0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

A Comparison of Two- and Three-Dimensional Fracture Assessments in the Presence of Residual Stresses

[+] Author and Article Information
S. J. Lewis, D. J. Smith

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK

C. E. Truman1

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol, Queen’s Building, University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UKc.e.truman@bristol.ac.uk

see Acknowledgment.

1

Corresponding author.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 131(2), 021408 (Jan 23, 2009) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3066938 History: Received August 03, 2007; Revised June 13, 2008; Published January 23, 2009

The influence of various assumptions on the modeling of cleavage fracture in the presence of residual stresses was investigated. Analyses were undertaken for modified single edge notched bend specimens, manufactured from A533B ferritic steel. The influence of residual stress fields, introduced by a method of in-plane compression, was investigated through the use of a modified J-integral, designed to retain path independence in the presence of initial stress and strain fields and nonproportional loading. Application of modified J values to predict fracture using probabilistic methods, and their use in a well-known structural integrity assessment code, showed that assumptions about levels of out-of-plane constraint, material hardening behavior, and the method of crack introduction have a significant influence on the conservatism of the resulting failure predictions. It was found that more realistic modeling of crack introduction had a major effect on the accuracy of failure predictions, with the effects of material hardening being of secondary importance.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2009 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 illustration of the in-plane compression process used to generate RSs in modified SEN(B) specimens

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Residual stress, σyy, across the uncracked ligament at the beam centerline (y=0, z=T/2) in the modified SEN(B) specimens following in-plane compression

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Finite element mesh structure around the crack region and detail of crack-tip meshes: (a) square mesh and (b) focused mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Variation in standard (Jab) and modified (Jm)J values with domain radius from two-dimensional finite element analysis for CUCF specimens under a load of 25.1 kN and a crack length of 2.5 mm

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Variation in standard (Jab) and modified (Jm)J values with domain radius from three-dimensional finite element analysis for CUCF specimens under a load of 25.1 kN and a crack length of 2.5 mm; results are shown at specimen midthickness, z=T/2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Variation in modified J integral with applied load for varying mesh structures, different hardening models, and different crack insertion procedures from a two-dimensional, plane strain, finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Variation in modified J integral with applied load for varying mesh structures, different hardening models, and different crack insertion procedures from a three-dimensional finite element model; results are shown at specimen midthickness, z=T/2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Opening stress, σyy, across the cracked ligament at the beam centerline (y=0, z=T/2) in the modified SEN(B) specimens following in-plane compression and crack insertion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Relationship between KJm and applied stress intensity factor at failure, KIP, determined from three-dimensional finite element analysis. Results are shown at specimen midthickness, z=T/2

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Prediction of CUCF failure based on two-dimensional, plane strain finite element modeling; isotropic and kinematic hardening with instantaneous crack introduction and isotropic hardening with incremental crack introduction are all considered

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Prediction of CUCF failure based on three-dimensional finite element modeling; isotropic and kinematic hardening with instantaneous crack introduction and isotropic hardening with incremental crack introduction are all considered

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of failure probability curves obtained from both AR fracture test results and a combined data set comprising AR and CUCF results

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Failure assessment diagram based on two-dimensional modeling

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Failure assessment diagram based on three-dimensional modeling

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