0
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology | Volume 128 | Issue 3 | Research Paper
RESEARCH PAPERS

Statistical and Constraint Loss Size Effects on Cleavage Fracture–Implications to Measuring Toughness in the Transition

[+] Author and Article Information
H. J. Rathbun1

 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5050palmtree@engineering.ucsb.edu

G. R. Odette, T. Yamamoto, M. Y. He, G. E. Lucas

 University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5050

The analyses contained in this publication were performed to the specifications of the 1997 edition of ASTM E 1921. The changes embodied in the 2003 edition of ASTM E 1921 do not substantially affect the conclusions of this work.

Note, the Master Curve Method is explicitly for standard 1T-(25.4mm thick) SEN(B) and C(T) specimens as opposed to a fully constrained, plane strain SSY condition. However, at toughness levels in the range of 100MPam, 1T specimens have a relatively high level of constraint in medium-strength, pressure vessel steels.

The T-stress is a component of the elastic stress tensor. Its relative importance to crack tip stress distributions increases rapidly with deformation in the elastic regime in proportion to the load. The T-stress continues to provide reasonable descriptions of deviations from SSY in the elastic-plastic regime. The T-stress is small, and thus plays a secondary role, for the deeply cracked SEN(B) specimens used in this study.

In this context, single variable means that B or b was varied while all other specimen and test conditions were held constant; and that within the matrix of B variations there are b-B combinations that are not expected to manifest significant size effects due to constraint loss.

1

Corresponding author, currently with University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 128(3), 305-313 (Jun 24, 2005) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2217962 History: Received August 23, 2004; Revised June 24, 2005
Article
References
Figures
Citing Articles

A systematic investigation of the effects of specimen size on the cleavage fracture toughness of a typical pressure vessel steel is reported. Size dependence arises both from: (i) statistical effects, related to the volume of highly stressed material near the crack tip, that scales with the crack front length (B) and (ii) constraint loss, primarily associated with the scale of plastic deformation compared to the un-cracked ligament dimension (b). Previously, it has been difficult to quantify the individual contributions of statistical versus constraint loss size effects. Thus, we developed a single variable database for a plate section from the Shoreham pressure vessel using a full matrix of three point bend specimens, with B from 8 to 254 mm and b from 3.2 to 25.4 mm, that were tested at a common set of conditions. The University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) b-B database was analyzed using three-dimensional finite element calculation of the crack tip fields combined with a cleavage model calibrated to the local fracture properties of the Shoreham steel. This paper focuses on the possible significance of these results to the Master Curve standard as formulated in ASTM E 1921. The statistical scaling procedure to treat variations in B used in E 1921 was found to be reasonably consistent with the UCSB b-B database. However, constraint loss for three point bend specimens begins at a deformation level that is much lower than the censoring limit specified in E 1921. Unrecognized constraint loss leads to a nonconservative, negative bias in the evaluation of To, estimated to be typically on the order of −10°C for pre-cracked Charpy specimens.
FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

1
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998, "E 1921-97 Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature, To, , for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range", ASTM, West Conshohocken.
2
Merkle, J. G., Wallin, K., and McCabe, D. E., 1998, Technical Basis for an ASTM Standard on Determining the Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range (NUREG/CR-5504, ORNL/TM-13631), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.
3
Electric Power Research Institute, 1998, Application of Master Curve Fracture Toughness Methodology for Ferritic Steels, EPRI Report TR-108390, Palo Alto.
4
Wallin, K., Saario, T., and Törrönen, K., 1984, “Statistical Model for Carbide Induced Brittle Fracture in Steel,” Met. Sci., 18 , pp. 13–16.
5
Nevalainen, M., and Dodds, R. H., 1995, “Numerical Investigation of 3D Constraint Effects on Brittle Fracture in SE(B) and C(T) Specimens,” Int. J. Fract., 74 , pp. 131–161.
6
Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G. R., He, M. Y., Lucas, G. E., and Yamamoto, T., 2006, “Size Scaling of Cleavage Toughness in the Transition: A Single Variable Experiment and Model Based Analysis (NUREG/CR-6790),” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington.
7
Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G. R., He, M. Y., and Yamamoto, T., 2006, “Influence of Statistical and Constraint Loss Size Effects on Cleavage Fracture Toughness in the Transmission-A Model Based Analaysis,” Eng. Fract. Mech. (to be published).
8
Anderson, T. L., 1995, "Fracture Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications", CRC Press, Boca Raton.
9
Petti, J., and Dodds, R. H., 2004, “Constraint comparisons for common fracture specimens: C(T)s and SE(B)s” Eng. Fract. Mech., 71 (18), pp. 2677–2683.
10
Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G. R., and He, M. Y., 2000, “Size Scaling of Toughness in the Transition: A Single Variable Experiment and Data Base Assessment,” "Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2000", ASME, New York, 412 , pp. 113–124.
11
Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G. R., and He, M. Y., 2001, “On the Size Scaling of Cleavage Toughness in the Transition: A Single Variable Experiment and Model Based Analysis,” "Proceedings of the International Congress on Fracture 10", CD-ROM format.
12
Rathbun, H. J., Odette, G. R., Yamamoto, T., and Lucas, G. E., 2006, “Influence of Statistical and Constraint Loss Size Effects on Cleavage Fracture Toughness in the Transition-A Single Variable Experiment and Database,” Eng. Fract. Mech.73 (1), pp. 134–157.
13
Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorenssen, Inc., 1998, ABAQUS Users Manual 5.8.
14
Odette, G. R., and He, M. Y., 2000, “A Cleavage Toughness Master Curve Model,” J. Nucl. Mater., 283 , pp. 120–127.
15
Gao, X., Ruggieri, C., and Dodds, R. H., 1998, “Calibration of Weibull Stress Parameters Using Fracture Toughness Data,” Int. J. Fract.  [CrossRef], 92 , pp. 175–200.
16
Joyce, J. A., and Tregoning, R. L., 2001, “Effects of Material Inhomogeneity on the To Reference Temperature in Thick Section A533B Plate,” "Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2001", ASME, New York, 423 , pp. 157–165.
17
Joyce, J. A., and Tregoning, R. L, 2001, “Development of the To Reference Temperature From Precracked Charpy Specimens,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 68 (7), pp. 861–894.
18
Tregoning, R. L., and Joyce, J. A., 2000, “To Evaluation in Common Specimen Geometries,” "Proceedings of the ASME PVP 2000", ASME, New York, 412 , pp. 143–152.
19
Tregoning, R. L., and Joyce, J. A., 2002, “Application of a T-Stress Based Constraint Correction to A533B Steel Fracture Toughness Data,” ASTM Special Technical Publication n. 1417, pp. 307–327.
20
Joyce, J. A., and Tregoning, R. L., 2005, “Determination of Constraint Limits for Cleavage Initiated Toughness Data,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 72 (10), pp. 1559–1579.
21
Odette, G. R., Yamamoto, T., Kishimoto, H., Sokolov, M, Spätig, P., Yang, W. J., Rensman, J.-W., and Lucas, G. E., 2004, “A Master Curve Analysis of F82H Using Statistical and Constraint Loss Size Adjustments of Small Specimen Data,” J. Nucl. Mater., 329-333 (2), pp. 1243–1247.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
+Test specimen matrix. Eight tests were conducted for each specimen size and geometry.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Test specimen matrix. Eight tests were conducted for each specimen size and geometry.
Figure 1

Test specimen matrix. Eight tests were conducted for each specimen size and geometry.

Grahic Jump Location
+Nondimensional A∕b2 versus KJ4∕(Eσyb)2 trajectories for SSY and constraint loss conditions from FE simulations of crack tip stress fields used to evaluate the [KCL∕KSSY] constraint adjustment factor
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Nondimensional A∕b2 versus KJ4∕(Eσyb)2 trajectories for SSY and constraint loss conditions from FE simulations of crack tip stress fields used to evaluate the [KCL∕KSSY] constraint adjustment factor
Figure 4

Nondimensional A∕b2 versus KJ4∕(Eσyb)2 trajectories for SSY and constraint loss conditions from FE simulations of crack tip stress fields used to evaluate the [KCL∕KSSY] constraint adjustment factor

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) KJm versus logB for the UCSB b-B matrix in this study. The data at various b are slightly off-set in B for clarity. The solid curve is the fit to the b=25.4mm data. (b) Averaged KJB for all B grouped by common b plotted versus b.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) KJm versus logB for the UCSB b-B matrix in this study. The data at various b are slightly off-set in B for clarity. The solid curve is the fit to the b=25.4mm data. (b) Averaged KJB for all B grouped by common b plotted versus b.
Figure 2

(a) KJm versus logB for the UCSB b-B matrix in this study. The data at various b are slightly off-set in B for clarity. The solid curve is the fit to the b=25.4mm data. (b) Averaged KJB for all B grouped by common b plotted versus b.

Grahic Jump Location
+A schematic illustration of the basis for constraint adjustment. Figure 3 illustrates an approximate condition of SSY. Here the high stress region, marked by the σ22 stress contour (not to scale), is small compared to b. Figure 3 shows that the A(σ22) contour is smaller than in Fig. 3 if the applied KJ are the same. Figure 3 shows that to achieve the same A(σ22) in smaller specimens requires a KCL>KSSY. Cleavage occurs in both cases when A=A∗ and σ22 = σ∗. Note, thicker specimens (larger B) require a smaller A∗ to achieve the same V∗
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
A schematic illustration of the basis for constraint adjustment. Figure 3 illustrates an approximate condition of SSY. Here the high stress region, marked by the σ22 stress contour (not to scale), is small compared to b. Figure 3 shows that the A(σ22) contour is smaller than in Fig. 3 if the applied KJ are the same. Figure 3 shows that to achieve the same A(σ22) in smaller specimens requires a KCL>KSSY. Cleavage occurs in both cases when A=A∗ and σ22 = σ∗. Note, thicker specimens (larger B) require a smaller A∗ to achieve the same V∗
Figure 3

A schematic illustration of the basis for constraint adjustment. Figure 3 illustrates an approximate condition of SSY. Here the high stress region, marked by the σ22 stress contour (not to scale), is small compared to b. Figure 3 shows that the A(σ22) contour is smaller than in Fig. 3 if the applied KJ are the same. Figure 3 shows that to achieve the same A(σ22) in smaller specimens requires a KCL>KSSY. Cleavage occurs in both cases when A=A∗ and σ22 = σ∗. Note, thicker specimens (larger B) require a smaller A∗ to achieve the same V∗

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) The average ⟨KJr⟩ versus B for the [KCL∕KSSY]-Kmin adjustment procedure. (b) The KJr residuals for various B. The average residuals for the various b are shown by the lines between the different B. (c) The cumulative distribution of the b-BKJr data for various b. The solid line is a fit of the data to a normal distribution function.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) The average ⟨KJr⟩ versus B for the [KCL∕KSSY]-Kmin adjustment procedure. (b) The KJr residuals for various B. The average residuals for the various b are shown by the lines between the different B. (c) The cumulative distribution of the b-BKJr data for various b. The solid line is a fit of the data to a normal distribution function.
Figure 5

(a) The average ⟨KJr⟩ versus B for the [KCL∕KSSY]-Kmin adjustment procedure. (b) The KJr residuals for various B. The average residuals for the various b are shown by the lines between the different B. (c) The cumulative distribution of the b-BKJr data for various b. The solid line is a fit of the data to a normal distribution function.

Grahic Jump Location
+The KJm(a) and KJr(b) for the UCSB b-B database, other UCSB data and the Tregoning and Joyce database plotted versus test temperature and the master curve for To=−84°C
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
The KJm(a) and KJr(b) for the UCSB b-B database, other UCSB data and the Tregoning and Joyce database plotted versus test temperature and the master curve for To=−84°C
Figure 6

The KJm(a) and KJr(b) for the UCSB b-B database, other UCSB data and the Tregoning and Joyce database plotted versus test temperature and the master curve for To=−84°C

Grahic Jump Location
+Constraint loss predicted by the [KCL∕KSSY]-constraint adjustment procedure as a function of M for the UCSB b-B database
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Constraint loss predicted by the [KCL∕KSSY]-constraint adjustment procedure as a function of M for the UCSB b-B database
Figure 7

Constraint loss predicted by the [KCL∕KSSY]-constraint adjustment procedure as a function of M for the UCSB b-B database

Grahic Jump Location
+(a)To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the measured KJm data. (b) The To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the adjusted KJr data.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a)To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the measured KJm data. (b) The To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the adjusted KJr data.
Figure 8

(a)To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the measured KJm data. (b) The To determined from ASTM E1921-97 using the adjusted KJr data.

Grahic Jump Location
+(a) Scatter plot of To based on KJm versus KJr. (b) The To based on KJr minus that based on KJm versus ligament dimension, b.
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
(a) Scatter plot of To based on KJm versus KJr. (b) The To based on KJr minus that based on KJm versus ligament dimension, b.
Figure 9

(a) Scatter plot of To based on KJm versus KJr. (b) The To based on KJr minus that based on KJm versus ligament dimension, b.

Grahic Jump Location
+Variation in To calculated using a. KJm and b. KJr
View Large  |  Save Figure  |  Download Slide (.ppt)
Variation in To calculated using a. KJm and b. KJr
Figure 10

Variation in To calculated using a. KJm and b. KJr

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Introduction and Definitions
Handbook on Stiffness & Damping in Mechanical Design> Chapter 1
Data Tabulations
Structural Shear Joints> Chapter 12
Materials
Power Boilers> Chapter 3
Understanding the Problem
Design and Application of the Worm Gear> Chapter 12
Transverse Free Vibration Analysis of Hybrid SPR Steel Joints
Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Technologies (MIMT 2010)
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In