0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

The Assessment of Residual Stress Effects on Ductile Tearing Using Continuum Damage Mechanics

[+] Author and Article Information
Andrew H. Sherry

 The University of Manchester, Sackville Street, Manchester, M60 1QD, UKa.sherry@manchester.ac.uk

Mark A. Wilkes

 Serco Assurance, Birchwood Park, Risley, Warrington WA3 6GA, UKmark.wilkes@sercoassurance.com

John K. Sharples

 Serco Assurance, Birchwood Park, Risley, Warrington WA3 6GA, UKjohn.sharples@sercoassurance.com

Peter J. Budden

 British Energy Generation Ltd., Barnett Way, Gloucester GL4 3RS, UKpeter.budden@british-energy.com

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 130(4), 041212 (Oct 14, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2967876 History: Received February 08, 2006; Revised July 17, 2007; Published October 14, 2008

This paper presents the results of a numerical study undertaken to assess the influence of residual stresses on the ductile tearing behavior of a high strength low toughness aluminum alloy. The Gurson–Tvergaard model was calibrated against conventional fracture toughness data using parameters relating to void nucleation, growth, and coalescence. The calibrated model was used to predict the load versus ductile tearing behavior of a series of full-scale and quarter-scale wide-plate tests. These center-cracked tension tests included specimens that contained a self-balancing residual stress field that was tensile in the region of the through-wall crack. Analyses of the full-scale wide-plate tests indicated that the model provides a good prediction of the load versus the ductile tearing behavior up to approximately 3mm of stable tearing. The influence of residual stress on the load versus the crack growth behavior was accurately simulated. Predictions of the load versus the crack growth behavior of full-scale wide-plate tests for crack extensions greater than 3mm and of the quarter-scale tests were low in terms of predicted load at a given amount of tearing. This was considered to result from (i) the “valid” calibration range in terms of specimen thickness and crack extension, (ii) the development of shear lips, and (iii) the differences in the micromechanism of ductile void formation under plane strain and under plane stress conditions.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the mechanism of ductile crack extension: (a) initiation of microvoid at brittle second phase particle, (b) subsequent growth of microvoid and initiation of new microvoids, and (c) coalescence of microvoids with crack-tip, growth, and initiation of new microvoids

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Ratio of load-carrying capacities of aluminum alloy plates with and without residual stresses as a function of Lr. The lines are simple fits bounding the data (6).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

JR-curves derived from geometries of different constraint levels: SECB=single edge-cracked bend specimen, CCT=center-cracked tension specimen, and DECT=double edged-cracked tension specimen (8)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of experimental and predicted resistance curves

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Schematic of (a) 25mm-thick full-scale wide-plate Tests 1P (no residual stress) and 1S (with residual stress) and (b) 6.25mm-thick quarter-scale Tests P1 (no residual stress) and S1 (with residual stress). All measurements in millimeters (6).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Load versus average ductile crack extension for (a) 25mm-thick full-scale wide-plate tests 1P (no residual stress) and 1S (with residual stress) and (b) 6.25mm-thick quarter-scale tests P1 (no residual stress) and S1 (with residual stress). Note, that data points represent periodic unloadings during each test (6).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Comparison of calculated residual stress profile for (a) full-scale Specimen 1S and (b) quarter-scale Specimen S1, with measured data

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of measured and predicted load versus ductile crack extension for full-scale Tests 1P and 1S: (a) comparison up to 3mm of ductile tearing, and (b) comparison over the full range of ductile tearing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of measured and predicted load versus ductile crack extension for quarter-scale Tests P1 and S1 up to 15mm of crack growth

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Schematic of plane stress fractures (6,15)

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
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