Analysis of Damage Tolerance

Considerations in a prospective
Hyperloop Pod
Raghav Maini | Mechanics of Damage Tolerance | April 8, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1 STRESS INTENSITY CONSIDERATIONS
CHAPTER 2 RESIDUAL STRENGTH
CHAPTER 3 FATIGUE LIFE ESTIMATION
CHAPTER 4 CRACK GROWTH RATE ESTIMATION AND
INSPECTION CYCLE
CHAPTER 5 DAMAGE TOLERANT IMPROVEMENTS

LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1: Representative Hyperloop Panel for Damage Tolerance Analysis
Fig. 2: Superposition of Loads and Stresses for the Aluminum Panel
Fig. 3: Plot shows variation of Stress Intensity as the crack grows and the crack length at
failure.
Fig. 4: Fracture Toughness for Al 7075-T6 at t = 0.065 = 68 ksi-sqrt-in
Fig. 5: Comparison of Hyperloop pod panel and experimentally obtained values for Al7075-T6. It can be seen from the comparison that the results are as expected.
Fig 6: Strain Based Fatigue life Vs. Strain for the Hyperloop Pod Panel
Fig 7: Stress Cycle: max = 4.78 ksi, m = a = 2.39 ksi
Fig. 8: Benefits of using crack stoppers

PAGE 1

ABSTRACT
The Hyperloop, touted as the Fifth mode of Transportation is a rapid transit vehicle
which is in initial stages of a massive crowdsourced campaign to achieve high speed
transport on the ground (levitation within a tube either by air or magnets). Elon Musk
(CEO, SpaceX and Tesla Motors) generated a lot of public interest by first releasing a
white paper in 2013 on the prospective workings of a Hyperloop pod. The interest
sustained and was on display at the Hyperloop Pod Competition (Texas A&M, Jan,
2016), a competition where WSU was also represented.
Continuing the theme of contributing to the Hyperloop cause, a damage tolerant study of
the Aluminum structural panel is desired with the help of this project. A Hyperloop pod is
to be subjected to an internal pressure of 10-12 psi and an external (reduced) pressure of
1-3 psi (almost vacuum) within a tube.
As part of the final project, different crack lengths and crack types were considered to
estimate stress intensity factors which were compared with the help of plots for visual
representation. Residual Strength will be estimated for different crack types and lengths
to find out whether the panel fails by yielding or fractures. Different thicknesses of panels
shall be considered depending on allowable pressure distributions.
Even though the design is complex, a Hyperloop pod can be approximated as an aircraft
fuselage for simplification with a few minor adjustments in loading conditions. Crack
Growth and Crack Propagation analyses was done on the panel to complete a damage
tolerance analysis on this part. The number of cycles required to propagate an imaginary
crack will also be estimated.
One Hyperloop pod journey from Los Angeles to San Francisco is expected to take close
to 40 minutes at 760 mph. As a part of this analyses, appropriate inspection cycles will
need to be carried out to avoid or inspect failure and provide maintenance.
After analyzing all the above results, a damage tolerant improvement will be proposed to
prevent damage or prolong the life of this aluminum panel. This could either involve
further stiffening or employing crack stoppers to increase residual strength/delay failure.

PAGE 2

Chapter 1 - Stress Intensity Considerations

Different crack lengths and crack types were considered to estimate stress intensity
factors which were compared with the help of plots for visual representation. Different
thicknesses of panels shall be considered depending on allowable pressure distributions
Stress intensity factors usually predict the state of stress near a developed crack. For the
Hyperloop, it is very important to estimate stress intensity for different crack lengths and
crack types.

1.1.

Simplifying Assumptions and Problem Statement

A Hyperloop pod[1] is assumed to have the following dimensions:

Length 50 ft.

Width 10 ft.

Height 10 ft.

A Hyperloop pod could be construed as a fuselage section of an aircraft without its front
and aft section. Due to its similarity to general aviation aircraft, FAR regulations were
used in ascertaining simplifying assumptions. According to Part 25 of Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR), Section 841, all fuselage sections should be sufficiently pressurized.
Irrespective of the altitude over 8000 feet, cabins must be pressurized to a pressure which
is at the very least, similar to that at 8000 feet.
The Hyperloop pod, should therefore be designed structurally, for periodic pressurization
and depressurization.
Taking a leaf out of finite element analysis (not literally), a small panel of Aluminum
7075 is considered for calculations. Al-7075 and Al-2024 are both possible options but
Al-7075 is a better option and is used much more extensively in modern times for
fuselage skin.

Fig. 1: Representative Hyperloop Panel for Damage Tolerance Analysis

PAGE 3

1.2.

Stress Intensity Factor Analysis

The dimensions for this Aluminum panel are:

Width = 10 in.

Thickness = 0.065 and 0.050

Height = 15 in.

The Stress Intensity in this panel could be predicted with the help of superposition
principle.

Fig. 2: Superposition of Loads and Stresses for the Aluminum Panel

The Stress Intensity is calculated in the following manner:

=

(1.1)
(1.2)

= +

(1.3)

= . .

(1.4)

PAGE 4

The material properties for Al-7075 are as follows:

Ultimate Tensile Strength = 83 ksi

Tensile Yield Strength = 73 ksi
Fatigue Strength = 23 ksi
KC (L-T, Room Temp) = 68 ksi-sqrt(in)
Youngs Modulus = 10400 ksi

We know that the strength of a structure is a function of crack size. Therefore it is

prudent to vary crack size to find out how Stress Intensity develops within a structure.
In this analyses, three parameters were varied to represent how Stress Intensity factors
vary. The three parameters to be varied are:
1. Thickness (t1 = 0.065in, t2 = 0.050in)
2. Varying Crack Length (a = 0.2in to a = 10 in)
3. Crack Type (Center Cracked and Edge Cracked)
Stress Intensity Factor Vs. Crack Length
Stress Intensity Factor, ksi-sqrt-in

80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0

Crack Length, a in
t = 0.065, Edge Cracked
t = 0.050in, Edge Cracked

t = 0.065in, Center Cracked

Fracture Toughness, Kc

t = 0.050, Center Cracked

Fig. 3: Plot shows variation of Stress Intensity as the crack grows and the crack length at
failure.

PAGE 5

Fig. 4: Fracture Toughness for Al 7075-T6 at t = 0.065 = 68 ksi-sqrt-in

The Plot for Stress Intensity Factor Vs. Crack Length gives us the following information:

The projections of intersections between Fracture Toughness and Stress Intensity

on the horizontal axis gives the critical crack length for this panel under the given
conditions.
As can be observed from the plots, it is easily seen that the panel fails earliest
when it is 0.050in thick and edge cracked.
It is also important to note at this point, that this is a highly simplified free body
diagram and superposition problem. In the real world dynamic scenario, inertial
forces, drag forces, body forces and thermal forces could significantly affect these
numbers.

PAGE 6

Chapter 2 Residual Strength

Residual Strength for any structure is a representation of strength that is left in the
structure as the crack length varies. The minimum of either net section yield or brittle
fracture critical stress is the residual strength at any given crack length. For this Al 7075T6 skin panel, the residual strength due to net section yield and brittle fracture were both
calculated and a curve for Residual Strengh vs. Crack Length was obtained.

Brittle Fracture Critical Stress is given by:

=

Net Section Yield is given by:

=

( 2)

The plot for Residual Strength vs. Crack Length:

Residual Strength, SigmaC

Residual Strength
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Crack Length, a
Net Section Yield

Brittle Fracture

Fig. 5: Comparison of Hyperloop pod panel and experimentally obtained values for Al7075-T6. It can be seen from the comparison that the results are as expected.

PAGE 7

Chapter 3 Fatigue Life Estimation

For finding the fatigue life, it is initially important to define one cycle. In this case, the
pressurization and depressurization of the pod represents one cycle. To make things more
interesting, stress due to drag force is also included in the fatigue life analysis. Several
drag coefficient values were taken for similar altitudes and panel sizes and the stress due
to drag was computed for the chosen panel. All considerations were made for panel
thickness 0.065in and center cracks.
Total Stress = Hoop Stress + Stress due to Internal Pressure + Stress due to Drag
= 4.65 ksi + 0.015 ksi + 0.116 ksi = 4.78 ksi

3.1. Stress Based Fatigue Life

Total Stress = 4.78 ksi
1

1
= ( )
2
= 2.4 , = 213 , = = 2.39
= 13.23
3.2. Strain Based Fatigue Life
Stress Based Fatigue life is accurate for a large number of cycles but may not be accurate
for shorter lives as Hookes law isnt valid due to the plasticity involved. Therefore, it is
important to find Strain Based Fatigue and the Transition life.
The Modified Morrow Approach was used to estimate Fatigue Life in this panel. A
comparison for estimated and actual plots is shown:

PAGE 8

Strain Amplitude Vs. Number of

1.40E-03
Cycles
Strain Amplitude

1.20E-03

1.00E-03

8.00E-04

6.00E-04
4.00E-04
2.00E-04

0.00E+00
0.00E+00

5.00E+08

1.00E+09

Number of Cycles, Nf

Fig 6: Strain Based Fatigue life Vs. Strain for the Hyperloop Pod Panel
3.3. Transition Life
At shorter lives, plastic strains dominate and at longer lives, elastic strains dominate. It is
important to find the transition zone between the two to find out which approach is more
accurate for the given problem.
(

1
= (
)
2

= 103.6

3.4. Stress Cycle

Fig 7: Stress Cycle: max = 4.78 ksi, m = a = 2.39 ksi

PAGE 9

Chapter 4 Crack Growth Rate Estimation and

Inspection Cycle
Commercially, all OEMs follow well defined inspection cycles. Taking inspiration from
those inspection cycles, an inspection cycle was defined for this panel.
4.1. Paris Law for Inspection Cycle
Hypothetically, assuming if a 0.01in crack was found in an inspection. It is now
important to predict until when the part is safe for operation before failure. Usually for
The Boeing Companys inspection for Boeing 737 aircraft skin, a 10% variability is the
norm. So if a 0.01in crack was found and it isnt fatal for the part to be present, it would
be further checked until it is increased by 10% which is 0.011in.
Applying Paris Law for Crack Growth Rate,

= () = ()

0 = 0.01, = 0.011, = 4.78, = 109 , = 4

= 172,744
Therefore, it would be prudent to check the structural instability after 172,744 cycles to
see if the crack has propagated and whether it would cause a fatal failure or not.

4.2. Proof Load

Another method to perform inspection is to use Proof Load.
Using an inspection cycle, it is always helpful to predict how much load would take the
panel to the safe limit. If we assume an inspection cycle where it is intended that there are
no cracks over 0.5in.
This method would predict the maximum load before which the crack would exceed
0.5in.
Taking the same panel into consideration,
W = 10 in
t = 0.065 in
Kc = 68 ksi-sqrt(in)
PAGE 10

For a center cracked panel,

= sec ( )

= ( )
For the assumed panel dimensions,
= 49.79
In normal operation, the load on the panel due to hoop stress, internal pressure and drag
force is a meagre 4.78 ksi. Therefore, it would require heavy impact loads on the panel to
cause an elongation of the already present crack to 0.5in.
A good DT engineer would also predict the circumstances under which such a proof load
would be possible.
The possible scenarios under which this load might be breached:
1. End of the tube crash Hyperloop pod crashes at the end of the tube due to failure
of the braking system.
2. Fatigue buildup Loads built up inside the structure due to excessive operation of
the pod causing
3. External circumstances Natural disasters, man-made disasters, construction
damage, manufacturing errors and other human factors that may introduce
fatalities.

PAGE 11

Chapter 5 Damage Tolerant Improvements

The objective of Damage Tolerance is to provide an inspection cycle for each structural
part so that cracking initiated by a variety of reasons will never propagate the critical
length associated with failure prior to detection. For example, defining a critical crack
length in Chapter 4 and calculating the Proof Load is a very important step in performing
Damage Tolerant Improvements for any structure.
The possibilities causing failure for the Hyperloop were briefly discussed in Chapter 4. It
is assumed that an engineer picked out potential failure scenarios. It is now also an
engineers job to propose improvements for the same scenarios making the structure
more reliable and feasible for use.
Some of the improvements that can be made are:
1. Usage of Stiffeners If the stiffener spacing is reduced (increasing the number of
stiffeners used) it would delay the fast cracking of the panel.
2. Rivet Spacing If the spacing between rivets is decreased, it would also delay the
fast cracking of the panel.

3. Crack Stoppers Using Titanium crack stoppers would enable proper load
transfer from cracked surface to the crack stopper and increase the residual
strength considerably.

Fig. 8: Benefits of using crack stoppers

PAGE 12

4. Foam Pit A massive damage tolerant improvement at a larger scale particularly

for the Hyperloop is the introduction of a 12 foot thick foam pit at the end of the
tube. The foam would considerably absorb impact energy and prevent damage up
to a very realistic extent.
5. Emergency Braking System The Hyperloop pod proposed by WSU included an
emergency, redundant braking system. Considering the pod would magnetically
braked with the help of a rail braking system, an additional wheel braking
mechanism would rule out major crashes and improve the structures reliability
by introducing a redundancy.

6. Stop Drilling Another innovative repair technique for cracks is to introduce a

hole where the crack was present. It would still leave the structure susceptible to
multiple site damage but would undoubtedly delay failure in an already cracked
structure.
7. Welding Welding the crack and heat treating it to relieve the internally pent up
stresses. Welding would always cause distortion in the structure but would be a
damage tolerant improvement nonetheless.

PAGE 13