Weld Stress Mapping Using Neutron and Synchrotron X-Ray Diffraction

Stelmukh, V.; Edwards, L.; Santisteban, J.R.; Ganguly, Saibal; Fitzpatrick, Michael E.

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/msf.404-407.599

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Strain measurements performed on TOF neutron strain scanners are sometimes compared or combined with experiments performed on constant-wavelength strain scanners (Stelmukh et al, 2002). Therefore, in this paper we have paid special attention to presenting absolute values for the experimental count rates, properly normalized by the instrumental gauge volume to allow comparison between the techniques.…”

Section: Figure 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

ENGIN-X: a third-generation neutron strain scanner

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ENGIN-X, a new time-of-flight (TOF) neutron diffractometer optimized to measure elastic strains at precise locations in bulky specimens recently commissioned at the ISIS Facility in the Rutherford Laboratory, UK, is described. Fast counting times, together with a flexible and accurate definition of the instrumental gauge volume are the main requirements of neutron strain scanning and have been addressed on ENGIN-X through the design of a novel TOF diffractometer with a tuneable resolution and interchangeable radial collimators. Further, the routine operation of the instrument has been optimized by creating a virtual instrument, i.e. a three-dimensional computer representation of the diffractometer and samples, which assists in the planning and execution of experiments. On comparing ENGIN-X with its predecessor ENGIN, a 25Â gain in performance is found, which has allowed the determination of stresses up to 60 mm deep in steel specimens. For comparison with constant-wavelength diffractometers, special attention has been paid to the absolute number of counts recorded during the experiments. A simple expression is presented for the estimation of counting times in TOF neutron strain scanning experiments.

show abstract

Section: Figure 10mentioning

confidence: 99%

ENGIN-X: a third-generation neutron strain scanner

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The method has been extensively applied to measure residual stresses in welds [23][24][25][26][27] as the stresses are usually high, the gauge volume typically used is small compared to the weld and the penetration depth of the neutron beam into the material is large. Furthermore, the method is non-destructive at the point of application and is therefore ideal for the monitoring of residual stress fields in fatigued samples (although some components require the machining of access channels [28] and welds require the determination of a point-to-point stress-free lattice reference which requires extraction of material from the weld being measured or an identical component [29]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of weld residual stresses and their re-distribution with crack growth during fatigue under constant amplitude loading

Liljedahl

Zanellato

Fitzpatrick

et al. 2010

International Journal of Fatigue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bstractIn this work the evolution of the residual stresses in a MIG-welded 2024-T3 aluminium alloy M(T) specimen during in-situ fatigue crack growth at constant load amplitude has been measured with neutron diffraction. The plastic relaxation and plasticity-induced residual stresses associated with the fatigue loading were found to be small compared with the stresses arising due to elastic redistribution of the initial residual stress field. The elastic redistribution was modelled with a finite element simulation and a good correlation between the experimentally-determined and the modelled stresses was found.A significant mean stress effect on the fatigue crack growth rate was seen and this was also accurately predicted using the measured initial residual stresses.

show abstract

“…combined with longitudinal strains measured on a Synchrotron source [6]. The second set is the same sample after machining to size as envisaged during wing manufacture, hence, the strains are not expected to be identical.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%