Abstract
Today, different LEFM based reduced order modeling and 3D FEA based crack propagation life assessment tools are available to the end user. For a benchmark problem where solutions from different tools are compared, numerical variability can be observed [1]. One source of variability is related to the crack shape definition since reduced order models make use of elliptical representations during crack propagation modeling procedure while a 3D FEA based simulation can eliminate this shape constraint. Using a classical corner crack at a hole geometry, the impact of the crack front shape assumption on the computed remaining useful life is addressed. The same 3D FEA based explicit crack growth software application is used to obtain the two solutions and therefore limiting other sources of error in this comparison. The accuracy of the mode I stress intensity factor solution for initial crack and convergence of the fatigue crack growth solutions are also addressed since numerical error accumulation can impact the conclusion reached in the study.
