0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Deformation Versus Modified J-Integral Resistance Curves for Ductile Materials

[+] Author and Article Information
Xian-Kui Zhu

EWI,
1250 Arthur E. Adams,
Columbus, OH 43221
e-mail: xzhu@ewi.org

Poh-Sang Lam

Materials Science and Technology,
Savannah River National Laboratory,
Aiken, SC 29808
e-mail: ps.lam@srnl.doe.gov

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received November 3, 2014; final manuscript received May 5, 2015; published online June 16, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Kunio Hasegawa.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 137(5), 051407 (Oct 01, 2015) (8 pages) Paper No: PVT-14-1179; doi: 10.1115/1.4030593 History: Received November 03, 2014; Revised May 05, 2015; Online June 16, 2015

The J-integral resistance curve (or J-R curve) is an important fracture property of materials and has gained broad applications in assessing the fracture behavior of structural components. Because the J-integral concept was proposed based on the deformation theory of plasticity, the J-R curve is a deformation-based result. It has been known that the J-R curves of a material depend on specimen size and geometry; therefore, a modified J-integral or Jm was proposed to minimize the size dependence. Extensive experiments have shown that the Jm-R curves might remain size-dependent and could not behave better than the traditional deformation J-R curves. To date, however, it is noticed that the Jm-R curves were still used as “size-independent” results in some fracture mechanics analyses. It is necessary to revisit this topic for further clarification. This paper presents a brief review on the development of deformation and modified J-integral testing, and obtains a simple incremental Jm-integral equation. It is followed by typical experimental results with discussions on the issues of constraint or size dependence of J-R and Jm-R curves for different steels and specimens. Finally, a recommendation is made on properly selecting a resistance curve in the fracture analysis.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of experimental and numerical results of resistance curves (this figure is taken from Ref. [39])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Resistance curves for 3-Ni steel CT tests: (a) deformation J-R curve and (b) modified Jm-R curve (these figures are taken from Ref. [18])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Resistance curves for A533B-02 steel CT tests: (a) deformation J-R curve and (b) modified Jm-R curve (these figures are taken from Ref. [18])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Resistance curves for 304 stainless steel weld CT tests: (a) deformation J-R curve and (b) modified Jm-R curve (these figures are taken from Ref. [20])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Resistance curves for HY100 steel SENB tests: (a) deformation J-R curve and (b) modified Jm-R curve (these figures are taken from Ref. [21])

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Crack length dependence of: (a) deformation J-R curves and (b) modified Jm-R curves for A285 carbon steel using SENB and CT specimens

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