analysis of a standard
Single Edge Notch Tension (SENT) specimen [10] and
of cracked lug is carried out. Figure 8 shows the evo-
lution of ΔK rc=ΔK versus crack length for a standard
SENT specimen and for the attachment lug. Two differ-
ent stress ratios are considered (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5). It
Fig. 8 ΔK rc=ΔK versus crack
length: a standard SEN specimen
and b attachment lug
4015
observed that the ratio ΔK rc=ΔK decreases as the crack
length increases. The difference between ΔKrcandΔK
can reach 25 and 20%, respectively, for the standard
SENT specimen and for the attachment lug as illustrated
in Fig. 8. This result can be explained by the fact that
the plastic zone surrounding the crack tip depends on
the crack size. This plastic zone increases with a grow-
ing crack size in which a compressive residual stress
occurs and reduces the effect of the tensile stress during
crack propagation.
For short cracks, the effect of residual stress can be
neglected as is often admitted for the mechanical parts de-
signed to be in service until the fatigue crack initiation such
as automotive components. However, for long crack sizes, the
4016
Fig. 9 Crack length versus number of loading cycle: a for R = 0.5 and W/D = 3, b for R = 0.5 and W/D = 2.25, c for R = 0.1 and W/D = 3, and d for
R = 0.1 and W/D = 2.25
consideration of this residual stress distribution becomes very
significant and its effect may exceed 25% (Fig. 8). This situ-
ation is frequently encountered in mechanical parts designed
for the aircraft industry. In spite of the high significant effect of
the crack tip residual stress, this additional stress is generally
not taken into account in classical engineering assessment
especially for long cracks.
5.4 Model validation with experimental results
To validate the proposed model, fatigue life estimation
of cracked lug is carried out. The following material
parameters are assumed for predicting the remaining fa-
tigue life of attachment lug made of 7075-T6 Aluminum
alloy: For R = 0.1, C = 2.1E-08 and m = 3.86, and for
R = 0.5, C = 11.3E-08 and m = 3.7. During crack
propagation, both elastic and residual stress intensity
factor are computed by applying the XFEM and the
weight function method, respectively. Then, the remain-
ing life is predicted using Eq. 12.
The present model investigates fatigue life by intro-
ducing a corrected stress intensity factor that takes into
account the effect of residual stress distribution near the
crack tip during FCG. Figure 9a–d shows a comparison
between the proposed model considering the effect of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017
compressive residual stress distribution ahead the crack
tip, Paris’ model, and the relevant experimental data for
various loading conditions (R = 0.1 and R = 0.5) and
different lug configurations (W/D = 2.25 and W/D = 3).
It appears that the proposed model provides a reason-
able accuracy to the experimental results for predicting
residual fatigue life. It takes into account the influence
of residual stresses around the crack tip for describing
fatigue strength under cyclic loading. Having regard to
all of the foregoing, it can be deduced that the residual-
corrected stress intensity factor is an important parame-
ter for describing FCG rate by taking into account the
change in the SIF due to the residual stress effect.
6 Conclusions
In this work, an improved mechanical driving force pa-
rameter has been used to evaluate fatigue crack growth.
Both elastic SIF and residual SIF were computed using
the XFEM and the weight function expression, respec-
tively. The residual fatigue life of an attachment lug
with single through-thickness is estimated for two dif-
ferent load ratios within the framework of EPFM.
Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn:
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2017) 91:4009–4017
& Comparing with the analytical solution, the XFEM shows
fair correlation for evaluating stress intensity factor.
& The weight function method is found as a practical tech-
nique and a powerful mechanical parameter capable of
converting residual stress distribution to residual stress
intensity factor.
& The proposed model allows having a better accuracy for
predicting fatigue life when compared with experimental
data. Since lug type joint is a very sensitive component in
the aeronautical industry, this method allows engineers to
be engaged in practical problems for predicting the re-
maining fatigue life of these structures in a reliable way.
& In engineering applications, the methodology proposed in
this paper can effectively be used to evaluate the fatigue
life of other cracked structures.
References
1. Paris P, Erdogan F (1963) A critical analysis of crack propagation
laws. J Basic Eng 85(4):528–533
2. Bahloul A, Bouraoui Ch (2015). Effects and sensitivity analysis of
cracking parameters on the fatigue crack propagation. Design and
Modeling of Mechanical Systems-II., pp 321–330
3. Elber W (1971) The significance of fatigue crack closure. ASTM
STP 486:230–242
4. Erdogan F, Roberts R (1966) A comparative study of crack propa-
gation in plates under extension and bending. Proc Int Conf on
Fracture. Sendai, Japan, In
5. Walker EK (1970). The effect of stress ratio during crack propagation
and fatigue for 2024-T3 and 7076-T6 aluminium. In: Effect of envi-
ronment and complex load history on fatigue life. ASTM STR 462,
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials. p. 1–4
6. Boljanovic S, Maksimovic S (2014) Mixed mode crack growth
simulation with/without overloads. Int J Fatigue 67:183–190
7. Forman RG (1972) Study of fatigue crack initiation from flaws
using fracture mechanics theory. Eng Fract Mech 4:333–345
8. Toyosada M, Gotoh K, Niwa T (2004) Fatigue crack propagation
for a through thickness crack: a crack propagation law considering
cyclic plasticity near crack tip. Int J Fatigue 26:983–992
9. AFGROW (2008), Fracture mechanics and fatigue crack growth
analysis software tool. Ver 4.12.15.0, LexTech Inc
10. Ayatollahi MR, Razavi SMJ, Chamani HR (2014) A numerical
study on the effect of symmetric crack flank holes on fatigue life
extension of a SENT specimen. Fatigue & Fracture Engineering
Materials & Structures 37:1153–1164
11. MR Ayatollahi, SMJ Razavi, MY Yahya (2015). Mixed mode fa-
tigue crack initiation and growth in a CT specimen repaired by stop
hole technique. 0145:115–127.
12. Li Z, Duan J (2002) The effect of a plastically deformed zone near
crack tip on the stress intensity factors. Int J Fract 117:29–34
13. Zhou R, Zhu P, Li Z (2011) The shielding effect of the plastic zone
at mode-II crack tip. Int J Fract 171:195–200
14. Zhu P, Yang L, Li Z, Sun J (2010) The shielding effects of the crack-
tip plastic zone. Int J Fract 161:131–139
15. Zhu P, Yang L, Li Z, Sun J (2011). Erratum to: the shielding effects of
the crack-tip plastic zone. International Journal of Fracture. 170–177
16. Kim JH, Lee SB, Hong SG (2003) Fatigue crack growth behavior
of Al7050-T7451 attachment lugs under flight spectrum variation.
Theor Appl Fract Mech 40:135–144
4017
17. Mikheevskiy S, Glinka G, Algera D (2012) Analysis of fatigue
crack growth in an attachment lug based on the weight function
technique and the UniGrow fatigue crack growth model. Int J
Fatigue 42:88–94
18. Boljanovic S, Maksimovic S (2014) Fatigue crack growth modeling
of attachment lugs. Int J Fatigue 58:66–74
19. Naderi M, Iyyer N (2015) Fatigue life prediction of cracked attach-
ment lugs using XFEM. Int J Fatigue 77:186–193
20. Newman Jr JC, Raju IS (1986). Stress intensity factor equations for
cracks in three-dimensional finite bodies subjected to tension and
bending loading. In: NASA technical memorandum 85793
21. Belytschko T, Black T (1999) Elastic crack growth in finite ele-
ments with minimal remeshing. Int J Numer Methods Eng 45(5):
601–620
22. Sukumar N, Moës N, Moran B, Belytschko T (2000) Extended
finite element method for three-dimensional crack modelling. Int J
Numer Methods Eng 48:1549–1570
23. Shlyannikov VN (1996) Modelling of crack growth by fracture
damage zone. Theor Appl Fract Mech 25:187–201
24. Newman JC (1973) Fracture analysis of surface-and through-
cracked sheets and plates. Eng Fract Mech 5:667–689
25. Irwin GR (1960). Plastic zone near a crack and fracture toughness.
In: Proceedings of 7th Sagamore Conference. Vol. IV, p. 63
26. Paris PC (1962). The growth of fatigue cracks due to variations in
load, PhD thesis, Lehigh University
27. Dai P, Yang J, Li H, Li Z (2014) The plasticity-corrected stress
intensity factor for plane stress mode I and mode II cracks. Eng
Fract Mech 128:231–235
28. Newman JC (1976).Predicting failure of specimens with either
Surface cracks or corner at holes.NASA-TN-D-8244
29. Bowie OL (1956) Analysis of an infinite plate containing radial
cracks originating at the boundary of an internal circular hole. J
Math Phys 35(1):60–71
30. Newman Jr JC, Wu XR, Venneri SL, Li GG (1994). Small-crack
effects in high-strength aluminium alloys .NASA-RP-1309.
31. Dai P, Li Z (2013) A plasticity-corrected stress intensity factor for
fatigue crack growth in ductile materials. Acta Mater 61:5988–5995
32. Kathiresan K, Hsu TM (1984). Advanced life analysis methods-
crack growth, analysis methods for attachment lugs.AFWAL-TR-
84-3080, vol. II
33. Lemaitre J, Desmorat R (2005). Engineering Damage Mechanics:
ductile, creep, fatigue and brittle failures. Berlin, ISBN 3–540–
21503-4
34. Bueckner HF (1970) A novel principle for the computation of stress
intensity factors. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Mathematik
Mechanik 50:529–546
35. Glinka G, Shen G (1991) Universal features of weight functions for
cracks in mode I. Eng Fract Mech 40(6):1135–1146
36. Shen G, Glinka G (1991) Determination of weight functions from
reference stress intensity factors. Theor Appl Fract Mech 15:237–245
37. Wang X, Lambert SB, Glinka G (1998) Approximate weight func-
tions for embedded elliptical cracks. Eng Fract Mech 59:381–392
38. Noroozi AH, Glinka G, Lambert S (2007) A study of the stress ratio
effects on fatigue crack growth using the unified two-parameter
fatigue crack growth driving force. Int J Fatigue 29:1616–1633
39. Naderi M, Hoseini SH, Khonsari MM (2013) Probabilistic simula-
tion of fatigue damage and life scatter of metallic components. Int J
Plast 43:101–115
40. Correia JAFO, Jesus AMP, Fernandez-Canteli A, Calçada RAB
(2015) Modelling probabilistic fatigue crack propagation rates for
a mild structural steel. Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale 31:80–96
41. Zhang J, He XD, Sha Y, Du SY (2010) The compressive stress
effect on fatigue crack growth under tension–compression loading.
Int J Fatigue 32:361–367
42. Noroozi AH, Glinka G, Lambert S (2005) A two parameter driving
force for fatigue crack growth analysis. Int J Fatigue 27:1277–1296