Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Concepts of Fracture Mechanics
Laboratoire de Fiabilit de Mcanique, Universit de Metz, France Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Aleppo, Syria
Abstract:
Fracture behavior is bounded by the two extremes of failure, linear elastic and fully plastic. By utilizing this concept a universal failure curve can be used to interpolate between the two extremes of failure. This Curve gives equivalent results to failure analyses basis on the J-integral or COD. The failure curve forms the basis of failure assessment diagram which reduces the complexities of elastic-plastic failure analyses. In this paper the general philosophy and principals behind any fracture mechanics assessment are discussed, with particular emphasis on the need to choose a route and define the security point according to particular problem specifications.
1. INTRODUCTION
Fracture mechanics is being increasing applied to assess safety engineering and the concerted effort by designers, metallurgists, production and maintenance engineering, and inspectors to ensure safe operations without catastrophic fracture failures. Several circumstances may be cited in order to justify the application of fracture mechanics theory to engineering structures. The most important circumstance is probably that all engineering structures contain cracks or crack-like flaws at some scale of examination. This is becoming increasingly obvious as more sophisticated non-destructive examination (NDE ) equipment and methods come into service. Clearly, the safety of a structure can be guaranteed only when the engineering, the metallurgist and the inspector have worked together to ensure that the structure never contains critical combinations of stress, resistance to crack extension and flaw size, respectively Fig.1[4,5].
STRESS ( Engineer )
Fig. 1. Basic fracture mechanics parameters and most closely associated personnel
It follows that the application of fracture mecanics techanics provides a logical basis for the decisions which the aforementioned personnel have to make. Recently it nas been estimated that a fracture mechanics saved over $100 million in the construction of the Forties Field oil production platforms in the North sea. Similarly, in a recent instance in the electrical power generation industry, a reported $32 million was saved by using fracture mechanics to prove that a cracked rotor in a 500 MW alternator coud be run safely until a replacement was available. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to quantify the economic advantages of fracture mechanics in relation to such considerations as safety, and the consequences of structural failures [1].
- E.P.F.M is applicable for defects which are not very short or very long. A general description of the fracture problems needs in addition to the ultimate strength criterion (for very short defects) and the instability criterion (for very long defects). - E P F M can be considered as a modification of the lower bound describing the nocivity of a defect. This lower bound is relative to L.F.M with respect to the most severe defect (crack) and the worst situation (brittle fracture) [3].
2.2 Elastic stress distribution at crack tip 2.2.1 Irwin's Stress Intensity Approach
Irwin developed in 1948 a series of linear elastic crack stress field solutions using the mathematical procedures of Westergaard. Irwin showed that the stress field at the tip of a crack is characterized by a singularity of stress which decreases in proportion to the inverse square root of the distance from the crack tip. Later Irwin showed that the stess field in the region dominated by the singularity of stress can be regarded as the sum of three invariant stress patterns taken in proportions which depend upon loads, dimensions and shape factors. These mode are described Fig.2 [4]. Mode I or opening mode, Mode II or shearing mode, Mode III or antishearing mode.
mode I
mode II
Figure 2
mode III
PLASTIC LINE
COLLAPSE
LEFM
1. 4
In this region the two criteria approach is at its weakest, in terms of both failure load predictions and determination of critical defect sizes. To obtain a more refined simulation of failure behavioure it is necessary to consider failure parameters whose applicability is equally valid in the presence of either small scale or large scale yielding conditions. Only then can a single fracture formula relevant to the whole range of failure be obtained. The first attempt at developing elastic-plastic models is termed the crack opening Displacement (COD) method [4].
R R
e
R R
e
2a 2c
Figure 4
The stress intensity factor due to wedge stresses Re on a length Rp is equal to:
KA =
Re
a+x ax + dx a+x a R p a x
K A = 2 Re
dx (a 2 x 2 )
2 R e .
x a rc c o s a
K A = 2 Re
a + Rp
arc cos
a a + Rp
a + R
c .=
2 Re
c ar c cos
a c
This leads to :
a c
c o s
2
2 2
R e
a 1 c
8 Re
= 2 v =
4 E 4 E
- x
= 2v =
+ ry - x
The crack tip opening displacement at the tip of the physical crack is found for x = a. Since ry<< a
4 E
a . r
2 y
- x
Substitution of ry yields:
2 y
2 g
. a R e
2
K I E . R e
Alternatively the equation of the crack tip opening displacement comes from the Dugdale model:
Re . E
a Ln
sec
2 Re
2 g
R e . a
R e . E
G = Re
2.3.3 J Integral
Another powerful technique for analyzing elastic-plastic failure is based on the J-integral. This path-independent integral was derived for nonlinear elastic materials as an expression for the rate of change of potential energy per unit thickness with respect to an incremental extension of crack. Tow things should be noted at this point. First the similarity with the strain energy release rate obtained in linear elasticity theory, J is a generalization of this concept to non-linear deformation. Secondly that the derivation is strictly true only for linear and non-linear elastic materials where unloading occurs along the same path as the initial loading. After plastic deformation real materials unload almost linear elastically, along a different path to the loading one. The energy interpretation is therefore not relevant if appreciable plastic deformation is present. Nevertheless since J is equal to the spatial derivative of an energy, it does represent, and can be interpreted as, a force on the crack tip and its associated plasticity [2,9]. Consider a non-linear elastic material, the stress-strain curve of which can be represented by the Ramberg- Osgood equation
where 0 is the reference stress, 0 the reference strain and N the strain hardening exponent. The potential energy of a mechanical system is defined as
= W * dV * Ti u i dS
V* S
Fig. 5
where W* is the strain energy density contains in a volume V*. This volume is enclosed in a surface S on which loads by unit surface Ti and displacements ui are acting. When the crack is extended by an amount a in the x direction, the energy potential decreasing is :
u i ij * * ij . x adV Ti x adS S V
W * = ij d ij
where nx is the normal in x direction. = a a
u = W * .n x Ti . i dS a S x
n = n x , n y = cos , sin
The surface element dS is equal to:
10
dS =
dx +dy
and n x dS = dy
u = W * .d y T . dS a x
The Integral is called J Integral and is due to Rice:
u J = W * .d y T . dS x
In polar co-ordinates J can be expressed by:
u J = W *Cos T rd x
The J integral has 3 properties J is related to the variation of potential energy, J is path independent, For non-linear behaviour J described the intensity of stress and strain at crack tip.
kr is equal to unity for brittle fracture and 0 for plastic collapse (K* is often taken as the fracture toughness KIc.
11
The loading conditions of a structure are represented by a point A of coordinates k r ; S r . If this point is inside of his domain, this ensures the structures integrity. If this point (B) is on the curve its co-ordinates are
A A
Fs =
OB OA .
kr
1 c
Failure
0 ,8
kr
Safe
Fs = OB OA
0 ,6
0 ,4
kr
0 ,2 A Sr 0 0 ,2 0 ,4 0 ,6
Sr
Sr
0 ,8 1
Fig 6
12
Kr = Lr =
K1 ( P, a) K1c P PL (a, y )
.(1) .(2)
where K1 is the elastic stress intensity factor, K1c is the fracture toughness, y is the yield stress and PL is the value of P corresponding to plastic collapse of the component. Having evaluated Kr and Lr failure by fracture at the defect is avoided provided the assessment point (Lr , Kr ) lies within the region bounded by failure assessment curve as illustrated in Fig. 1. the pictorial representation of Fig. 7 is one of the advantages of R6 as it enables margins on load, for example, to be easily defined.
Lr Fig. 7 The R6 failure assessment diagram illustrating failure avoidance when an assessment point ( Lr,Kr) lies inside the diagram
The shape of the failure assessment diagram is given in R6 and is based on a number of factors. The first is avoidance of fracture under linear elastic conditions. This is achieved by the criterion: Kr 1 (3) Which in view of eqn. (1) is
0.5
1.0
1.5
13
K1 K1c ....(4) The second factor is avoidance of failure by plastic collapse. This is achieved by limiting Lr Lmax (5) r max where Lr is defined in terms of the material flow stress, , and yield stress by
Lmax = r
(6) y
since plastic collapse load is directly proportional to yield stress, inequality (5) combined with the definitions of eqns. (2) and (6) restricts the applied load to: P PL (a, ) ..(7) The flow stress is used in this collapse limit to allow for hardening above the yield stress. A typical value of flow stress. Which is often used, is the mean of the yield stress and the ultimate stress. However, R6 in not generally prescriptive about the choice of flow stress. Equations (3) and (5) define limits on the failure assessment diagram. The difficult area to define is the intermediate elastic-plastic region. When detailed analyses methods are used, the parameter J is often evaluated and failure is avoided if : J ( P, a ) J1c .(8) Here J1c a material property related to fracture toughness by
J1c =
K12c (9) E1
where E1 is Young's modulus, E, divided by (1-2 ) where is poisson's ratio, in plane strain; E1 = E in plane stress. Similarly, in the limit of elastic behaviour, the calculated value of J, Jel say, is related to the stress intensity factor, K1, by:
J el =
K12 .(10) E1
combining eqns. (1) and (8)-(10), the failure avoidance criterion of eqn. (8) can be written in the form: Kr f(Lr) .(11) Where
J f 3 ( Lr ) = el J
1/ 2
(12)
14
Here the subscript 3 has been introduced in eqn (12) as this definition of the failure assessment curve, f ( Lr ) , is termed option 3 in R6. In evaluating eqn (12), both J and Jel are evaluated at the same load. The overall definition of the failure assessment diagram in terms of the limits of inequalities (3), (5) and (11) is shown in Fig. 8.
1.0 Kr 0.5
Kr = 1
Lmax r
Lr
Kr = f(Lr) )
0.5
1.0
1.5
Lr
Fig. 2 The R6 failure assessment diagram defined by three limiting criteria, avoidance of: elastic failure; plastic collapse; elastic-plastic fracture
The option 3 curve of eqn (12) may be evaluated from finite-element solutions for J or from experimental estimates of J, the FAD in this option is dependent on the material and the geometry. The option 2 curve This option is dependent only on the stress/strain curve of the material and is defined as:
1 / 2
.(13)
ref = Lr y ..(14) and ref is the true strain obtained from the uniaxial tensile stress/strain curve at a true stress level ref . The first term in eqn. (13) describes both elastic and fully plastic behaviour. The second term is a plasticity correction term for small scale yielding which is phased out as the first term becomes much greater than unity.
15
][
)]
for Lr Lmax r
.(15)
This curve was chosen as an empirical fit to option 2 curves for a variety of materials, but biased towards the lower bound. With this curve, only the yield and flow stresses are needed to define the upper limit, Lmax , of eqn. (6) r rather than detailed stress/strain data. Thus, the curve is independent of both material and geometry. In particular the three options in R6 for the failure assessment curve have been evaluated: option 3 which depends on both material stress/strain behaviour and on geometry; option 2 which depends only on material stress/strain response; and option 1 which is independent of both material and geometry. R6 Revision 4 The major new release of R6, revision 4, is due in 2000. Revision 4 will adopt the same basic structure as the SITAP procedure, but will be divided into five chapters [7,8]: Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Basic procedures Inputs to basic procedures Alternative approaches Compendia Validation
Sr=
ref
Re
kr =
c Je J Ic
1 A
16
A=+
with
r ef el
2
= 0 ,5 . S r
el r ef
is a plastic zone correction. The reference strain is defined on a universal and non - dimensional stress-strain curve given by the following relationship:
r ef el
el =
=f
r ef Re
r ef E
r ef el 1
for 0
r ef el
= 0 ,9 8 4 5 +1 ,3 .S r - 2 ,4 2 7 .S r +2 ,9 7 1 S r
r ef el
for
r ef el
1
2 3 4
= 6 4 1 ,4 6 - 1 9 6 7 .S r +2 1 8 8 . S r - 1 0 4 4 . S r +1 8 4 ,3 7 . S r
The failure assessment diagram is presented in figure IT exhibits a tail for high value of Sr.
17
Figure 52
3. Conclusion
Elastoplastic Fracture Mechanic leads to conditions for fracture sensitive to geometry and loading conditions. More than 30 fracture criteria exists including the well-known J Integral and C.O.D.And different equations for the failure assessment diagram are proposed in the literature. They are listed in table 1.
REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. David Broek, The Practical Use of fracture Mechanics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Northerlands, 1989. Guy Bluvinage, Exercices de Mecanique elastoplastique de la Rupture, Cepadueseditions, CEPAD 1995, France Guy Bluvinage, La Rupture du Bois et de ses Composites, CEPAD 1992, France G. G. CHELL, Developments in Fracture Mechanics-1, Applied Science Publishers LTD 1979 G. C. Sih. E. Sommer, W. DAHI., Application of Fracture Mechanics to Materials and structures, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1984 R. A. Ainsworth, Failure assessment diagrams for use in R6 assessments for austenitic components, Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 65 (1996) 303-309 P.J. Budden, The R6 procedure: recent developments and comparison with alternative approaches, Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 77 (2000) 895-903 R. A. Ainsworth, Failure assessment diagrams for high temperature defect assessment, Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 62 (1999) 95-109 FLAW GROWTH & Fracture, Proceedings of the tenth National symposium on Fracture Mechanics' ASTM, American Society for testing and Materials 1977
18
KC =
g a g 1c
kr =
0
S 1- r 2
Dugdale
KD =
8 Re .
. Ln cos
1 . g
C
kr =
1 8
2
. Ln cos
1 .S r 2
2 Re
Newmann
K N = N . a
k r = 1- m N S R
k r = 1- 0,14 S r .
2
R6
K c = g .
c
a eff
g
c 2
* KC =
a . F a
o
2
g o
n+1
kr =
Sr S r + S r
Sr
2 H eS r +
n+ 1
KJ =
EJ el a 0 .
c
P P +EJ pl a,n PL PL
kr =
H nS r
n+ 1
* KC =
g a . F a
W
2 2
1-F g o
c
k r= 1 -
2 2
Sr