NASA

Technical

Paper

3554

.:' - "12 C

" L_-'

Analysis of Stress Concentration at Holes in Components Made of 2195 Aluminum-Lithium

R. Ahmed

F- 73
_',ntS)_)ttUSTRATION_
-)

(NASA-TP-3554) ANALYSIS CONCENTRATION AT HOLES COMPONENTS MADE OF Zlq5 ALUMINUM-LITHIUM (NASA. Space Flight Center)

OF IN

STRESS

N95-30613

Marshall 33 p Hl139

Unclas

0056566

May

1995

NASA

Technical

Paper 3554

Analysis of Stress Concentration at Holes in Components Made of 2195 Aluminum-Lithium

R. Ahmed Marshall Space Flight Center MSFC, Alabama

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Marshall Space Flight Center MSFC, Alabama 35812

May

1995

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND ANALYSIS RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................ METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 1 1 2 2 3 3 26

....................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ ..............................................................................................................................

111

LIST

OF

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Geometry MSFC 2195 2195 used ANSYS A1-Li A1-Li and and hole in plate model 2219 2219 strata with used hole in plate

Title analysis ............................................................... analysis ...........................................

Page 6 7 8 9

with hole curves

A1 stress-strain A1 stress-strain

...........................................................

curves ...........................................................

Maximum

Fty = 73 ksi, ultimate

o

versus far-field stress, 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.04 ........................................................................... versus strain versus strain versus strain versus strain versus strain far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi,

10

Maximum

hole

stress

Fty = 73 ksi,
.

ultimate strata

= 0.04 ........................................................................... far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 82 ksi,

11

Maximum

hole

Fty = 77 ksi,
o

ultimate stress

= 0.04 ........................................................................... far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 82 ksi,

12

Maximum

hole

Fty = 77 ksi, ultimate

.

= 0.04 ........................................................................... far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi,

13

Maximum

hole

strata

Fty = 73 ksi, ultimate 10. Maximum hole stress

= 0.06 ........................................................................... far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 78 ksi,

14

Fty = 73 ksi, 11. Maximum

ultimate strata

= 0.06 ...........................................................................

15

hole

Fty = 75 ksi, 12. Maximum

ultimate stress

versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.06 ........................................................................... versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.06 ........................................................................... versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.06 ........................................................................... versus far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.06 ........................................................................... versus strain versus strain far-field stress 2195 A1-Li Ftu = 80 ksi, = 0.06 ........................................................................... far-field stress 2195 AI-Li Ftu = 80 ksi,

16

hole

Fty = 75 ksi, 13. Maximum

ultimate strata

17

hole

Fty = 77 ksi, ultimate 14. Maximum hole stress

18

Fty = 77 ksi, ultimate 15. Maximum hole strata

19

Fty = 79 ksi, ultimate 16. Maximum hole stress

2O

Fty = 79 ksi, ultimate

= 0.06 ...........................................................................

21

LIST

OF ILLUSTRATIONS

(Continued)

Figure 17. Maximum hole strain versus strain far-field

Title stress, 2195 A1-Li, Ftu = 78 ksi,

Page

Fty = 77 ksi, ultimate 18. Maximum hole stress Fty = 77 ksi, ultimate

= 0.08 ...........................................................................

22

versus far-field stress, 2195 A1-Li, Ftu = 78 ksi, strain = 0.08 ........................................................................... Ftu = 78 ksi, stress = 60 ksi ..........................

23

19.

Plot of yon Mises stress for 2195 plate with hole, Fty = 73 ksi, ultimate strain = 4 percent, far-field Plot of axial strain for 2195 ultimate strain = 4 percent,

24

20.

plate with hole, Ftu = 78 ksi, Fty = 73 ksi, far-field stress = 60 ksi ................................................

25

vi

LIST

OF

TABLES

Table 1. Hole 2195 Hole 2195

Title stresses and strains versus far-field stress for various A1-Li materials .................................................................................................... stresses and strains versus far-field stress for various A1-Li materials ....................................................................................................

Page

vii

TECHNICAL PAPER
ANALYSIS OF STRESS CONCENTRATION AT HOLES MADE OF 2195 ALUMINUM-LITHIUM IN COMPONENTS

INTRODUCTION

To enable the space shuttle to reach the space station high-inclination orbits with adequate payload, an effort was made in the early 1990's to reduce the weight of the space shuttle external tank (ET) and/or the solid rocket boosters (SRB's). This culminated in the design of the super lightweight ET (SLWT ET), whose goal was to reduce ET weight by at least 8,000 lb. To accomplish this, NASA and Martin Marietta (the prime contractor for the ET) proposed replacing most of the 2219 aluminum used in the current ET with the lighter, stiffer, and stronger 2195 aluminum-lithium (AI-Li) alloy. Design changes were also proposed to take advantage of the increased strength and modulus of the new alloy over 2219. Since the 2195 alloy initially used in the SLWT ET program had a small (less than 5 ksi) difference between the yield and ultimate strengths when compared to 2219 (about 13 ksi difference), ET engineers became concerned over how this material would behave in regions of stress concentration. This paper deals with the effect of stress concentration at holes on the material behavior of 2195 and the concerns this raised over vehicle robustness.

BACKGROUND

In the design of a space vehicle such as the ET, particular attention must be paid to areas of stress concentration. These include holes, weld lands, inserts, fillets, welds, and other areas that tend to create load and stiffness gradients. Such locations have local areas of much higher stress than would be found or expected in larger, more uniform sections. For instance, in a linear elastic analysis the maximum stresses around a hole under uniform tension are three times the nominal far-field stress, and local plastic yielding will occur wherever the hole stress is greater than or equal to the yield stress. Loads of this magnitude tend to be redistributed to regions farther away from the hole as a result of the plastic behavior of the material, thus relieving the stress and preventing failure as long as the stress and strain of the highest loaded position in the body remains below the ultimate value. In order to accomplish this stress redistribution effectively, the material must have a sufficient area under the plastic region of the stress-strain curve; this area is governed both by the material's ultimate strain capability and the difference between the ultimate and yield strengths (henceforth referred to as the yield-ultimate delta). During preliminary design of the SLWT ET, the 2195 A1-Li alloy showed a lower yield-ultimate delta than the 2219 alloy used previously. As a result, ET designers and analysts became concerned that 2195 might not redistribute the load around stress concentrations adequately enough to prevent failure at far-field stresses below yield. To examine this behavior more closely, elastic-plastic structural analyses of typical stress concentration configurations were made. These included areas around holes and a typical weld land geometry found in the liquid oxygen (lox) tank. The effort concentrated primarily on analysis of holes, since these have the highest stress concentration factors. Corresponding analysis was performed for holes using the 2219 alloy for comparison. 2219 had a yield-ultimate delta of 13 ksi with a maximum strain of 10 percent, whereas the corresponding worst-case values for 2195 were 5 ksi and 4 percent, respectively. Since the weld land analyses showed only a very slight plastic strain, this paper concerns itself only with the hole analyses.

ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY

The analysis was performed via a quarter-symmetric, nonlinear plastic finite element model of a 3.75-in wide, 0.3-in thick, 12-in long test specimen with a 0.375-in diameter hole in the center (fig. 1). The finite element model is shown in figure 2. The model was generated using the PATRAN preprocessing code, with the analysis being performed by the ANSYS finite element solver. The model was run with several different stress-strain curves for comparison (figs. 3 and 4). The material properties and stress-strain data used for these analyses were taken from preliminary data supplied by both NASA and Martin Marietta. By taking advantage of symmetry planes, only one-fourth of the specimen needed to be modeled. This minimized the model size. The model consisted of 1,896 four-noded quad ANSYS SHELL43 elements and 2,009 nodes with a concentrated mesh around the hole to provide greater accuracy near the area of stress concentration. Appropriate symmetry boundary conditions were applied, and fixed displacements corresponding to the applied forces were applied on the loaded edge in order to ease convergence. The model was sufficiently long to avoid a significant reduction of the boundary forces resulting from yielding of the material. (Using applied forces at the boundary created substantial convergence problems and significantly increased run time). In all cases run, the maximum longitudinal stress and strain occurred at the hole locations whose tangents are parallel to the specimen longitudinal direction. Investigations were made of the effects of changing various parameters, such as yield strength, ultimate strength, and ultimate strain. Of primary interest was determining the highest axial stress and strain at the hole perimeter. The axial stress and axial strain were then plotted as a function of far-field axial stress for each combination of yield strength, ultimate strength, and ultimate strain. From these data, the far-field stress required to induce failure at the hole could be determined for each material combination. Stresses, strains, and displacements ANSYS' built-in postprocessing capability. clearly showed stress, strain and displacement were graphically displayed via color contour plots using This produced attractive, fine resolution color plots that values, gradients, and trends.

RESULTS

The

tabulations

of maximum

axial

hole

stresses

and strains

versus

far-field

tensile

stress

are 18. 19

shown in tables 1 and 2. The corresponding graphs of these quantities are shown in figures 5 through Sample plots showing a typical stress distribution from one of the analysis runs are shown in figures and 20.

DISCUSSION

The following

phenomena

were observed

from the analysis

data: change as the

yield

(1) The far-field strength approaches

stress required to induce failure at the hole does not appreciably the ultimate strength while holding the ultimate strain constant.

(2) Increasing the failure strain capability to induce failure at the hole. However, the material does not appreciably change. (3) capability Decreasing the ultimate of the structure. strain capability

of the material increases the far-field stress required response curve (stress versus strain) at the hole edge

significantly

decreases

the far-field

load-carrying

An important point of consideration in these analyses and in the corresponding tests is comparing the failure stress at the hole with the net section-failure stress (caused by the absence of material at the hole). If the two values are very close to each other, not much can be said about whether or not stress concentrations have a serious impact on structural performance. To mitigate this effect, the model size must be tailored such that the ratio of hole diameter to specimen width is sufficiently low. The far-field stress lowest of all the materials material that would be used strength). This was a serious and was actually lower than aluminum alloy. capability of the 4-percent ultimate strain A1-Li material was by far the examined---only 60 ksi was required to cause failure at the hole for the in the SLWT ET liquid hydrogen tank (with 73-ksi yield and 78-ksi ultimate reduction in strength capability over the nominal 78-ksi ultimate strength the 64 ksi required to cause failure in an identical geometry made from 2219

On the other hand, the far-field stress capability of the 8-percent ultimate strain A1-Li indicated a significant increase in overall stress capability. A 70-ksi far-field stress was required to cause failure at the hole..This was exactly equivalent to the stress required for net section failure, indicating that hole stress concentrations had no significant effect on tension failure for this material and geometry.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyses showed that hole stress concentrations were a serious issue of concern for the 2195 A1-Li material with less than 4-percent ultimate strain capability, exhibiting a significant reduction in load carrying capability due to reaching ultimate stress and strain at the highest stressed position on the hole. However, yield-ultimate deltas ranging from 1 to 5 ksi did not result in a significant variance in the far-field stress capability of specimens of a given ultimate strength and ultimate strain. Thus, the most important factor influencing the far-field strength of the material was the ultimate strain. The analyses showed that, for the specimen geometry tested, 2195 material with a 4-percent ultimate strain must be loaded at a far-field tensile stress below 60 ksi to prevent failure at the hole edge. Regions of the SLWT ET or any vehicle using current versions of 2195 AL-Li that contain holes and/or inserts must be designed to keep the stresses below these reduced values to ensure the structural integrity of the vehicle.

L_

_ _

i _

_b

_J

II
tw_ c_

E_
I_ i_ i_ _ _ _l_ _

H i_

__

L_

_l_

_r_

t_

II

C_

_ t_

r_

H
c_

oo L_

_C_

_"

I_

If

_m4

o
_ ,-I

Ir_

_r_

,._

_1

L _

po

_j II
_ _1__ I_l _ _'_ _ _ I_ I_

m_

II

_s

Et_ I_ _ _l _ ,_

Ir_

Ir_

_O

I_

sig_/

TTT
3.750

0.375

12.000

X Figure 1. Geometry used in plate with hole analysis.

w_

p..i_

cs_

B..l

_r 0

r_

STRESS

[ksi]

0 0 0

0'1

UI

01

tJ1

U1

0"1

01

01

UI

_,,h.

q_

tal

o
tJ 0 _

, ,_

---

o
0 ._ .._ .._ ..a ;_0 [ ....

-n
_a ii Co 0

_
II Co ro

-n m .-,.
II II -,,I -,i CO CO

CO

-I

[[[[
(D (I) eCD C C

,,

o OO

o_o_o_
"1"I "11 "11 "11 "I'I "11 II -_ II O_ "11 II '-" "11 II GO

__. __. __. _.

0 0

STRESS

[ksi]

.-k

0 0 0 0

01

_rl

\
0 0

t,O

L_

I,-*0

0 0 t,J t_

I
II _ II 4, I f,O r,O (.0 _ (.,'I (..rl (..,-I 01

Z
r_ 0 (33 ('3 --_ .(p "-I
m

_ m -n_ m ,- E" E ,-"

fl} II (3O _-II G0 _-II _1 _ II "-,I _"

__. _.. (n. (n.

E 0 ,0) r" _ E: O_ E 0")

'iTIT "iTiT" o _
"rl

_
"11

_
-n "rl

=7g=7
"1"1 II II

"T1 II

"1"1 "rl II

-.

(n. __. __.

O O

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

o
0 PO O 0

o
0 (/1

o
0 0

p
0 (.11

o
C) C}

o
0 0"1

p
0 0

o
0 f_

o
0 0

r_

\
m p.i
c_ o

\ \
\

E_
.<

\
X.

_='_.
_ _, o

\ \

il g
o

,e
t"
,.M o

E ..r 0
r-" m GO .-t

-_ /0
Z

I!

MAX

HOLE

STRESS

(ksi)

1_3

PO

GO

GO

01

01

03

O_

",4

_1

GO

b
PO 0

cn

b_

b_

b_

b_

\
i-i GO 0

\
\
\
\ \

OX GO 01

H _
M I,,,- 0

"_gB
,_ N' -<
O1

\
0'1 0

\
\ \ \
x,.,

0'1 0'I

ii g

O_ 0

O_ 01

-'tO
rm 0_

rn

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

o
o o o

o
o _

o
o o

o
o _

o
o o

.o
o _

.o
o o

o
Q _

o
c:) C)

o
o fJ'l

o
o 0

01

c_ o

\ \
\

0.) (.n

l,,,i

\
cl f_

\
(.n

\
\

E_

f_ o

\
\

cI) on

-\

\
o) o-i

E
o

-r

0
r" m

MAX

HOLE

STRESS

(ksi)

",4

"4

"4

",4

"-4

_1

-'4

O0

O0

CO

CO

gO

o
ro o

b_

b_

b_

b_

b_

ro _n

S,
Ill

_..,

\
o

\
k

o0

\
.Ix o
i

\
\
"X

,.< _'

..< .<

.._ o-i

\
,< Ol o

\
b..,

.o_
o) on

-\
\

x
"I"

0
rm og :o m og

__.

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 01

0 0 -.L 0

0 b _ 01

0 0 I'0 0

0 0 DO 0"1

o b
o

o o
in

o o
o

o b
o-i

o b
o

o o
oi

o b
o

o b
in

o o
o

=r

II _ .

._

II

,e
h,,_

-r 0
r m

_D

MAX

HOLE

STRESS

(ksi)

PO 0

DO 01

\ \ \
\ \

0_
CD

GO 0

C_ 01

,_

0..=. J_ 0

J_ Cn Ul _..,o 01 0

\
i

===

\
C_ u 01 01

O3 0

C_t,J

\
O3

>

"7" t"
p., _J 0

X T C)
rm

rn _o cn

_.

/5.

Y
MAX HOLE STRAIN

b
0 0 P0 o

o
0 0"I

o
-_0

b
.-L 0"I

b
PO 0

o o
Oq

o o
0

o o
01

.o o
0

o b
0"I

.o o
0

o o
01

o o
0

o b
O_

o o
0

o'I

\
o

\
0_ on

o0B
o

II
(.n w oi o

oi oi

o_ o O_hJ _D o-i

L-_==i.

E
"1"

0
lm 00

7
MAX HOLE STRESS (ksi)

b
_o o

"m

01

"_

01

"o

I'o 01

GO o

\
\

Go 01
t,_

\
\

H
01"1
A

w 01 o

ol 01

\
\
%..

_b o C_l'o

>
_,,d

o_ ol

"10
r" m Go m Go Go

/7

__.

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

o
o I',0 o _ ol o o o o o ol o o o 0 O't

.o
0 0

o
0 01

o
0 0

o
0 01

.o
0 0

o
0 (.."t

.o
0 0

o
0 tn

o
0 0

\
o

\
\
o

\
\

II

-4_ "< _.... '._

= g
o"t o

\
\ \
\
t..

o'1 on

or) o

>
_

0') o"t

-10
Ira o0 -.I

MAX

HOLE

STRESS

(ksi)

ro o

DO O'1

0_

GO O

GO O1

J_ O

_
_A

-<

4:=

O1 O

\
\

O1 O1

O_ O

\
%

O_t,3 O3 (31

>
_J O

x -r 0 rm
-'4 m o3

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

o
0 ro o

o
0

o
0

o
0

p
0

o
0

p
0 (,,3 0

p
0 CO f._

o
0 ._, 0

.o
0 -I_ _

o
0 0"1 0

o
0 O1 0"1

o
0 0') 0

o
0 0') 01

.o
0 "_1 0

PO 0"1

(r0
(,0 0

\
(.31

_,._.

0"1

-\
\
\ \
w.

"X
N. O) 0

_o

I !

! i

>.
0') i.,_o

",.I 0

-r 0 I.m -I _.>

MAX

HOLE

STRESS

(ksi)

DO O

o1

O_

O_ ol

E_

Ol o

o'1 ol

t,,,,,I

, g
b"

o1

>
_

X T

0 rm

m ?J)

_(

MAX

HOLE

STRAIN

o
0 0

o
0 0"I

o
0 0

o
0 01

o
0 0

o
0 0"]

o
0 0

o
0 O_

o
0 0

o
_ 05

p
0 0

o
0 O_

o
0 0

o
0 O_

o
0 0

o
ro oi

I I

0"O c0 o

\
: i L

\
ol ,,.J .

,-=.
o

\ \

\
\

II

.<
j_ oi

_'<

B _

\
\
\

(.n (.n

OO

t',J

o'_ o

;>
I,,_o

o_ oq

E -r" O
I'Ill GO
_ _ _ _" r_ _ fJ _ _

(/)

w 0: 1111
J

0 "IX

0 r_

<
_7

._J4

E
0 m v

m 0

u'3

0 c_

(!S)l)

SS31d.I.S

370H

XVIN

23

II LL,

L_ O

II

,.,_

_'m"

0,,-q

O O

0_,.q

LT..,

2,4

ORiGiNAL PAGE COLOR PHOTOGRAPH

II LI.

.{=

_a

_.)

cq

LL

IIIli_INAL PAGE filler PHOTOGRAp_

25

REFERENCES 1. ANSYS, December Inc. (formerly 1992. S.P., Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc.): "ANSYS User's Manual (Revision 5.0)."

2. 3.

Timoshenko, Malvern, L.E.:

and Goodier,

J.N.: "Theory

of Elasticity." of a Continuous

McGraw-Hill, Medium."

1970. Prentice-Hall, 1969.

"Introduction

to the Mechanics

26

Form

Approved

REPORT
Public reporting burden for this collection gathering collection Davis and maintaining of information, Suite 1204, the data including Arlington,

DOCUMENTATION
of information is estimated to average to of 1 hour and reviewing this burden, tO the Office the collection Washington

PAGE
per restx>nse, including Send Services, Paperwork the time for reviewing of information. Headquarters and Budget, comments Directorate Reduction

OM8No.Ozo_-oIss
instructions, searching existing data sources, re_arding this burden estimate ?or information OI0erations Project (0704-0188), Washington, or any other and RepOrts, DC 20503. aspect of this 1215 Jefferson

needed, and completing suggestions for reducing VA 22202-4302, and

Highway,

Management

1. AGENCY

USE ONLY

(Leave

blank)

2. REPORT

DATE

3. REPORT

TYPE

AND

DATES

COVERED

May
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

1995

Technical

Paper
5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Analysis
2195

of Stress Concentration

at Holes in Components

Made of

Aluminum-Lithium

6. AUTHOR(S)

R. Ahmed

7. PERFORMING

ORGANiZATiON

NAME(S)

AND

ADDRESS(ES)

8.

George C. Marshall
Marshall Space

Space Flight Center

Center, Alabama 35812

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Flight

M-781

g. SPONSORING

/ MONITORING

AGENCY

NAME(S)

AND

ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Washington, DC 20546-0001

Administration
NASA TP-3554

11. SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTES

Prepared

by Structures

and Dynamics

Laboratory,

Science

and Engineering

Directorate.

12a.DiSTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified-Unlimited Subject Category 39

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

13. ABSTRACT

(Maximum

200 words)

Because lower stress

the 2195 aluminum-lithium

of the super

lightweight

external

tank (SLWT

ET) has a

toughness than the 2219 aluminum used in previous ET's, careful attention must be paid to concentration in the SLWT ET. This report details the initial analysis performed by NASA to the material properties required to ensure structural integrity in these critical areas.

determine

14. SUBJECT ERMS T external tank, liquid hydrogen plasticity, nonlinear analysis,
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT 18.

15.

NUMBER

OF PAGES

tank, stress concentration, aluminum-lithium

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

32
16. PRICE CODE

A03
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Unclassified

Unclassified
Standard
Prescrib_l 298-102 by

Unlimited
Form
ANSI

298
Std.

(Rev
Z39-18

2-89)