Effect of specimen size and crack depth on 3D crack-front constraint for SENB specimens

Kim, Y.; Chao, Yuh J.; Zhu, Xian-Kui

doi:10.1016/s0020-7683(03)00392-5

Cited by 40 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is due to the plane strain assumption for the reference fields which does not hold in this case as also discussed for the J -Q-approach by Yuan and Brocks (c) (d) (1998). Similar observations using the J -A 2 -approach have been made for the crack tip fields in thin discs (Kim et al 2001) and SE(B) specimens (Kim et al 2003) close to the surface. From the viewpoint of stress field approximation, it can be concluded that the concepts lose their validity in this situation.…”

Section: Three-dimensional Analysis Of Fracture Mechanics Specimenssupporting

confidence: 78%

Experimental and numerical analysis of in-plane and out-of-plane crack tip constraint characterization by secondary fracture parameters

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, several two-parameter-concepts are analyzed experimentally and numerically with respect to their capability of characterizing in-plane and out-of-plane crack tip constraint effects. Different approaches utilizing the second term T-stress of the linear-elastic crack tip stress field, a higher term A(2) of the power-law hardening crack tip stress field, a hydrostatic correction term Q for a reference stress field or the local triaxiality parameter h are compared. Experimental results for a pressure vessel steel 22Ni-MoCr3-7 are investigated by means of the different approaches regarding their capability of constraint characterization for enhanced transferability. Theoretical aspects are investigated in a modified boundary layer analysis and in three-dimensional nonlinear elastic-plastic finite element analyses of the specimens. It is found that, with respect to their capability of quantifying combined in-plane and out-of-plane constraint effects, the investigated concepts differ significantly

show abstract

Section: Three-dimensional Analysis Of Fracture Mechanics Specimenssupporting

confidence: 78%

Experimental and numerical analysis of in-plane and out-of-plane crack tip constraint characterization by secondary fracture parameters

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests that Q cannot be used directly to describe the constraint effect on a J-R curve because its value varies on the resistance curve, as shown by Faleskog [264]. Accordingly, the J À A 2 three-term solution was used to characterize the elastic-plastic crack-tip fields for two-and three-dimensional geometries [274][275][276][277], and the parameter A 2 was used to quantify the constraint effect on the fracture toughness J c , J Ic and J-R curves for ductile materials [278,271,234,279].…”

Section: The J-q Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of fracture toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) testing and standardization

Zhu

Joyce

2012

Engineering Fracture Mechanics

604

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stress intensity factor Energy release rate CTOD CTOA J-integral J-R curve K-R curve ASTM standard a b s t r a c tThe present paper gives a technical review of fracture toughness testing, evaluation and standardization for metallic materials in terms of the linear elastic fracture mechanics as well as the elastic-plastic fracture mechanics. This includes the early investigations and recent advances of fracture toughness test methods and practices developed by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The review describes the most important fracture mechanics parameters: the elastic energy release rate G, the stress intensity factor K, the Jintegral, the crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) and the crack-tip opening angle (CTOA) from the basic concept, definition, to experimental estimation, test methods and ASTM standardizing practices. Attention is paid to guidelines on how to choose an appropriate fracture parameter to characterize fracture toughness for the material of interest, and how to measure the fracture toughness value defined either at a critical point or in a resistance curve format using laboratory specimens. The relevant ASTM fracture toughness test standards considered in this paper are E399 for K Ic testing, E561 for K-R curve testing, E813 for J Ic testing, E1152 for J-R curve testing, E1737 for J Ic and J-R curve testing, E1290 for CTOD (d) testing, a combined common test standard E1820 for measuring the three parameters of K, J and d, E1921 for the transition reference temperature T 0 testing and the master curve of cleavage toughness K Jc testing, and E2472 for CTOA testing. The effects of loading rate, temperature and crack-tip constraint on fracture toughness as well as fracture instability analysis are also reviewed.

show abstract

“…This parameter is not frequently used to analyze problems related to fracture mechanics. It was described in [20,21], where the authors tried to determine the difference between the distribution of stresses calculated numerically using a finite element method and those calculated according to the HRR solution recommended for the predominantly plane strain conditions. The author of this paper suggests that the use of the parameter Q pso is a good approach because it shows the difference between the actual distribution of stresses responsible for the crack opening and the distribution determined according to a theoretical solution for a case of the dominance of plane strain.…”

Section: Mgrabamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A year later, Rice and Tracey [18] employed the ratio of the average stresses  m to the effective stresses  eff , calculated according to the Huber-Misses-Hencky (HMH) hypothesis,  m / eff . Some researchers have considered the influence of geometric constraints on the distribution of stresses for three-dimensional cases, analyzing the actual stresses responsible for the crack opening [19], or the differences between the actual description obtained through the FEM analysis and that obtained on the basis of the HRR solution for a case of plane strain [20,21]. It is difficult to discuss all the parameters in one article.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On The Parameters of Geometric Constraints for Cracked Plates under Tension – Three-Dimensional Problems

Graba

2017

International Journal of Applied Mechanics and Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a comparative analysis of selected parameters of the geometric constraints for cracked plates subjected to tension. The results of three-dimensional numerical calculations were used to assess the distribution of these parameters around the crack front and their changes along the crack front. The study also involved considering the influence of the external load on the averaged values of the parameters of the geometric constraints as well as the relationship between the material constants and the level of the geometric constraints contributing to the actual fracture toughness for certain geometries.

show abstract

Effect of specimen size and crack depth on 3D crack-front constraint for SENB specimens

Cited by 40 publications

References 18 publications

Experimental and numerical analysis of in-plane and out-of-plane crack tip constraint characterization by secondary fracture parameters

Experimental and numerical analysis of in-plane and out-of-plane crack tip constraint characterization by secondary fracture parameters

Review of fracture toughness (G, K, J, CTOD, CTOA) testing and standardization

On The Parameters of Geometric Constraints for Cracked Plates under Tension – Three-Dimensional Problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About