Basic principles of analytical flaw assessment methods

Zerbst, Uwe; Ainsworth, R.A.; Schwalbe, K.‐H.

doi:10.1016/s0308-0161(01)00008-4

Cited by 75 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These toughness measures form the basis upon which the severity of crack-like defects can be related to the operating conditions in terms of a critical applied load or critical crack size (Hutchinson 1983;Anderson 2005;Zerbst et al 2000;British Standard Institution 2005;SINTAP 1999;British Energy 2003;American Petroleum Institute 2007). Standardized techniques for fracture toughness testing of structural steels, such as BS 7448 (British Standard 1991), ASTM 1290 (American Society for Testing and Materials 2008) and ASTM 1820 (American Society for Testing and Materials 2008), are based upon laboratory measurements of load-displacement records utilizing three-point bend SE(B) and compact tension C(T) specimens containing deep, through cracks (a/W ≥ 0.45-0.5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of weld strength mismatch on J and CTOD estimation procedure for SE(B) specimens

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work examines the effect of weld strength mismatch on fracture toughness measurements defined by J and CTOD fracture parameters using single edge notch bend (SE(B)) specimens. A central objective of the present study is to enlarge on previous developments of J and CTOD estimation procedures for welded bend specimens based upon plastic eta factors (η) and plastic rotational factors (r p ). Very detailed non-linear finite element analyses for planestrain models of standard SE(B) fracture specimens with a notch located at the center of square groove welds and in the heat affected zone provide the evolution of load with increased crack mouth opening displacement required for the estimation procedure. One key result emerging from the analyses is that levels of weld strength mismatch within the range ±20% mismatch do not affect significantly J and CTOD estimation expressions applicable to homogeneous materials, particularly for deeply cracked fracture specimens with relatively large weld grooves. The present study provides additional understanding on the effect of weld strength mismatch on J and CTOD toughness measurements while, at the same time, adding a fairly extensive body of results to determine parameters J and CTOD for different materials using bend specimens with varying geometries and mismatch levels.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of weld strength mismatch on J and CTOD estimation procedure for SE(B) specimens

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The curves for c = 0 correspond to the isotropic model. A consequence of this effect is that plastic anisotropy significantly affects the accuracy of predictions of flaw assessment procedures since the limit load is one of the essential parameters of these procedures [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, analytical and semi-analytical approaches have proven to be advantageous for a number of applications in fracture mechanics [5]. In particular, applications of flaw assessment procedures [6] to engineering structures with cracks are facilitated by the use of analytical and semi-analytical limit load solutions. In many cases analytical expressions for limit load are obtained as interpolations of finite element solutions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of plastic anisotropy on the limit load of highly under-matched scarf joints with a crack subject to tension

Alexandrov¹,

Mustafa²

2014

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The idea of using the basic equations of assessment models such as the EPRI handbook [18] or the R6 procedure [6] in conjunction with finite element results for the J-integral or CTOD to define such a reference load is not new. For example, a reference load, P o , has been combined with the normalised (h) functions in the EPRI method [19] to define J; for details see [20][21]. The reference load has also been chosen so that fully plastic solutions for power-law materials (such as those in [19]) for different values of hardening exponent n are insensitive to n (Ainsworth [22], Kim et al [23]).…”

Section: Determination Of the Reference Load F Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposed extension of the SINTAP/FITNET thin wall option based on a simple method for reference load determination

Zerbst¹,

Pempe²,

Scheider³

et al. 2009

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A "correct" limit or yield load is an essential element of flaw assessment procedures of the R6 or SINTAP type. In the present paper the authors propose a definition of this quantity which is based on the SINTAP Option 3 failure assessment function. This "reference load" can be determined for any component geometry by finite element analyses. The method is applied to two kinds of thin walled structures (notched plates and curved stiffened panels) this way extending the existing thin wall module of SINTAP.

show abstract

Basic principles of analytical flaw assessment methods

Cited by 75 publications

References 17 publications

Effects of weld strength mismatch on J and CTOD estimation procedure for SE(B) specimens

Effects of weld strength mismatch on J and CTOD estimation procedure for SE(B) specimens

Influence of plastic anisotropy on the limit load of highly under-matched scarf joints with a crack subject to tension

Proposed extension of the SINTAP/FITNET thin wall option based on a simple method for reference load determination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About