2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0013-7944(02)00133-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Residual strength analyses of stiffened and un-stiffened panels––Part I: laboratory specimens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A, Measured and predicted crack extension in flat stiffened panel with a single lead crack . B, Measured and predicted crack extension in flat stiffened panel with a lead crack and MSD cracks…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A, Measured and predicted crack extension in flat stiffened panel with a single lead crack . B, Measured and predicted crack extension in flat stiffened panel with a lead crack and MSD cracks…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measured and calculated crack extension at surface and midplane in C(T) specimen 11,57 FIGURE 13 NASA/FAA wide stiffened panel crack configuration 12,58 and plane-strain core height (h c ) were determined from laboratory specimens restrained from buckling. 12 Again, these panels were allowed to buckle.…”
Section: Figure 12mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A detailed discussion of these is provided in [38] and shall not be repeated here. Note, however, that an important conclusion of various investigations is that the analysis should not be performed for plane stress or plane strain conditions (see Figure 10) but as three dimensional analyses [47][48][49] or as plane stress with plane strain core analyses [11,50].…”
Section: (C) Finite Element Fitting Of Experimental Load-displacementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Considering the effect of crack‐front tunnelling, this difference between experimental and simulated crack extension is not unexpected, as the experimental measurements are taken on the surface of the specimen while the simulation (ZIP3D) is based on mid‐plane (centre node) behaviour. As shown in Figure 10A, the overprediction of the surface crack extension at the maximum load is slightly less than one specimen thickness (∼5.5 mm), which is slightly larger than the data presented by the other researchers [6, 22] for the 2024‐T351 aluminium alloy. This may be attributed to differences between tunnelling in flat fracture, which was observed in this study, and slant fracture.…”
Section: Computational Resultsmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…The crack tip opening angle parameter (CTOA) has been used successfully to characterise the material resistance to tearing and predict instability [1–11]. Dawicke et al.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%