1996
DOI: 10.1007/bf00039572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elastic-plastic fracture mechanics assessment of low constraint aluminium test specimens

Abstract: Recent studies have shown that the near crack-tip stress field at a given J value is dependent on geometry. This dependence has been linked to the degree of constraint in the geometry, with low constraint geometries losing J dominance at very low deformation levels. New approaches centred on the use of a two-parameter description (e.g.J-T and J-Q) of the crack-tip stress-strain state have emerged. However, there is a serious lack of experimental and numerical results for low constraint geometries to quantify t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
3
0
1

Year Published

1997
1997
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(19 reference statements)
1
3
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These researchers did not find a significant constraint effect on the fracture initiation toughness J IC , but they observed apparent and replicable changes in the slopes of the J-R curves after certain amount of crack growth. Similar results were reported by Marschall et al [4], Eisele et al [5], Roos et al [6], Henry et al [7] and Haynes and Gangloff [8] for CCP, CT, DECP, SENB and SENT testing with various specimen sizes. All experimental data reported in literature seem to suggest that the J-R curves may depend on the level of constraint.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These researchers did not find a significant constraint effect on the fracture initiation toughness J IC , but they observed apparent and replicable changes in the slopes of the J-R curves after certain amount of crack growth. Similar results were reported by Marschall et al [4], Eisele et al [5], Roos et al [6], Henry et al [7] and Haynes and Gangloff [8] for CCP, CT, DECP, SENB and SENT testing with various specimen sizes. All experimental data reported in literature seem to suggest that the J-R curves may depend on the level of constraint.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…To validate the experimental results of the ductile crack growth, two-dimensional and three-dimensional finite element analyses (FEA) were performed by many researchers, such as Yuan and Brocks [9], Brocks et al [10], Henry et al [7], Kikuchi [11], and Yan and Mai [12]. Most of these studies used the J 2 flow theory of plasticity for material response idealization, and input the experimental applied load or the load-line displacement to the finite element models of various fracture specimens, including CT, TPB, SENB, SENT and CCP.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The J – Q theory and J – A 2 method are the most popular approaches for characterizing the constraint effects under large‐scale yielding conditions 29 . Because of simplification the J – Q theory is applied extensively to the constraint analysis of stationary cracks 4,28,30–33 . Q ‐parameter is defined as the difference between the stresses in the near‐tip region determined by a numerical analysis and the HRR or the small‐scale yielding stress field. where r and θ are the polar coordinates situated at the crack tip, σ 0 is the yield stress, J is the J ‐integral, σ θθ is the hoop stress in the finite‐width geometry and (σ θθ ) SSY is the reference stress under small‐scale yielding (SSY) conditions.…”
Section: Quantification Of Stress Triaxialitymentioning
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%