This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
S T P 1429
Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding, Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior
M. T. Kirk and M. Erickson Natishan, editors
ASTM Stock Number: STP1429
/NlrmltI~NA/.
ASTM International 100 Barr Harbor Drive PO Box (2700 West Conshohocken, PA 194282959 Printed in the U.S.A.
Library of Congress CataloginglnPublication Data
Predictive mated~ modeling; combining fundamental physics understanding, computational methods and empirically observed behavior/M.T. Kirk and M. Erickson Natial~an, eddors. p. cm.  (STP ; 1429) Includes bibliographical references. "ASTM Stock Number: STP1429." ISBN 080313472X 1. SteelMetallurgyCongresses. I, Kirk, Mark, 196111.Natishan, M. Eflc~:son.Iti, ASTM speciaJ Izchr~cal publication ; 1429. 2003062889 TN701.5.P74 2003 669'.142dc22
Copynght 9 2004 ASTM International, West Conshobocken, P/L All dghts reserved. This matedal may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, In any printed, mechanic~d,electronic, tilm, or Other dfstdbution and storage media, without the written consent of the publisher.
Photocopy Rights
Authorization to photocopy items for Internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the Internal, personal, or educational classroom use of specific cllonte, is granted by ASTM International (AS'rM) provided that ~ e appropriate fee Is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvem, MA 01923; Tel: 9787508400; online: http://www.copyright.comL
Peer Review Policy
Each paper published In this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor. The authors addressed all of the reviewers' comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM Intema~nal Committee on Publicattons. To make technical information available as quickly as possible, the peerreviewed papers in this publication were prepared "centreready" as submitted by the authors. The quar~ of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors and the technical editor(s), but also the work of the peer reviewers. In keeping with longstanding publication prac~cas, ASTM International maintains the anonymity of the peer reviewers. The ASTM International Committee on Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution of time and effort on behalf of ASTM International.
Prinled in May~etd,PA Janua,'y2004
Incorporated. Sykesville. Texas on 78 November 2001. iii . Phoenix Engineering Associates. Kirk. U.Foreword The Symposium on Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. Rockville. Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior was held in Dallas. S. ASTM International Committee E8 on Fatigue and Fracture sponsored the symposium. Maryland. Maryland and MarjorieArm Erickson Natishan. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Symposium chairpersons and coeditors of this publication were Mark T.
MATIC.P. M. K. P. T~HTINEN Constraint Correction of Fracture Toughness CTOD for Fracture Performance Evaluation of Structural ComponentsF. M. WALLIN. POUSSARD. LAUKKANEN. MARINI 81 103 ELECTRONIC MATERIALS Interface Strength Evaluation of LSI Devices Using the Weibull StressF. AND C. W. DYKA 135 Image. EV~RETI' 151 . NAKAMURA 123 C O M P U T A T I O N A L TECHNIQUES Computational Estimation of Mnitiaxial Yield Surface Using Mlcroyield Percolation AnalyslsA. NATISHAN.AND M.Contents OVERVIEW FEm~rr~CSTEZLS Transition Toughness Modeling of Steels Since RKRM. E.ANDR. A. QIDWALV.R. M~AMI ANDK. NIKBIN O n the Identification of Critical Damage Mechanisms Parameters to Predict the Behavior of Charpy Specimens on the Upper Shelfc.AND T. B. TAKAHARA. P.AND S. NATISHAN.AND S.Based Characterization and Finite Element Analysis of Porous SMA BehaviorM. WAGENHOFER vii Transferability Properties of Local Approach Modeling in the Ductile to Brittle Transition ReglonA. T. T. C. APaMOCHI A PhysicsBased Predictive Model for Fracture Toughness BehaviorM. EVERETI'. ROSINSKI 22 48 67 Sensitivity in Creep Crack Growth Predictions of Components due to Variability In Deriving the Fracture Mechanics Parameter C*K. T. KIRK. G. SAINTECATHERINE.K. WAGENHOFER. K. MINAMI. AND B. NEVASMAA.M. E. FORGET. GELTMACHER. DEGIORGI.
Texas in conjunction with the semiannual meetings of ASTM International Committee E8 on Fracture and Fatigue. strain hardening exponent. but rely on parameters that are measured on the microscale and thus may be difficult and costly to obtain. The symposium was motivated by the focus of many industries on extending the design life of structures. Fundamental. and Empirically Observed Behavior was held on 78 November 2001 in Dallas.or microscale. cannot be reliably used beyond the limits of the database from which they were derived. These strong dependencies make models of this type difficult to apply beyond their calibrated range. while based on readily determined properties. predictive models of material behavior have been based on empirical derivations. initial yield strength. it has not yet been used to assess constraint loss effects as the Weibull models have. While successful at predicting conditions similar to those represented by the calibration datasets. As is the case for steel fracture. In the remaining two papers researchers affiliated with the Naval Research Laboratory used advanced computational and experimental techniques to develop constitutive models for composite and shape memory materials. or on fundamental physicsbased models that describe material behavior at the nano. Heretofore. and so on. Three papers at the Symposium addressed topics unrelated to steels.Overview An ASTM International Symposium conceming Predictive MaterialModeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. Both approaches to modeling suffer from issues that limit their practical application. Natishan proposed the use of physically derived models for the transition fracture toughness of ferritic steels. strain rate. Computational Methods. One paper applied the Weibull models used extensively for steel fracture to assessthe intedacial fracture of electronic components. on the upper shelf. all investigators found the parameters of the (predominantly) empirical Weibull model to depend significantly on factors such as temperature. and in the creep range. physicallyderived models provide a sound basis for extrapolation to other materials and conditions. Empiricallyderived models. The papers presented at this Symposium included six concerning ferritic steel. these address fracture in the transition regime. the Weibull models predict well conditions similar to the calibration dataset. While this approach shows better similarity of parameters across a wide range material. loading. It was the hope that this conference would provide an opportunity for communication between researchers pursuing these different modeling approaches. and temperature conditions than does the Weibull approach. Safe life extension depends on the availability of robust methodologies that accurately predict both the fundamental material behavior and the structural response under a wide range of load conditions. Three of these papers used a combination of the Gurson and Weibull models to predict fracture performance and account for constraint loss. vii .
but also to the many peer reviewers.viii OVERVIEW We would like to close this overview by extending our thanks not only to the authors of the papers you find in this volume. and to the members of the ASTM International staff who made publication of this volume possible. Sykesville. Maryland Symposium chairperson and editor MarjorieAnn Erickson Natishan Phoenix Engineering Associates. Inc. Maryland Symposium chairperson and editor . Mark T Kirk Nuclear Regulatory Commission Roekville.
Ferritic Steels .
Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior. M. and Rice in 1973 up through the current day. "Transition Toughness Modeling Since RKR. Rock'ville. the microscale (or materials) approach provides a bridge between the classical fracture mechanics and nanoscale approaches. M. 1 2 3 SeniorMaterials Engineer. M. PA. Natzshan. Knott. which attempts to describe the competition between crack propagation and crack blunting through the use of dislocation mechanics. .com). ASTM International.2 and Matthew Wagenhofe/ Transition Toughness Modeling of Steels Since RKR Reference: Kirk.org . 20852. M. Department of Mechanical Engineering. and Wagenhofer. T. Watanabe's "materials approach" is identical to what Knott and Boccaccini [2] refer to as a "microscale approach. cleavage fracture.. West Conshohocken. Conversely. MD.University of Maryland. USA (ronatishan@aol. Erzckson . (The views expressed herein represent those o f the author and not an official position of the USNRC.gov). The classical mechanics.. USA (mtk@nrc.) Presldent. or fracture mechanics. Natishan. 20742." Knott and Boccaccini also identify another approach to transition fracture characterization.. Eds. Inc. Keywords: RitchieKnottRice. In many ways. GraduateStudent. Background and Objective A longdme goal of the fracture mechanics community has been to understand the fracture process in the transition region of ferritic steels so that it may be quantified with sufficient accuracy to enable its confident use in safety assessments and life extension calculations. 3 Copyright* 2004 by ASTM International www. . T. Sykesville. the nanoscale approach. approach is a semiempirical one in which solutions for the stress fields near the crack tip are used to draw correlations between the neartip conditions in laboratory specimens and fracture conditions at the tip of a crack in a structure.Mark T Kirk. Abstract: In this paper we trace the development of transition fracture toughness models from the landmark paper of Ritchie. modeling. 1 MarjorteAnn . Erickson Natishan." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. 21784.MD. Phoenix Engineenng Assomates. 2003.astm. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ASTM STP 1429. MD. USA. Kirk and M. none have achieved the goal of blindly predicting fracture toughness data. While such models have become considerably more sophisticated since 1973. E. Watanabe et al. 979 Day Road. In this paper we suggest one possible way to obtain such a predictive model. ferritic steels.. College Park. identified two different approaches toward this goal: the mechanics approach and the materials approach [ 1]. 11545 Rockville Pike.. the materials approach attempts to predict fracture through the use of models describing the physical mechanisms involved in the creation of new surface areas. transition fracture.
Knott and Rice's [3] landmark 1973 paper (RKR) is a classic example of the microscale approach. the streamlined elegance of their model has prompted many researchers to expand on RKR in attempts to describe fracture up to the transition temperature. 1). and provide our perspective on the steps needed to achieve a fully predictive transition fracture model for ferritic steels. We define a "RKRtype" model as one that attempts to characterize and/or predict the cleavage fracture characteristics of ferritic steels and adopts the achievement of a critical stress over a critical distance ahead of the crack tip as the failure criterion.. and subsequently demonstrated. temperatures approaching the fracture mode transition temperature). These modified / enhanced RKR approaches have produced varying degrees of success. In this paper we trace the development of RKRtype models from 1973 through the present day. and Rice (RKR) [3] were the first to link explanations for the cause for cleavage fracture based on dislocation mechanics with the concepts of LEFM. and the critical distance. being based on an underlying model that does not describe fully the precursors to cleavage fracture. or crj. RKR: The 1973 Model Ritchie. In the following sections we discuss various refinements to RKRtype models that have been published since 1973. that the critical stress value had to be exceeded over a microstructurally relevant size scale (e. is both consistent with the physics of the cleavage fracture process and successfully predicts the results of fracture toughness experiments. However. multiples of grain sizes. ~.g. at least in the lower transition regime.e.4 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Ritchie. By 1973 both mechanistic [4] and dislocationbased [56] models suggested that cleavage fracture required achievement of a critical stress level.. the model has limited engineering utility because the predictions depend strongly on two parameters (the critical stress for cleavage fracture. over which ~ i s achieved) that are both difficult to measure and can only be determined inferentially. multiples of carbide spacing) for failure to occur. the parameters of the modified/enhanced RKR models invariably must be empirically calibrated. a goal whose achievement can now be clearly envisaged. Even though RKR themselves were unsuccessful in applying their model at higher temperatures (i. achievement of a critical value of stress normal to the crack plane over a characteristic distance ahead of the crack tip) at temperatures well below the transition temperature. We begin by discussing early attempts to apply the RKR model to . The RKR model has gained widespread acceptance as an appropriate description of the conditions necessary for cleavage fracture (i. These researchers also introduced the concept that achievement of this critical stress at a single point ahead of the crack tip was not a sufficient criterion for fracture. The RKR model combined this criteria with the (then) recently published solutions for stresses ahead of a crack in an elasticplastic solid [79] to predict successfully the variation of the critical stress intensity factor with temperature in the lower transition regime of a mild steel (see Fig. The RKR model provides a description of cleavage fracture that. They postulated. Knott.e. yet they have never achieved the ultimate goal of being fully predictive because.
J t I I f. 60~. i '"t I i t i I [' I O9 ~ Computed from Ostergen stress distribution From Rice & RosengrenlHutchinson stress distribution 50 (Open symbols refer to a characteristic dislance of one grain diameter.W. I . indicating that these fracture toughness data are in the lower transition. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the advantages and limitations of these current modeling approaches..K I R K ET AL. .S. analysis / . Note the low stress intensity factor values. Measured experimentally From H. 40 K~ values.) /J~" Ko values. 0 0 10 L. 120p. k 140 120 100 80 60 Temperature [~ FIG. Closed symbols refer to a characteristic distance of two grain diameters. We then review efforts undertaken in the 1990s and thereafter to extend the temperature regime over which RKR applies through the use of more accurate analysis of the stresses ahead of the deforming crack tip. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 5 temperatures higher in the transition regime than attempted by RKR themselves. Z =E 30 20 O. 1Comparison of RKR model prediction (symbols) with experimental Kic data (Solid Curve) showing good agreement for a characteristic distance of twograin diameters. and provide a perspective on how these limitations can be overcome.
RKRType Models Featuring Improved Stress Analysis By the late 1980s and early 1990s. then unstable crack growth will not occur. Attempts to "fix" the RKR model to work at higher temperatures by adjusting only the parameters of the RKR model (e~ and cry)and not its fundamental nature have therefore never enjoyed success beyond the specific materials on which they were calibrated. Consequently. or nonoccurrence. At these higher temperatures it cannot be assumed that TWR's second event can occur either easily or frequently so the potential for crack blunting needs to be addressed quantitatively. 2. TWR conclude that the microscopic fracture stress must be exceeded over a grain diameter and a half for fracture to occur. of cleavage fracture.e. and 3. Microcrack propagation through the boundaries that surround the nucleating grain. In their paper. Propagation of the microcrack through the grain in which the crack was nucleated (i. Thus. the crack remains sharp and does not blun0. Because cracks blunt due to emission of dislocations from the tip of the crack. at temperaatres higher in transition crack blunting becomes a more important issue to consider. However. much of the industrial infrastructure fabricated .6 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Early Application of the RKR Model to Upper Transition A paper by Tetelman. The RKR model thus assumes implicitly that the first and second TWR events occur with sufficient ease and frequency to make the tbArd TWR event alone control the occurrence. By setting their characteristic distance at two grain diameters. Microcrack nucleation. The determination of a grain diameter and a half as a "critical distance' comes from assuming that if the stress perpendicular to the plane of the crack is less than the microscopic fracture stress at the critical grain boundary of the 3rd event. At the low temperatures (relative to the fracture mode transition temperature) that RKR were concerned with. In arriving at this conclusion they identify three events that must occur prior to the onset of cleavage fracture in steel: 1. blunting is easier at higher temperatures (where the friction stress is lower). they place the focus of their model on the third TWR event. RKR's work seems to build on these ideas from TWR. the assumptions made by RKR regarding crack tip blunting are seen to have greatly impaired both the model's accuracy and its physical appropriateness at temperatures approaching the fracture mode transition temperature. Wilshaw and Rau (TWR) [10] helps to provide a perspective on why the RKR model appears to be ineffective at temperatures approaching the fracture mode transition temperature. these assumptions are appropriate. TWR state that the first two events occur more easily when grain boundary carbides are present. blunting is controlled in large part by the friction stress of the material.
Other examples include nuclear reactors.either design. structures fabricated long ago and/or using old techniques that sometimes experienced spectacular failures.KIRK ET AL. Many researchers believed the Achilles' heel of the RKR model to be its use of an asymptotic solution for the cracktip stress field (i.e. i. All of these techniques succeeded at better parameterizing the conditions under which cleavage failure occurs. Also in this timeframe significant advances in computational power available to engineering researchers led to a renewed interest in the application of RKRtype models. Prediction of Relative Effects on Fracture Toughness Dodds. and that invariably had toughness properties that were either not well quantified and/or feared to be low. the elastic JT approach [15]. economic. TwoParameter Characterization of Cleavage Fracture Toughness Initial efforts of this type borrowed from RKR the idea that the criterion for cleavage fracture is the achievement of a critical stress ahead of the cracktip. Hutchinson Rice Rosengren (HRR) solutions. and used these results to evaluate the conditions for . which was invariably defined as a departure of the neartip stresses from small scale yielding (SSY) conditions.e. Anderson. and so viewed the advent of desktop finite element capability as a way to extend the temperature regime over which the model applies. but were similar in concept in that the second parameter was used to quantify the degree of constraint loss. JQ approach [ 14]. the elasticplastic asymptotic solution for JAe [16]. but none provided any improvement in predictive capabilities because of the requirement to perform extensive testing of specimens having different constraint conditions to characterize what came to be called the "failure locus" [18]. In this Section we review the results of RKRtype models that seek improvements in predictive capabilities and/or range of applicability through the use of better neartip stress solutions than were available to RKR in the early 1970s. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 7 from ferritic steels faced impending limitations . This approach accurately described the deformation conditions associated with much higher toughness values thereby enabling application of the models to higher temperatures in the transition regime. Numerous approaches of this type were proposed. Their finite element computations resolved the elasticplastic stress state at the crack tip in detail. including the elasticplastic..e. and the "engineering" Jyg technique [17] to name just a few. Examples include structures such as oil storage tanks [11] and petrochemical transmission pipelines [ 12]. or its close equivalents). neutron embrittlement) [13]. which while having well documented toughness properties faced regulatory limits on operability based on concerns about service related property degradation (i. or regulatoryon its continued useful life. These ideas differed in detail. and coworkers proposed improvements to these 2parameter approaches [ 19]. FEbased. These efforts focused on quantifying the leading nonsingular terms in the neartip stress field solution as a means to expand greatly (relative to the HRR solution used by RKR) the size of the region around the cracktip over which the mathematical solution is accurate.
the Dodds/Anderson work did nothing to improve. the particular values of the RKR parameters (i.respectively) selected exerted no influence on the differences in fracture toughness predicted between two different crack geometries. However. that cleavage fracture is controlled solely by the achievement of a critical stress at some finite distance ahead of the crack tip. i. Because of this. In spite of these advantages. ofand e~. thereby eliminating the extensive testing burden associated with the twoparameter techniques described earlier. Thus.e. making the results again dependent on the specific values of critical stress / critical distance selected for analysis. and its simplicity relative to other proposals.8 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING cleavage fracture on the basis of the RKR failure criteria (i. the selfsimilarity of the stress fields in finite geometries to the SSY reference solution eventually broke down... on the range of temperatures over which the model could be physically expected to generate accurate predictions of fracture toughness. as discussed earlier. Dodds and Anderson admitted that this micromechanical failure criterion was adopted for its convenience. such results could not be used to predict fracture toughness at other temperatures / strain rates due to the lack of an underlying physical relationship that included these effects in 9 . achievement of a critical stress over a critical distance). the procedure proposed by Dodds and Anderson also had the following drawbacks: As the deformation level increased. This discovery that the difference in toughness between two different geometries did not depend on the actual values of the critical material parameters in the RKR model paved the way for the use of finite element analysis to account for geometry and loss of constraint effects. In the course of their research.e. 9 The Dodds / Anderson model assumes that an RKRtype failure criterion is correct. In their papers. the critical stress and critical distance. By comparing the calculated neartip stress fields for different finite geometries to a reference solution for a crack tip loaded under SSY conditions these investigators quantified the effect of departure from SSY conditions on the appliedJ value needed to generate a particular driving force for cleavage fracture (as defined by a RKRtype failure criterion). In this manner the Dodds/Anderson technique permitted toughness values to be scaled between geometries. Nevertheless. the RKR failure criterion is in fact a special case of a more general criterion for cleavage fracture proposed by TWR. This approach enabled prediction of the appliedJ value needed to cause cleavage fracture in one specimen geometry based on toughness data obtained from another specimen geometry.e. 9 Experimental studies demonstrated that the Dodds / Anderson technique successfully quantified the effect of constraint loss on fracture toughness for tests performed at a single temperature and strain rate [20]. Dodds and Anderson determined that the stress fields in fmite geometries remain selfsimilar to the SSY reference solution to quite high deformation levels. relative to RKR.
e. and that the size and density of these flaws constitute properties of the material. one that leads to fracture) in some small volume Vo is then simply the integral of eq. Characterization ofthis inherently threedimensional effect requires adoption of failure criteria that account for both volume effects and the variability of crack front stresses depending upon proximity to a free surface. These flaws are further assumed to have a distribution of sizes described by an inverse powerlaw. adopted the "Weibull Stress" developed by the Beremin research group in France as a local fracture parameter [22]. the Dodds / Anderson model cannot. This model begins with the assumption that a random distribution of microscale flaws that act as cleavage initiation sites exists throughout the material. Prediction of Relative Effects on Toughness: Accounting for the Effects of Both Finite CrackFront Length and Loss of Constraint Because it was defined only in terms of stresses acting to open the crack plane. et al. (1). as illustrated graphically in Fig. Therefore in 1997 Dodds. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 9 the Dodds / Anderson model. The probability of finding a critical microcrack (i. whereby specimens having longer crack front lengths exhibit systematically lower toughness values than those determined from testing thinner specimens [21]. characterize the well recognized "weakest link" effect in cleavage fracture. 2(a) and described mathematically below: (2) whereLo c is the critical carbide diameter.KIRK ET AL. by definition. . as follows: whereto is the carbide diameter and a and fl are the parameters of the density function g.
Substituting eq.10 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING g(Io) \ O"c t. Kc is the critical stress intensity factor. wm0 to c (a) (b) FIG...I ) " ' a ~'"K./! "1 '0 / / ~o~__~ ~/oJ " ~ Probability of finding a critical microcrack (i.Y (4b) (4c) For the simple case of uniaxial loading conditions when the total stressed volume. (4a) becomes [ (5) . KeY or equivalently l~ =5 K~Y z (3) where ere is the critical stress. 2(b)). defined as follows: m =2fl2 . (1). a microcrack of size larger than Ioc) in Vo. = ( # ..e. are the parameters o f a Weibull distribution.. 2(a) Distribution of microscale flaws assumed by the BEREMIN model [22].e. (2) allows the failure probability to be expressed on a stress basis. to one of the preexisting flaws whose size density is characterized by eq. (3) into eq. and (b) illustration of Griffith fracture criterion applied to cracking of a carbide. as follows: p:(. Stress and flaw size are consequently related as follows: ~rc = . is very much larger than the small volume Vo eq. V. i. The BEREMIN model further assumes that the Griffith fracture criterion [23] applies to the cracking of a carbide (see Fig...~.:r >_ac)= Vo (4a) where m and o. and Yis the geometry factor for a cracked carbide.
ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 11 However. to the shape of the probability density function describing microcrack size (see eq.. (5) takes on the following form. However. (4b)). to solve fracture problems one needs to evaluate eq. are not defined from measurements of these microscale parameters.cr...I EmdD! LVo j . and the stresses are evaluated using the finite element technique.~xp E = E(%.. In this situation the volumes (Vo) are made small enough that the assumption of a uniform stress state over the volume is reasonable. . were unable to use this approach to predict successfully the toughness of cracks subjected to biaxial loading from conventional toughness results. the average of the three principal stresses) rather than the maximum principal stress in eq.. In this model. and to the characteristics of the probability density function describing microcrack size a s w e l l a s to the magnitude of the stress intensity factor required to fracture a carbide (see eq. respectively." which is typically defined as either the plastic zone or as the region within which the maximum principal stress exceeds some integral multiple (usually 2 or 3) of the yield stress. 4) [26]. (5) for the highly nonuniform stress state ahead of a deforming cracktip. (4c)).. (5): PI(~) = 1. the parameters m and a.. in the solution of cleavage fracture problems c7is typically taken as to the maximum principal stress (o1).. Bass. Additionally. However. eq. et al. For the solution of crack problems. needing instead to use of the mean stress (i.)=1exp Here f~ represents the "process zone.a" PI(a.. but rather are backcalculated from the results of multiple fracture toughness experiments [24]. are taken to be characteristics of the material related. (6b) (6e) (6d) F 1 T Ia~ =  . This use of the maximum principal stress to define the BEREMIN Weibull stress in eq. 3). (6b) to achieve a good prediction of experimental results (see Fig.e. (6c) identifies this approach as being a RKRtype model Applications of this approach by Dodds and coworkers has successfully predicted toughness data for partthrough semielliptic surface cracks from toughness data obtained using conventional straightfronted fracture toughness test specimens [25] (see Fig. with eq. (6d) being the analogue to the uniaxial version given in eq. This success wouId not have been possible using any of the models described previously because they had no mechanism to deal with the considerable variations in stress state around the crack front that characterize semielliptic surface cracks.. ~m.KIRK ET AL. in practice m and o.) vo o.
*>ol / . ...e 0. 9 ... for surface cracked specimens [25].~" I 152 25 ] o~ 20 40 6o 8o mo~2o~4o~8o~soz. ~ ' i BaRLoaded .12 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING er 1. predictions that had heretofore been impossible. like its predecessors.#'. J ' ~ .4 .. in its current form the model does not capture the effects of relatively simple changes in applied loading. ~ . ~ .. whereas under conditions of remote biaxial loading E must be set equal to the mean stress (~%). ~ . _ .Iio. et al.. 25. the need to perform such detailed experimentation frustrates use of the Beremin model in a predictive capacity and. However.4 ..o 152 ~r 1. (6) to obtain predictions that agree with experimental results."6 9 # ./o / i sc~ weai..0 0.6 ~% ~r.8 J C~lm~) // __ ". the Beremin approach contains no information regarding how the model parameters (m and a. the BEREMIN approach does not fully describe the physical processes responsible for cleavage fracture.. However.. Dodds. under conditions of remote uniaxial loading the maximum principal stress (cr1) must be taken as E in eq.2 . and a Proposed Way Forward As detailed in the preceding Section. This inconsistency in the stress that appears to be controlling fracture suggests that.01 ..'5..6 0... 3Successful prediction of critical J values reported by Gao..2' j#/" :" o~ 2o 40 6o 8o loo ~2o~4o~o~o~oo J (~/~) FIG.~ 0.' et al. These parameters can be back calculated from the results of replicate fracture toughness tests performed under the temperature and strain rate conditions of interest.._~" .. ) change with temperature and strain rate. Advantages and Limitations of the BEREMIN Modeling Approach..4 .. Additionally.. Specifically... ~0 c ~. /: lu'[ oo z52 o..~ ~) 0... makes application of the model both costly and timeconsuming. 9 . . implementation of the BEREMIN approach in the prediction of cleavage fracture successfully predicts the effects of complex changes in crack geometry on fracture toughness. o..'/ _'~ ~ u ~ t ~  OJ' ..~r 51 102 PinLoaded SC~I~) 51 Ig2 BoltLoaded 8C(T) 0. more practically..
KIRK ET AL. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR
13
To progress toward fully predictive models that are not as costly to implement, it seems important to enhance the Beremin model in two ways. First, it needs to incorporate a constitutive model that accounts for the physical phenomena responsible for temperature and strain rate dependency so that these trends don't have to be back calculated from toughness data. Secondly, a physically based criterion for cleavage fracture is needed so that the model can be applied with confidence to any condition of interest within the transition fracture regime. These refinements are discussed in the following Sections.
FIG. 4Fourinch thick biaxial load fracture specimen (left) and fracture toughness data (right) for biaxial loading reported by Williams, et aL [26] demonstrating that better prediction of the trends in toughness data is achieved by using the mean stress as ~ in eq. (6) rather than the maximum principal stress. The material tested is ASTM A533B that was given a special heat treatment to elevate its yield strength; it has a ASTM E1921 To value of3 7 ~
A Physically Based Constitutive Model for Ferritic Steels
Dislocation mechanicsbased constitutive models describe how various aspects of the microstructure of a material control dislocation motion, and how these vary with temperature and strain rate. The microstructural characteristics of interest include short and longrange barriers to dislocation motion. The lattice structure itself provides the shortrange barriers, which affect the atomtoatom movement required for a dislocation to change position within the lattice. An interbarrier spacing several orders of magnitude greater than the lattice spacing defines longrange barriers. Longrange barriers include point defects (solute and vacancies) precipitates (semicoherent to noncoherent), boundaries (twin, grain, etc), and other dislocations in BCC materials. As a stress is applied to a metal dislocations begin to move, which results in plastic deformation. For a dislocation to move it must shift from one equilibrium position in the
14
PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING
lattice to another, overcoming an energy barrier to do so. The wavelength of these barriers is equal to the periodicity of the lattice. The dislocation requires application of a force to overcome this energy barrier and the magnitude of this force is the PeierlsNabarro stress, XpN. While moving the dislocation will also encounter other barriers such as solute atoms, vacancies, precipitates, inclusions, boundaries and other dislocations. Different spacings and size scales characterize these additional barriers. At temperatures other than absolute zero, atoms vibrate about their lattice sites at a temperaturedependent amplitude. Additions of thermal energy (i.e., higher temperatures) act to increase the amplitude of atom vibration, increasing the probability that an atom will "jump" from one equilibrium site to another. This thermal energy thus acts to decrease the magnitude of the energy provided by the short range obstacles to dislocation motion at any moment in time, thereby decreasing the force required to move the dislocation from one equilibrium position to the next. The effect of strain rate O.e., dislocation velocity) has a similar but opposite effect to that of temperature. As strain rate increases less time is available for the dislocation to overcome the shortrange barriers provided by the lattice atoms. This decreases the effect of thermal energy, resulting in an increased force required for dislocation motion. Longrange obstacles differ from shortrange obstacles because changes in thermal energy do not greatly affect the ability of dislocations to move past them at the strain rates typically experienced by civil and mechanical structures that are not designed for creep service. This occurs because atomic vibration amplitude has little effect on the size of the longrange energy barrier presented to the dislocation, which is on the order of the interparticle spacing. Consequently, the amount of energy required to move a dislocation past these large obstacles is orders of magnitude larger than that provided by the increased lattice vibration that results from increases in temperature. In their work, Armstrong and Zerilli concluded from carefully analyized sets of Taylor experiments that overcoming the PeierlsNabarro barriers was the principal thermally activated mechanism in BCC materials [2730]. The fundamentally different nature of short and longrange barriers to dislocation motion motivates a separate treatment in dislocationbased constitutive formulae. Consequently, the flow stress of a material is typically expressed as a sum of athermal and thermal components, associated with longrange and shortrange barriers (respectively), as follows:
o =
(7)
The first term occurs due to the athermal or longrange barriers to dislocation motion while the second term described the action of thermally activated shortrange barriers. The shortrange barriers include the PeierlsNabarro stress and dislocation forests. PeierlsNabarro stresses (lattice friction stresses) are the controlling shortrange barriers in BCC metals while dislocation forest structures are the controlling shortrange barriers in FCC and HCP metals. This difference is responsible for the difference in strain rate sensitivity between BCC and FCC metals. Focusing attention on BCC metals, the
KIRK ET AL. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR
15
temperature dependence of the probability that a dislocation will overcome a shortrange obstacle is given by:
where k is Boltzman's constant, T is the absolute temperature of interest, and A G is the activation energy of a barrier [31]. The strain rate effect shares a similar form: k=ko exp(A%T) Solving eq. (9) for A G gives (9)
Equation (10) clearly shows that activation energy for dislocation motion decreases with temperature and increases with strain rate. Using these equations as the basis for their model, Zerilli and Armstrong found that dislocations overcoming PeierlsNabarro barriers are the principal thermally activated mechanism for deformation in BCC metals [32]. The spacing of these obstacles is equal to the lattice spacing and thus is not affected by prior plastic strain as are the dislocation forest structures in FCC metals. Zerilli and Armstrong developed the following expression for the thermal portion of the flow stress in eq. (7) (assuming a constant obstacle spacing for BCC): o* = C1 exp( fiT) where fl depends on strain and strain rate as follows:
fl =  C z + C 3 Ink
(11)
(12)
Combining eqs. (11) and (12) with commonly accepted terms describing Orowantype strengthening due to athermal barriers results in the following description of the flow behavior of BCC metals: crf =c% +C4s" + p_d'/2 +C,exp[CzT + C3T. ln(~)]
(13)
where C], C2, C3, C4, tt, and n are material constants, and d is the grain diameter. The form ofeq. (13) is consistent with dislocationmechanics based constitutive models
and degree of irradiation damage.In(k)]) should be common to all ferritic steels. Otherwise dislocations will be emitted from the crack tip. Event #3. and all of its subsequent progeny.. C1 = 1033 MPa. These figures display an excellent correspondence between the temperature and strain rate dependence of a wide variety of steel alloys and the predictions ofeq. It is reasonable to postulate that both failings relate to RKR's assumed insignificance of Event #2 (adequate stress tfiaxiality . 5 demonstrates that experimental data validates this expectation." In 1973. The value of strain necessary to nucleate the microcrack quantifies this event. Smith [56] and many other researchers have attempted to describe cleavage fracture mechanisms quantitatively.e. (13) the expectation arises that the temperature and strain rate dependence (i. Here we examine the 1968 work ofTetelman. factors whose influence are described by the terms ~ + c48"+ ~/1~. The final event is the subsequent propagation of the microcrack through the boundaries that surround the nucleating grain. heat treatment. qexp[c27"+ C3T. (13) for pure iron (i. RKR [3] expanded on TWR's hypothesis and developed their own "characteristic distance" of two grain diameters at lower transition region temperatures. C2 = 0.00698 / ~ and C3 = 0. we mentioned earlier in this paper that the RKR model does not perform well at temperatures in the upper transition region. This event occurs when the opening stress at the crack tip exceeds the microscopic cleavage fracture stress "over {a characteristic distance of} at least one grain diameter in the plastic zone ahead of the crack.000415 / ~ A Physically Based Criterion for Cleavage Fracture Cottrell [35]. which stops the cleavage fracture process and produces instead a nonpropagating crack. However. thereby blunting it.e. This is because the lattice structure is the same in all ferritic steels irrespective of their alloying. degree of prior plastic strain. Additionally. which is well documented as resulting from dislocation motion and accumulation at longrange obstacles such as grain boundaries and second phase particles. They describe the following sequence of three events that establish the necessary precursors for cleavage fracture: Event #1. In specific. A critical value of stress triaxiality is needed to keep the crack tip sharp. the failing of the RKR model. Petch [36]. effectively implying that Events 1 and 2 are satisfied apriori. Following nucleation. has been its exclusive focus of TWR's Event #3. Cleavage fracture begins with microcrack nucleation. degree of cold work. Fig.. the microcrack needs to propagate through the grain in which it was nucleated. Wilshaw. Event #2. From the physical understandings that underlie eq. and Ran (TWR) [10].16 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING developed by other researchers [3334]. application of the RKRtype BEREMIN model has been unsuccessful in the prediction of fracture in specimens that have an applied biaxial load.
.. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 17 to extend the microcrack to the boundaries of the grain in which it initiated) for the following reasons: 600 450 13.m Prediction 300 150 0 150 A 0 ~ oo Prediction 150 ! ? o 150 .SN490B o..KIRK ET AL.t lO lOOO O. 300 200 0 200 400 3O0 200 400 0 200 400 Temperature [~ 400 r 65C Data 12C Data 29C Data 65C PrediCtion r 12C Prediction (D Temperature [~ C2 ..lrr Forgtng/i'est Plate/Power WeldAJnlrr ~ X 9 A Forging/Power Ptate...P~ate f 14A ~. 5Experimental data demonstrates an excellent correspondence between the temperature and strain rate dependence of a wide variety of steel alloys and the predictions of eq. 300 Zx ..m.==l + 9 =' X A Forging/Un. 001 ~0O0Ol J E L i n k . r <~ o .. ~. (13)for pure iron. .45C Data ~" 3o0 200 I~ lx 11.10o O. 100 E o <~ ~> i . 29C Predicbon o O r...'U rllrr Plate/Test Weld/Power 6O0 z~ HSLA CMn Q&T Plate Plate & Weld 450 a n Martensitic Plate Weld/Test m. Ik=.~0Cp rDeadi~c~ on 90C Prediction f r .1 10 1000 o.. 200 n. lOO ~J IX.ool Strain Rate [l/sec] Strain Rate [l/sec] FIG..lO0 ~oo0ol " i i Reference Condition Minand..
or as the region within which the maximum principal stress exceeds some integral multiple (usually 2 or 3) of the uniaxial yield stress. However. In the past three decades considerable progress has been made in prediction accuracy. Summary and Conclusions In this paper we have reviewed the development of models that attempt to predict the transition fracture behavior of BCC metals. the best cleavage fracture models available currently still include coefficients backcalculated from fracture toughness experiments. using the maximum principal stress as ~7in the BEREMIN model (eq. allowing dislocation emission and motion to occur more easily. Nevertheless. This leads to a greater possibility of microcrack blunting. easier for cleavage fracture to occur. which is the focus of current research efforts. Thus. in upper transition the occurrence of Event #2 cannot be assumed and must be checked for independently. While specimens that have load applied parallel to the crack plane are rare. these being necessary to incorporate into the models the temperature and strain rate dependency of ferritic steels. and Rice (RKR) in 1973 and working forward to the BEREMIN model. is high enough to prevent significant crack tip blunting [3738]. the current Beremin model includes an arbitrary and nonphysically based definition of the process zone for cleavage fracture. in its current implementation. (6)) fails to provide any measure of stresses applied parallel to the crack plane. In the Presence of Applied BiaxialLoading: Most fracture mechanics test specimens are similar in that the applied loading acts only to open the crack. Moreover. This arbitrary selection can be replaced by appeal to TWR's Event #1. Knott. beginning with the landmark paper published by Ritchie. consequently. which suggests that the process zone for cleavage fracture is the region within which sufficient strain has developed to initiate a microcrack. A remotely applied multiaxial stress state clearly makes it easier to achieve Event #2 and. the assumption that adequate triaxiality exists under all conditions is appropriate because the lattice friction stress. structures that apply load parallel to the crack plane are quite common. and a consequent failure to achieve Event #2. any internally pressurized vessel generates a biaxial state of stress in the vessel wall. However. For example. calculation of the Weibull stress following the approach suggested by the Beremin group involves an arbitrary selection of the parameter ~. is high enough to prevent significant dislocation emission from the tip of the microcrack and. Thus. at temperatures higher in the transition region the friction stress decreases. and thus cannot be expected to predict failure for loading conditions of this type. which is temperature dependent. which is typically defined as either the plastic zone. in closing it is relevant to note that.18 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING InUpper Transition: In the lower transition region that RKR investigated. and thermal stresses are inherently twoor three dimensional in any restrained structure. f2 represents the size of the "process zone" for cleavage fracture. consequently. experimental .
1987. 1968. "Fracture Toughness in the Transition Region. J.. E. 4.. p. Ritchie. Orowan." Mechanics and Materials: Fundamentals and Linkages. Secondly. 131145. Tanaka. 112. and Rice. J. 589600. Knott. Eds. it needs to incorporate a dislocationmechanics based constitutive model such as that proposed by Zerilli and Armstrong. and that this increased generality is expected to reconcile recognized deficiencies in RKR. 36. instead they become integral parts of the model. E. 1966... . Institute of Physics and the Physical Society.. Meyers." JMech Phys Sol. 399424. T.. R.. 16. Wilshaw. 1968. Y.KIRK ET AL. 395410." Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids. To this end the use of a model proposed by Tetelman..F. Transactions of the Institute of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland.. 89. 28.F. 1973. 165. two enhancements are needed to the BEREMIN model. A. K. Wiley & Sons. We demonstrate that the TWR 3event cleavage fracture criterion is in fact a mode general expression of the critical stress / critical distance criteria popularized by RKR.R.F.R. First. pp. Smith. To address these shortcomings and progress toward fully predictive models. G. J. "Plane Strain Deformation Near a Crack Tip in a PowerLaw Hardening Material. and Ando. J.. 1968. pp." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. R. Knott. Yokoboro. M.. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 19 evidence demonstrating that successful blind predictions of failure cannot be made even for the simple case of applied biaxial loading calls into question the robustness of these models to the prediction of the failure conditions in engineering structures. a physicallybased criterion for cleavage fracture is needed so that the model can be applied with confidence to any condition of interest within the transition fracture regime. London. and Ran (TWR) is suggested. pp... pp.. p.. 1331. "Cleavage Fracture in Mild Steels.A. Hutchinson." Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 21. 16.. Rice. Vol.'" Int. et al. pp. and RKRlike cleavage fracture models (such as the BEREMIN model).W. E. pp. Physical Basis of Yield and Fracture. "On the Relationship Between Critical Tensile Stress and Fracture Stress in Mild Steels. J. "The Fracture MechanicsMicrostrucmre Linkage. and Rosengren. Conference Proceedings. T. 1945. Mech... Iwadate. Smith. "Singular Behavior at the End of a Tensile Crack in a Hardening Material. and Boceaceini. J. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Watanabe. 1999. Fract. Such models account for the physical phenomena responsible for temperature and strain rate dependency in ferritic steels so that these trends don't have to be back calculated from toughness data..
. Eds.M.. 1970.. et al. M. J. Eds. YJ. Vol. and Dawicke. pp.M..S. 9891015..."Fraeture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events. Philadelphia. N. 4.. "Constraint and Toughness Parameterized by T. N. K.W. K. M. Schwalbe.. Jr. 122. Rau Jr. C. and Amend. 1992.G. Hackett. [20] Kirk. T. Bigelow. "Investigation of the Ashland Oil Storage Tank Collapse on January 2.E. Wilshaw.H. 1995." Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids. Fracture Applications.H.. R. 1988.. Eds. pp. C. 147157. Dodds. [16] Chao.H. "The Critical Tensile Stress Criterion for Cleavage." Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids..A.61.M. 1993. Columbus.C. "Case Study in Probabilistic Assessment: Seismic Integrity of Girth Welds in a PreWorld War II Pipeline.W.. 641672." Constraint Effects in Fracture.... "Variations of a Global Constraint Factor in Cracked Bodies Under Tension and Bending Loads." Proceedings oflCAWT '99: Pipeline Welding and Technology. 48.. [17] Newman.. K. and Kirk. Ohio. M. W. Anderson. M.. C.H. October 1999. J. and Parks. Yang." Second Volume. "On the Fracture of Solids Characterized by One or Two Parameters: Theory and Practice. Shih. New York. ASTM STP 1171.. [13] CodeofFederalRegtflation 10CFR50.C. Shih.. ASTM STP 1171. pp. pp. Dodds.. 1991.R.1993.. 39. C. and Sutton. "A Framework to Correlate a/W Ratio Effects on ElasticPlastic Fracture Toughness (Jc). 1994. Mark Kirk and Ad Bakker Eds.R. W. American Society for Testing and Materials.. Philadelphia.20 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Rice." International Journal of Fracture.A.L.II..F. pp. Constraint Effects in Fracture. Koppenhoefer. pp. 2142. Reuter." Constraint Effects in Fracture. C. Frac.H. 42(4)." [14] O'Dowd." Int. [10] Tetelman.F.P. Hackett. M. Theory and Applications. and R. pp. K. Koppenhoefer. J. J. [ 18] O'Dowd. and Shih. J.. American Society for Testing and Materials." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. S. No. pp. and R..C. [12] Warke.629647. [15] Hancock. T. [19] Dodds. Karminen. Crews. Jour. McGraw Hill. A. June 1968. 1988." National Bureau of Standards Report NBS1R 82792.. and Johnson.A. D.T. E.. Schwalbe. 2141. E. [11] Gross.H. Mech. Edison Welding Institute.A. 1991. 40.. pp. American Society for Testing and Materials. "Effect of Constraint on Specimen Dimensions Needed to Obtain Structurally Relevant Toughness Measures"... "Family of cracktip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter .L. Structure of fields. 939963. et al. New York.F. 79103.. Philadelphia. R.F. "Family of cracktip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter .S.P. D..I. ASTM STP 1244. [9] . in Inelastic Behavior of Solids.T. 2.
(1992) i803. eds.. 61.E.N. "A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel.. 541. et al.L. ASME. F." Fracture.. 1983 Follansbee.." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. s AppL Phys. F. and M." Phil Mag. "The DuctileCleavage Transition in Alpha Iron.S. and Link. J.. Eds. R. ASTM STP 1389. A. Armstrong. Eds. "Application of the Weibull Methodology to a ShallowFlaw Cruciform Bend Specimen Under Biaxial Loading Conditions. J. Argon. Proc.L Zerilli and R. "The Size Effect in KzcResults... Series A. Armstrong.W.J.. J.W. p. X. B.F.. R. B. Weertman.. Eds.H.A. 1991. Zerilli and R. Acts Met. F. 2000. Mater.. (1990) 1580.. Gallagher.R. A.L. P. 1 March 1987.J. 1920.. p357.L. 1985." Proc. U.KIRK ET AL. ASME. W. and McAfee. Syrup. J. Ashby. 5.S. 40. Joyee. F. 221. Gao. Petch N.. 61. of the 1999 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference.J. Zerilli and R. 68. 163198.T. 1974:29(1):7397. 1959. No. "Cleavage Fracture in Surface Crack Plates: Experiments and Numerical Predictions. and L. and Joyce. Zerilli. Averbach. s AppL Phys. 14A.." Philosophical Transactions. "The Phenomena of Rupture and Flow in Solids. 1990. 22772287. 1975. Halford and J. Williams. Progr. Dislocation Based Fracture Mechanics.C.J. July 1999..H.F. J. pp." s AppL Physics. Cottrell. R.J. G. Ballistics.. R. Berernin. p.. S. Wiley & Sons.. Kocks. 7thInt.F. of the 2000 ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference. Bass." Proc. AppL Phys.W. Dodds. (1987) 1816. and Thomson. July 2000. Griffith. 1996. et al. Org.. H Cook. Fracture.81. X.. F. pp.H. 2044. Am. Zerilli and R.. 1989. 1959. U. and W.. and R. and Kooks. Armstrong.W. Armstrong. 31st Volume. Elsevier.M. Armstrong. LA. Dodds...L. TheoreticalAspects of Fracture. Averbach. 36. p. p. ON MODELING OF STEELS SINCE RKR 21 [21 ] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Wallin. Shock and Compression of Condensed Matter. Def. 1988. R. R.R. Tregoning. Johnson. Schmidt... Prep. P. p. A. Rice. "Ductile versus brittle behaviour of crystals. 1. Davison. B. Vol. or. "Dislocationmechanicsbased constitutive relations for material dynamics calculations. Gao. . Johnson. pp. Wiley & Sons.R. Sci. (ADPA). R. 19. 5464. F.. Amsterdam. The Netherlands. Tregoning.. American Society for Testing and Materials. "Effects of Loading Rate on the Weibull Stress Model for Simulation of Cleavage Fracture in Ferdtic Steels. K. 149163..W." Fracture Mechanics." Metallurgical Transactions.. W. Singapore: World Scientific. G. 22.
M. Methods based on the Weibull statistic. Threepoint bend specimen fracture toughness data of sizes 3x4x27 ram. Finland. S. P..VTT Indusl~ialSystems. such as the "Master Curve" methodology and local approach methods of fxacture have been developed and are able to characterize the scatter of fracture toughness test results and the effects of specimen dimensions on the data distribution. PA. Beremin model. t and Seppo TLlatinen1 Transferability Properties of Local Approach Modeling in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region Reference: Laukkanen.org . Kirk and M. Nevasmaa. which are taken as measures of performance with respect to quantitative applicability. Introduction The use of fracture mechanics in design and failure assessment is in some practices impeded by the difficulties in quantifying the structure related constraint and transferability properties of experimental test data.. Transferability of small specimen toughness data to real structures has long been the key issue in fracture mechanics research. Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior. Keywords: Brittle Fracture." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. and Tghtinen. Eds. ASTM International. making it possible to define JResearchScientistsand 2ResearchProfessor. Local Approach. 5x10x55 mm and 10x 10x55 mm are simulated in the ductile to brittle transition region using finite element methods and inference of local approach parameters is performed using pointwise collocation and stochastic methods. Current work addresses properties of a modified Beremin model in terms of material parameter consistency and transferability. Models such as the GursonTvergaardNeedleman and the Beremin model have been demonstrated to enable characterization of fracture phenomena over the entire transition regime. 2003. The suitability of the calibration methods and overall model performance are evaluated and demonstrated.~Kim Wallin. Abstract: Qualitative descriptive potential of local approach models for upper shelf and transition region has been well established.Anssi Laukkanen. Transferability. but quantitative application is still at developing stages..2 Pekka Nevasmaa. Erickson Natishan. 5x5x27 ram. West Conshohocken. crack depth and loading conditions may effect the materials fracture toughness. ASTM STP 1429. Wallin. The foundation for consistent local approach characterization of material failure has been set. Box 1704. Miniature Specimens. K. "Transferability Properties of Local Approach Modeling in the Ductile to Brittle Transition Region.FIN02044VTT.O. 22 Copyright 92004by ASTMInternational www.astm. T.P. A... It is well known that specimen size.
2. It can be stated that qualitative descriptive potential of local approach and damage mechanics models has been well authenticated. This collection of fracture toughness data in the ductile to brittle transition region consists of both irradiated and reference data ofA533B C1. respectively. Reference orientations were that of TL while the irradiated were LT. a calibration methodology producing the widest range of property transferability is presented. The feasibility of these methods to practical purposes has usually been demonstrated by performing parameter inference on the basis of attainable experimental data and in many cases it can be argued that even limited generality of the used methods is doubtful. To. Testing and material The material and experimental procedures are described in detail in [4]. The T28J transition temperatures are 29~ and +84~ and upper shelf CharpyV energies are 210 J and 129 J. The specimens are presented schematically in Fig. for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range). The testing and analyses routines followed ASTM standard E 18201999a (Test Method for Meas~ement of Fracture Toughness) and E 19212002 (Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 23 fracture toughness parameters for a given probability of failure and develop sealing models for toughness transferability.LAUKKANEN ET AL. Dependencies in the calibrated parameters are describes and discussed. A533B C1. The current work contributes to the matter by analyzing a relatively extensive fracture toughness dataset using a modified Beremin model [1. Irradiation of the steel was performed approximately 15 years ago at a temperat~xre of 265~ with a neutron fluency of approximately 1. 1 (JRQ) over a wide temperature range and with different size bend type fracture mechanics specimens.5 x 1019n/era2 (E > 1 MeV)./nitial crack length to specimen width was 0.3]. The investigated specimen geometries were of threepoint bend type (3PB) with sizes 101055 ram.5 and the specimens were sidegrooved 10% on each side. where the fracture toughness data is applied to demonstrate performance of small fracture mechanics specimens in the ductile to brittle transition region.1 (JRQ) in TL orientation has a field strength of 486 MPa and a tensile strength of 620 MPa. and on the basis of the results. 5527 mm and 3427 mm. but quantitative properties are a completely different matter. At the irradiated condition the yield strength is 687 MPa and tensile strength 815 MPa. Ongoing development of local approach methods for cleavage fracture has led to the introduction of several different types of material models and parameter calibration procedures. The experimental results are processed using the Master Curve method and two fundamentally differing local approach parameter calibration methods are applied on the basis of the dataset. 51055 rnm. 1. The specimens were tested in three point bending with a span to specimen width ratio of 4. respectively. .
The reason for this was that the testing and Janalysis followed E1820. all data violating the specimen size validity criterion were assigned the toughness value corresponding to the validity criterion with 8i = 0.( (1) . First. The effect of using the qfactor of 2 instead of 1. For the comparison of different size specimen data. 1 as prescribed in E1921: . Second. and for the calculation of the Master Curve transition temperature To. for Ferritic Steels in the Transition Range (E 19212002). A plastic qfactor of 2 was used instead of 1. To.9 as prescribed in E1921. for all data referring to "noncleavage" (ductile end of test) it was prescribed that 6i = 0. Master Curve Analysis The Master Curve analysis followed the ASTM Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature. all data were thicknessadjusted to the reference flaw length (thickness) B0 = 25 mm with Eq.9 is a 12~ bias of the To values towards lower temperatures. Two levels of censoring were4 applied. 1Threepoint bend specimens used in material characterization and numerical analysis.24 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Fig.
refers to the nominal thickness. Eq. was solved by iteration from Eq. Ko.20)4 .019[Ti To] } = +77"exp{0. B. the Master Curve should not be fitted to data below To . Ideally.LAUKKANEN ET AL.Ko_K~ (3) The estimation of the normalization fracture toughness K0. q . in the determination ofT0 the data were limited to 50~176 This is in harmony with the latest revision of the Master Curve standard. 3 according to ASTM E19212002: PI [ ~. To.2% failure probability was carried out on the basis of randomly censored Maximum Likelihood.50~ i.exp{0. the normalization fracture toughness. the effect of extensive ductile tearing should be avoided. In order to perform local approach parameter calibration on the basis of Master Curve scatter. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 25 The thickness.019[TiTo]}) s =0 The transition temperature. was estimated. Numerical analysis . Yield strength temperature dependency was evaluated following the SINTAPprocedure as rs =o_~r + le5/(491 + 1. Therefore. 2.e. corresponding to a 63. 4 [6]: +x 11. where RT denotes room temperature and O'y temperature is given in degrees Celsius. the limiting fracture toughness having a fixed value of 20 MPa~m. Also.8T)189MPa. ASTM E19212002.exp{0. data close to or on the lower shelf.118i . 2) [5]: ~1.019[Ti To] } (2) s (ll+77exp{0. regardless of sidegrooving.019[TiT0]} I1 ( K . To was estimated from the sizeadjusted Kse data using a multitemperature randomly censored maximum likelihood expression (Eq. (4) where the censoring parameter 6 i is 1 for uncensored and 0 for censored data. For all data sets. where a temperature fit becomes highly inaccurate and where deviation in the lower shelf toughness from the Master Curve assumption may bias the results. The Master Curve scatter is described by Eq.
L t~176 J (5) . Fig.26 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Numerical analyses at temperatures corresponding to experimental fracture toughness data were carried out using the WARP3D research code version 13. A mesh for a CVN size specimen is presented in Fig.crthlm]. 5x5x27 mm and 3x4x27 mm small 3PB specimens. 2. The three parameter Weibull model/modified Beremin model for cleavage initiation is presented as P/= 1exp[( ~ . On the basis of numerical and experimental fracture toughness results for the transition region the parameters of a threeparameter Weibull distribution were fitted using a maximum likelihood (MML) scheme. crt~ the tensile strength and N the strain hardening exponent.9 developed by University of Illinois [2]. This was performed using the WSTRESS [3] code and MatLab built evaluation routines. The deformation description was presented in a finite strain Lagrangian framework. The computations presented in the current paper were carried out in 2D plane strain conditions. Strain hardening exponent was evaluated on the basis of yield to tensile strength ratio using an expression developed by Auerkari [7]: (Cro/cr~ =(30"I/N)1/N). The elasticplastic material behavior was modeled with an incremental isotropic hardening formulation. The temperature dependency of yield strength was evaluated in accordance with the Master Curve method. 5x10x55 ram. where cro is the yield strength. 2Mesh usedfor CVN size specimen. Meshes were generated for 10• 10x55 mm. 8 node bbarstabilized 3D solid elements were used in the computations.
(8) where U e [0.in ). ) = met IIowl e x p . . to evaluate results process zone dependency. while the second method requires a reliable estimate of the normalization data and as such. o. 7. o .. m the shape parameter and o~ the threshold stress. fracture process zone. The calibration of the shape and scale parameters was carried out using a MML routine. Two different philosophies were adopted for this process. 5 was L ( m . 7 by inputting the experimental fracture toughness results. . The calibration process consists of determining the variation of the Weibull stress with different values of the shape parameter to find the maximum ofEq. . The process zone was defined as f] : o" 1 > )L. The form of used MML for a Weibull probability density function ofEq. 3 and 4. Experimental results The Master Curve analysis results for different specimens and irradiated and reference materials are presented in Figs. The first method is simpler and can be used even t9 "illbehaving" fracture toughness data.e.~ =(Ko . In this case MonteCarlo sampling is used to generate a large number of datapoints using Eq.K. o0. The Weibull stress is presented as 1 tv0g J (6) Vo is a reference volume set to unity and f2 is the where o~ is the first principal stress. a direct approach by using the actual experimental samples at a fixed temperature was utilized.1] is randomly sampled.. the Master Curve normalization toughness was determined and the resulting distribution was used to stochastically generate the sample for parameter inference.. where two values of ~ were used.o r i=l / Ecr. crwc. the scale parameter. The parameters were determined by iteratively finding the maxima of Eq. 8: Kg~.r is the number of censored samples.LN{1U}I/4 + K~n. it corresponds to a Weibull stress at K = K ~ . o. First. i. iM exp(nr)cr. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 2'7 where oWis the Weibull stress.h was identified with K ~ . the necessary number and quality of valid experimental data.~.LAUKKANEN ET AL. (7) where n . 1 and 2.~. Second.
... B = 5 m m W=Smm .1 ( J R Q ..... 3Master Curve analysis results for A533B C1...T o [~ A533BCI.irr) o. t 4(] 2O 0 20 T . 200 i I'"DUCnLe rocIf "~ ~ 100 ~ B~ .. .....l r r ) ~ = 687 MPa B : t0 mm W = 10 m m 200 ~ ... . 9 .I(JRQirr) %=687MPa 150 o CLEAVAGEl 9 DUC~LE  B:Smm W:t0mm O 95~.. n m / 5O c) 0 ~ .. .. J " i .T Or C ] A533BCI..t(JRQ.T O[~ Fig... Results for a) 101055 ram. / o 50 y 0 / 5% b) 0 .. ... . ~ .=687MPa .. b) 51055 mm and c) 5527 mm specimens.28 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING A533B C1....... i 60 40 20 0 20 T ..1 (JRQ) in irradiated condition. ~ i ...oo~ a) 100 40 I / do' 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 SO t00 T .. i J ... :25 mm ~ t ~ ~ J .
. . .... O N T R A N S F E R A B I L I T Y OF PROPERTIES 29 AS33BCI.40 1 20 i 0 i 20 i .so ... o 0 ..oo .. . . c) 5527 mm and d) 3427 mm specimens. . 1 (JRQ) in reference condition. .. `40' v 20 i 0 T . . + 9 . 9 .. Torcj Fig. .T+ ~ 95 o ..40 20 0 20 40 d) T.40 b) A533BGLl(JRQ)TL %=486MPa B=Smm W=Smm .1(JRQ)TL ov= 486MPa B = 5 mm W = 10mm 15o nr o CLEAVAGE 9 DUG~ILE To ....T.. E 5O l ...4o' ~o' o 2'o . [*C] i 20 i .l(JRQ)TL =v=486MPa B=3mm W=4mm *6O ... . b) 51055 ram. . 40 i c) T. ~..io . .. .1(JRQ)TL cy=486MPa B=10mm W=lOmm 250 t 300. 4 Master Curve analysis results for A533B CI. ... To ['el A53$BCI....LAUKKANEN ET AL...... ~ : a) o :ioo"8o' ~'.. 'o 1oo T. .. Results for a) 101055 mm. i .so ~ R~ ~ o ' Y i ~... . To r'c] ASO3BC1.
5 and 6 and the fitted temperature dependencies in Fig. 50~ d) 101055mm. the reference temperature differences being of the order of 100~ The old irradiated 101055 mm specimen results deviated from the other irradiated ones (also new irradiated 101055 mm specimens [4]). 100~ . 5Results for normalization toughness. The reference temperature differs by nearly 40~ which cannot be understood via any common means and probably results from deficiencies or mishandling during some stages of experimental testing or macroscopic material inhomogeneity.. Ko.. . The differences in results of other specimen sizes are of commonly observed order.for irradiatedA533B Cl. The normalization fracture toughness was evaluated at temperatures and with specimens where enough datapoints were available (nominally 6 or more in order to have a number of samples to identify distribution properties). . . . c) 51055mm. 7. The results of this evaluation are presented in Figs. 3 and 4 that the differences between the irradiated and reference state materials are quite high.2 ~ 0. a) 55 27 mm.30 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING It can be noted from Figs. b) 5527 ram.O.4 1. ~ 1 0.8 r 0.S/o. '' 95 % 95/~ ~" ~ 1.20~C. 9 DUCTILE K~= 145 MPakn .o 20 411 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Kjc [MPa'/m] K.1 (JRQ). since the results still follow the Master Curve.41 d) 0. . . .2 101055 T=100~ B=t0mm b=Smm 0 CLEA~)AGE . The minimum fracture toughness was fixed in all evaluations. the 3427 mm results differing from this trend by exhibiting to some extent a larger than expected scatter.c [MPa~/m] Fig.4 . 51055 T=50oc B=Smm b=Smm 1.4 1. ' c) 20 40 60 ' 80 ' 100 120 140 160 1 180 ' O CLEAVAGE 9 DUCTILE Ka=207 MPaqm K ~ = 20 MPa'/m J .6 0.
a B:3mm b:2nll 1. 40 .4 0. 1.2 1.2 1. 110 ~ and g) 3427 ram.00 . ' .6 0.Smm 3~k2~' T=tm~ 1.0 100 +zo K ~ p'dPa4ml 140 leo lao 3427 T=100~C B=$mm b=2mm 1.2 0. 110 %'..6 0.0 20 40 60 80 +00 120 K~e [MPa~tm] 140 160 180 0.. .4 O GLEAVAGE 9 DUCTILE 55. 20 40 60 80 Kjc IMPaSto] 100 ~~3o 1~0 140 f) 34'27 T:131~C B : 3 m m b : 2 m m 9 DUCTI~ .8 'E' 0.0 "~ I= 0.2 ~ 0.27 T=a0+C BmSmm bm2.0 .5 0. 9~ I~ = S3 Mpa4m 1 0.4.27 T=tt0*C B=Smm b=2. . Ko.0 0.LAUKKANEN ET AL.2 0.0 20 40 60 80 lg0 Kjc [MPar 120 140 160 180 0.'/ ~.0 d) zo 4o .r J / 9" 0. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 31 101055 T:410'C B=lOmm b=Smm 1.ea~.YJ" M I 1. . .. 80 ~ b) 5527 ram.4 0. .[I ~ / C. 20 .2 t.o 20 40 ~O ~0 t00 120 K~ [MPa~] '140 160 180 f5% b) 55.4 1. d) 3427 ram. 60 80 100 Kjc [MPa~m] . 0.8 ~. 1+0 I 9: 0. for reference A533B Cl.4 e) 0.4 '~ ~ +.4 @ 3% M=30 0.2 0. .0 3427' T=110oC B=3mm b : 2 m m o' CLEA~PAE " .2 0.~..0 0.5' o+6 0. 130 ~ . .~.4i 1. 80 ~ e) 3427 mm. .4 1.0 .2 o.0 90. 120 i40 160 Fig.6 ~ 0.. 1+2 ~_ G..4 0. 0. 100 ~ J) 3427 ram.8 ~.B 0..8 ~=mMea'qm K'k = 20 MP 1 95 r. 1 (JRQ).2 0o0 K ~ [MPa4m) 1. 1~ 1.. 80 ~ c) 5527. ..4 5~. .1055 ram. GResults for normalization fracture toughness. a) 10. .6 ~ ~ ' + o ~ ~ 1 7 6 c) o.Sram .
/ / / / '/' =s m lOO a.// o / 95 ~ / o / ft.LE T.. = r4 ~ / / .. . I =. is presented in Figure 8 for two cases. The effect of . The different process zone measures are indicated in the legends along with temperature. I I I I I r I eo 40 2o o 20 40 eo T . one irradiated and another for reference steel. estimates of failure probability. the Weibull stress.T O[~ 20 40 Fig. The results are based on MML collocation estimation directly on the basis of fracture toughness datapoints. 7Temperature dependency of the normalizationfracture toughness.calibration The numerical results comprise of calibrated parameters. [~ JRQ REF % = 486 MPa 150 O CLEAVAGE .~100 0 I I . T. ~ / /. Numerical results . K~ a) irradiated and b) reference.. and comparison of simulated to actual Master Curves.. 50 b) 0 1 I f I = I I I = I 60 40 20 0 T .32 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING JRQ IRR ~y [] 687 MPa 200 9 DUCTILE 150 To=. evaluation of dependencies and transferability of results over temperatures and specimens. ' " '" .5%'/' 9 DUCT. The cleavage fracture initiation stress.
. 9 and 10 as a function of temperature.0 ... " ~ o ~o ~oo ~5o 2oo 2~o ~oo K [MPa m~ Reference 3.. ..7.LAUKKANEN ET AL..0 . Irradiated 3...2 .. / ~ / 3  4  2 7 .:T~ ~= . T=IIO~..3427....0 05. for the scale and threshold parameters the scatter in the values is low enough to make them unnecessary. The results for the shape parameter include 5% and 95% reliability bounds....._T._: ..... respectively.S.~~ r : 50 100 150 200 250 300 19) 0.. The calibrated Weibull shape and scale results using point collocation are presented in Figs...C _.. ...427. T=130*C.. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 33 decreasing temperature with increasing stress for crack initiation is noted..L.... 0 1.. = ~ ~ /? ' 3. 8Weibull stress for a) irradiated 5t055 mm specimen and b) reference 3427 mm specimen...a. the cleavage crack driving stress appears to decrease as well. 760*6.0 K [MPa m~ Fig. Scatter of fracture toughness results is seen to affect the estimation results such that in some cases even though the temperature decreases.~o .5 3...
.  ~  ~  0 140 ~2~ ~oo 8O ~0 40 20 T ['CJ 5527. 2 = 2.. I r r M ~ t . Refezcrcr 20 3O. . . E1 i.2o " ..oi 5 9 E ! g) 6 . 9 9 . 0 . Boxes. . .. E 12~ 0 o L T a E 128 a) 44 b) .o. E 151 . . 9 .d 9 =. 2~. . J) reference 5527 ram. T 0 0 :~3~ T ! E ~2 9 " ! $ 15o . . 242420 ~ 2010 le. ' " ' " " " ' " ' " '"' ' 51055o reference 322B 24 . e)irradiated 5527 ram.o " ~ " o~ 40 T rq Fig. 1055. 9 . 9 . 9 .r " . g) reference 3427 ram.. . 5o.'. 9 . 25 ISO D 2O E ~s10~ E ~o J 0 5 i e) 5 OI 020 ~) T ['C} 40 . ~ 36 5527. d)reference. ~ . ..aeferr162 3O.34 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 101~55. 0 Tt'q 51055. ~'od~e. 51055 ram.o . 2 = 1.. 9 irrodtmcd . circles. 9 120 100 80 60 3427. 10 ~ c) O d) . . . . r i f f e a ' ~ 20 1~ 9 . b) reference 1 O1055 ram. 9Weibull shape parameter for a) irradiated 1 O] O55 mm. e)irradiated 51055 ram. ..
ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 35 The results of Fig. The analyses were all repeated using normalization fracture toughness based stochastic inference. the median fracture toughness being simulated to a good accuracy. 14. The threshold parameter is seen to attain very small values for smaller process zones. On some instances the trends do appear decreasing with temperature before increasing again as one approaches lower shelf. The specimen ligament dependencies of the scale and threshold parameters are smaller than those of the shape parameter. and the thickness naturally does not explicitly come into play in twodimensional analyses. The dependencies related to Ko are portrayed in Fig. the predictions for the cumulative failure probability are seen to perform quite well and consistently. 9 imply that material fracture toughness scatter. 11. The fact that some of the calibrations have been made to irradiated and other to reference state materials does not appear to play a part. 12 and 13. and vise versa for larger process zones. even though the results for the shape parameter are seen to contain a large scatter. The shape parameter is seen to be nearly linearly dependent on temperature as well as the scale and threshold parameters. respectively. introducing a shift in the calibration results.LAUKKANEN ET AL. The results for the Weibull shape and scale parameters are presented in Figs. this occurring via the corresponding magnitude of the Weibull stress values in larger/smaller process zone. It is seen that for smaller specimen sizes smaller process zone leads to smaller shape parameter. the actual transition temperature dependency appears quite moderate and on some parts even negligible. where the failure probabilities of experimental results have been evaluated according to ASTM E 19212002. the trends in the results can be seen without the interfering scatter. The effects of different process zones are seen quite clear in limiting the range of the Weibull stress as dependent on applied loading. at least to some extent. The dependency on ligament size in Fig. but since the results are given as a function of specimen size corrected K0 they also imply that the results are dependent on specimen size. even to some extent linear. The results for Ko do contain a similar temperature effect evident during increase of the normalization fracture toughness. The shape and threshold parameters of Fig. understood by the same analogy as above. Selection of process zone is seen to affect the results. Comparison between experimental and collocation based numerical cumulative failure properties is given in Fig. temperature dependency. handicaps the calibration performance with respect to the WeibuU shape parameter. In addition to the shape parameter being dependent on the closeness of lower and upper shelves. but on some instances the results also display continuously increasing trends as a function of temperature. 10 display a clear. Since in the MonteCarlo based generation of fracture data for the calibration the scatter is treated by the preexisting Master Curve analysis instead of the fitting routine itself. 14 is presented by the fact that the specimens are proportional in thickness and width. Overall. .
"r~ 5527. r e f c r u ~ r "" 15~E 1 . D tO. . 10Weibull scale and threshold parameters for a) irradiated 101055 ram.5. a) "rfq 51055. e) irradiated 51055 ram.g 0 = 15.0 0 E7 D e) 0.0 35 o t:)~E 2 5 i'OZO " " = 15. o.36 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 101055. (~th > 0"1 d) T ['q 5527. refeTeg~e 2. J9 reference 5527 ram. irradmted 3.520 1010. ir~dKrtcd 302. 51055 ram. ~e~e~ce T~cj o o D g) 05 T [~ Fig. . d) reference.5 D f~ . 0~ g~ . 0.0 2. 5  O ~)o 10~ = 1.0 g .5.5 0.0. pO = " ~ f 20... ir~di~t ed 30 10 b) "rtc~ 5S 25 20 .. oo. e) irradiated 5527 ram. " c) .52O2.~T ~'C~ 30 25o 202 3427. g) reference 3427 ram.~ o.o.. .55.~0~ 50 i 45< 4. b) reference 101055 ram.
a d ~ e d 1. Z~rodi~t~ 1.g o8 0.ezr K 1. 0.6.. d) too ~50 2OO ~50 9 ~ " 1.1. m') 1.1 o.6 0.90.~ " 1. 0.7 0. g) reference 3427 mm. .7 0. .u'a m *~] 55Z7 Reference 1.7.1.6 [~.0 [~a . 09 OJ. j) reference 5527 mm.0 o.LAUKKANEN El" AL. o3o22 I19 o9 9 .1 o.. 0.6 ol a. o.9 0. O9 f) ~4) lOO 15o 2oo 25o 3~ K [~*.r o. c) irradiated 51055 mm. 51055 mm. 0. o. 0.01 51055.o ' ~ " ~ ' ~ o. . b) reference 101055 ram.3.6 o.o b) K [~a m~ 51055 Ilef e. 02.5~ a .2 o. o"2" g) o.1.4" 03. O.o o9 K [MPo 34Z7 r~. . 9 .o o..g o. . e)irradiated 5527 mm.o o"2. 11Comparison of numerical cumulative failure probabilities to those of experiments: a) irradiated 101055 mm. 9 . 02 ~ o.o Ic [ t ~ a m 0~] 5527 I r r .7' o.3 o2" oio.4.o. ~ n l d ma't ed 1o IOIOY5 I ~ f ~ e r . ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 37 101055 .1..o 0.9 0206 0. 0.8.5. e) 0. ce 1. .3.o i K [Mi'a re*s) Fig.3.o o..8 0. d)reference.O o. " 0. e) 0. o7: 06 / P f [3 " ]~) 0.4.f ~J~ce m~ o8~ 0.
. .5. .~7 ~ ~ .1" 3. . 6 ' ~ Ko~ . 1% ~ ~.& ~2~ ~3 10"1055.5 2. 14Dependency of Weibull scale and threshoM parameters on Ko using stochastic inferencefor a) irradiated and b) reference materials. ~.38 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING i~odl~'e~.er~e.~ ./cr.o ~ . 3. . ~rradiatcd~ Stochastic lOt~55. I a I~1 101055. .~ E 16~ A 3 ~ Z 7 .x 0 ~ 0 b) T ['CJ T ['C] Fig. 2l~0 .0 0~ 2 t~ 1.2 o= 0 55Z7. . .8 2. 12Weibull shape parameters using stochastic inferencefor a) irradiated and b) reference materials.2 7 . . Z % z4~f.1 b) 5'0 6'0 " 7'0 " 8'0 ~) 1~10 ' 1 ~ 0 " 120 130 t40 '150 " do ' r " e'o ~ . .22. reference 21). . 2.~o 2. St o d ~ s t i ~ 13 ff 1010"55.(MPo m~ Ko [~U'a m~ Fig.5 a) T ['C'] O. St och~stic i . A A A 14Ig 12~ 2. .7 o2. * .'. Stochastic. 13Weibull scale and threshoM parameters using stochastic inferencefor a) irradiated and b) reference materials. .6 9 18.5 55.0 2. m = j o ~ o/c~r r o.1 o'. .. . . . g . .27. /x 10 a) 86. Zo~ ~ .02. I o a 5527.2a0 rcf~. .l 3.io.3.~ ~ a/%.9 2. 9 i ' 9 o 5527.5~ zX ~x 2.4.. g . 1% e 55Z7.55. w'fewnce =ClC5~ a SS. . io. . Z% sto~hast~:. 2 % E t2 . '~ 'rio ~o' ~.~ . b) o9 T [*CJ Fig.
15Comparison of shape parameters attained using different calibration methods. 9 .pointwisr collocation semiopen . Overall.pointwlse collocation 24 l 5527. differences between process zone specification being particularly nonexistent for 101055 mm size specimens. especially for the shape parameter. ~o " ~o T CC] .StochaStic Ka hosed based Z% 2% 20 16. '1% 0~ 9 to o T 5.stochastic K~ based 15. the scatter is effectively eliminated by using K0 and the Master Curve scatter expression as a basis of calibration.poJrrtwise collocation se. but not to extent of similar magnitude. and are naturally reflected then onto the scale parameter. T Cq 30 25 ~ open. E lz8E 15 1o. a 101055 ram.stocbastic I~ senliopell . I01055.miope~ . . while for the smaller specimens the steeper local stressfields produce a greater dependency on definition of fracture process zone.comparison between different calibration methods Remits pertaining the relative performance of the two applied calibration methods are presented in Figs. reference 28 open. The results overall display that the stochastic inference based methodology for attaining the parameters performs quite a lot better than the pointwise collocation type of an approach. Reference . The trends are clear and continuous. . o b) ~0 ~o 4o ~176 3427. The differences are quite considerable. 15 and 16.LAUKKANEN ET AL. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 39 Numerical results .. b) 5527 mm and c) 3427 ram. E ~2ao c) m I ~2a o ~la o rf~ Fig. a) 4. Reference 20 open . .
0 O= 19 0.i ~.2 V %.0 e o~ v ~r~2 D'o 1. i. but the results did not display anything differentiating from those attained for the reference ease.0 c) 0"014o T~ Fig.~ v %.1 ~ %.~erL~ 2.4O 0"0120 ~ b) r~q I r~ 9 9 m tTel & %. for the reference material and for a process zone specified by 2 = 1 a value of m = 9 was chosen. while for 2 = 2 m = 14 resulted.. ~20.40 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 10t055.2 3.5 L3 tE 1. These analyses were performed on the basis of the stochastically attained values. and following.z 5527.1 [. Numerical results . the largest discrepancies between the temperature specific results and 'generic' results are observed for all cases at temperatures of 50~ and 60~ At other parts of the transition the results are . The results of the transferability evaluation are collected in Fig.1 r> =.Z 9 %. a) 101055 ram. This is also observed from the results. Since the temperature related trends of all calibrated parameters are nearly linear. 16Comparison of scale and threshold parameters attained using different calibration methods. As such. the differences are bound to be the greatest at both ends to the temperature spectra. the differences are naturally expected to be higher at the end of the increasing transition where the change of toughness with temperature is higher. %. since they displayed overall a quality notably better than the pointwise ones. Also.5.z ~' =.5 I~ *.5 go O eel ~r ~. r. b) 5527 mm and c) 3427 mm. The irradiated cases were considered as well.z D %.et~he~'ic m cr.e.2 a) V 8O . r~ference 30IxlintvaL~. the different datasets were averaged with respect to the shape parameter and the cumulative failure probabilities were compared. 17. the error ought to be greatest at such temperatures.evaluation of parameter transferability To evaluate the performance of calibration performed specifically at a single temperature against a single specified value for the whole temperature range. o a.
8 0..1.5 0... 2 o ~ /l" ''l 03. .c 25Q ../ [:   .) .iii I / f~ 0.4 fl ~ t "ll If' .9 0..2." 101055. 17Comparison of temperature specific and general parameter results for cumulative failure probability for different process zone definitions.6: 0.5..9.LAUKKANEN ET AL.. r~ei~nce.~: 0. 3O0 35O 0 5o t00 150 2~0 m ~ ~1 .. T=llo'C . 0. Numerical results .5 i....0 3427.~ ...~ ~ r" K [~a o.......2 /~ / ::.i 0. ...~ 1~o'1~o2~2~o'~o'3..3 b) o.2 ( 0.. 0... 100 t50 20O .. .8... b) 5527 mm and c) 3427 mm.0 03 0.3 }: /" "~T=60"r ..0 . ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 41 surprisingly good...: 59 lOCI 0. reference... . . reference.r~Cerence. . .80.. /.. ... ::.4 0... 03. . ...5 / ~ 0. . . .. This is presented for the 5527 mm and 3427 mm specimens in Figs. o.8 l //y ~/ 5527.. .o'<~oo K [MPa m*'S] ~176 K [MPa m~ Fig. the differences between the specific and generic results being practically negligible..6 0. r~ee~e. .o O.1 50 /. % 0." .. O.. c . 2 ~o 1.6 .0 0.1 oo " .reference..T=780lC....4 0.o... 1....2: ::: "': i 300 50 100 150 200 2.~ ~ :5 :' " 0.. 0. a) o.7." ~ifi~ " ~Jc Ik 0.50 K [~* K [MPa m~ 3427...... aQ 1. 18 and 19. 0..0 o.comparison between Master Curves A complete view of the results is attained by comparing the results to the corresponding Master Curve analysis results... ~T = IO0*C.. o.30...=.. :... )y!i ~ ~ I0i055. o.0 I~ 2~ m 0~] 25O 300 ] o.6.0~  o.5O 300 35O K [~U'a m~ 55z7.7 0. respectively. a) 101055 ram.....7.. O.. ~ 0. especially for median fracture toughness. C) o.5~" 0.
40 20 T [~ 200 To=76~ E 15o a.18Comparisono f simulated and experimental Master Curves f o r 5527 mm specimens f o r a reference state A533B CI. / / 95 % / ( ~ / 0 a) i . i . 1 (JRQ)..v o 9 Duc~. . i 5% ~  generic. = . a) process zone 2 = 1 and b) process zone 2 = 2. .42 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING r:oc .~ To =76 C 9 . ~o = i 120 1 O0 80 60 . . / I I =E ulO0 5O h) 0 140 120 1 O0 80 60 40 20 T [~ 1 Fig. /.
LAUKKANEN ET AL. ON TRANSFERABILITYOF PROPERTIES
43
200
,~, 150
~U~100
o
50
a)
. 0 141
ic, c o
120
1 O0
80
60
40
20
0
T [~
ll'
'
I'
'
'
"
'
'
' /
'
,., 200
o
oE
/
/
95 %,/
/
9 DUCTILE
To=~:
150 Bo=25mm
o
9 /
//o
/
/
/
/
/
,,
~100
.o
50
b)
0 140
f I I i ill I
5%
~ I I
generic, 2 cro
I I I
120
100
80
60
40
20
T f'C]
Fig. 19Comparison o f simulated and experimental Master Curves f o r 342 7 mm
specimens f o r a reference state A533B CI. l (JRQ). a) process zone 2 = 1 and b) process zone 2 = 2.
44
PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING
The comparability of Master Curve results to simulated results is good in general, but as it was noted in the previous chapter the generality of the calibrated single set of parameters does not quite carry to the upper parts of the modeled transition region, i.e. the simulations and the Master Curve start to deviate as one moves towards higher temperatures. In any case, it does appear that a validity range of approximately 50~ can be attained. Discussion The calibration of modified Beremin model parameters on the basis ofpointwise fracture toughness data produced results with considerable scatter. Since in many cases the number of different temperatures was considerably higher than typically in such analyses, a synthesis on probable parameter values and their trends could be made, but on the other hand, several cases persisted which would have led to illmannered conclusions. Such situations occurred in particular when approaching temperatures lower than the reference temperature for a specific case. This is not to be inferred as a theoretical deficiency of the used local approach model, but rather a consequence of sample scatter, which in such cases were attributed to scarcity in number of data and the values of fracture toughness. In some cases when using the collocation type of an approach this led to severe ill conditioning when the analyses were performed at a low temperature (with respect to To) combined to large scatter of fracture toughness and a limited sample size. Overall, it can be stated that reliable analyses can be performed for a typical fracture toughness dataset (which the current data was to establish and present) but calibrations performed for inhomogeneous datasets or at temperatures significantly differing from the reference temperature may produce unexpected problems. This can be interpreted such that the calibration ought to be performed where the fundamentals of weakest link principles apply best. In using the calibrated collocation data specific to temperature, the calibration naturally produces a decent estimate in terms of cumulative failure probability. This is primarily related to the corresponding values for the Weibull scale parameter, which adjusts accordingly to produce a description of the failure probability. The calibration using stochastic inference produced clearly defined trends with minimal scatter, the remaining inaccuracies primarily related to the numerical modeling process as a whole. The Weibull shape parameterhad a consistently decreasing trend with temperature, which obeys its understanding as a damage rate parameter, i.e. as the temperature and the associated fracture toughness decrease, the demands set to initiating a cleavage crack decrease, overcoming the threshold for initiation with a lower value of the shape parameter. The scale parameter can be treated as the normalization Weibull stress, and in a sense, is a ductility property for the sample at a specific temperature. As such, its decrease as a function of temperature was clearly defined even for the collocation type of results. As a scaling parameter it also adjusts the calibration such that independently o f m a decent fit for the specific sample in question results. The temperature dependency of this parameter has been observed e.g. in [8]. The calibrated parameters displayed specimen size dependencies, which in the current work were apparent as specimen ligament size was considered. By considering the trends exhibited as a function of normalization fracture toughness it became apparent that for typical process zone definitions smaller specimens produce higher
LAUKKANEN ET AL. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES
45
estimates for the Weibull shape. This is logical if one considers the differences associated with near cracktip fields in the studied 3PBs, reported in published literature e.g. in [9]. If the states of constraint in the different specimens are inferred by using e.g. Qtrajectories for characterization, it becomes apparent that the smallest of the 3PB specimens have a much more local and steeper stress field than that of the 101055 mm specimen (i.e. a lower state of constraint). As such, the failure process zone becomes smaller necessitating an increase in the damage rate as the normalization toughness is decreasing with temperature. In such terms, there are differences between the predicted measuring capacities of the modified Beremin model and those of experimental findings, even though quantitatively the correspondence of the results may be satisfactory. The same analogy applies to explaining process zone dependencies, except that in some cases a 'too large' process zone can suffocate all trends in general and decrease evaluation performance. As it was noted the use of stochastically generated fracture data and the temperature dependency of the normalization fracture toughness to produce the parameter calibration was able to produce clearly defined dependencies between the parameters and temperature. This has much to do with the underlying Master Curve method, i.e. the superiority of using the scatter expression in the calibration is explained by the fact that the Master Curve analysis eliminates the uncertainties in analysis of the experimental fracture toughness results, while the large sample generated using a MonteCarlo method takes care of the rest. With respect to the parameters of the modified Beremin model, this evidently appears to be the most robust and statistically sound approach. The problem relies in analysis of the normalization fracture toughness. The experimental data of the current study barely enabled such an evaluation, and the number of fracture toughness experiments typically performed to specify the reference temperature can be too stringent to enable sound determination. The evaluations using specific temperature dependent modified Beremin model parameters and those averaged over a range of temperatures enabled quantification of transferability properties as a function of temperature. Except for the far ends in the studied temperature ranges the results were proven quite satisfactory with respect to cumulative failure probability. This was witnessed by the comparison of simulated fracture toughness temperature dependency and scatter to those of the Master Curve method. At the far ends, in particular towards the increasing end of the temperature range, the temperature independence of the parameters of the modified Beremin model started to lose their hold. This was seen as significant differences in failure probabilities erupted and can be expected since any temperature related effects are neglected. The range of application was, however, quite large, and for the 3427 mm and 5527 mm specimens studied in detail one can conclude that approximately 50~ was covered by a single mean valued set of parameters using stochastic inference. Relying on the temperature dependency of the normalization fracture toughness is crucial in this matter for the performance of the modified Beremin model, otherwise the explicit dependencies on temperature and stress need to be modified.
Pointwise collocation type of an approach suffered from intrinsic scatter of the fracture toughness samples. whereas the temperature dependency can be expected in the used local approach model. Simulated fracture toughness transition Curves were compared to the Master Curve ones. The reference temperature itself does not have a primary effect on the calibration results. The results of the work can be concluded as follows: Calibration of modified Beremin model parameters was reliably performed using methodology based on stochastic inference. decreasing prediction performance and the requirements set to the scale parameter and/or normalization fracture toughness. The Weibull shape and scale parameter temperature dependencies were identified for the current fracture toughness results. the National Technology Agency and the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK). unidentifiable trends and some illconditioned estimates highlighted in small sample statistics. This lead to uncertainties in calibration results. the Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). Too large of a process zone can decrease the accuracy of the estimates by adding "oulk' stress fields to the prediction of failure event. Using the temperature dependency of the normalization fracture toughness and stochastic generation of the calibration sample reliable estimates of failure behavior in the ductile to brittle transition behavior can be attained. For typically used process zones lower state of constraint necessitates a higher value for the shape parameter. . In general. Process zone definitions and states of near crack tip constraint produce a 'ligament' dependency on calibration results. In the current study the range of feasible use of a determined parameter set was approximately 50~ where the results were practically identical to those produced by the Master Curve method. but rather defines suitable surroundings for the temperatures where most reliable results are attained.46 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Summary and Conclusions Master Curve analyses of experimental fracture touglmess results were assessed using a modified Beremin model. Acknowledgements This work is a part of the Structural Integrity Project (STIN) belonging to the Finnish Research Programme on Nuclear Power Plant Safety (FINNUS) and the European Fusion Technology Programme (Association EuratomTekes). The work is performed at VTT Industrial Systems and financed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. vice versa for larger process zones. The model parameters were calibrated using two fundamentally differing methods and transferability of the results evaluated. both were found nearly linearly dependent on temperature.
22772287... pp... Laukkanen.. "Applicability of Miniature Size Bend Specimens to Determine the Master Curve Reference Temperature To.. B. 2001. 2001." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Keeney. pp. Gao. 14a. K. "Validity of Small Specimen Fracture Toughness Estimates Neglecting Constraint Corrections.. 1999. Bass and J. R. pp. NUREG/CP0131. OECD. West Conshohocken. ASTM International. and Link. WSTRESS. Auerkari. Eds. 1983. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Tregoning. "Recommendations for the Applications of Fracture Toughness Data for Structural Integrity Assessment. 481493. 519537. 1986. M. E... Espoo. ORNL/TM12413 RF. "WARP3DRelease 13. Numerical Computation of Probabilistic Fracture Parameters." VTT Research Reports No..LAUKKANEN ET AL. T." Proceedings of the Joint 1AEA/NEA International Specialists' Meeting on Fracture Mechanics Verification by Large Scale Testing. Vol. Oak Ridge. and Rintamaa. 3I) Dynamic Nonlinear Fracture Analysis of Solids Using ParaileI Computers and Workstations. Kirk and A.9. Vol." University of Illinois Report UILUENG952012." Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures. PA. pp. "On the Correlation of Hardness with Tensile and Yield Strength. "Consistency of Damage Mechanics Modeling of Ductile Material Failure in Reference to Attribute Transferability. R. Eds. Joyce. 1998. Wallin. F.. pp." 1999. 465494. K.. 68. Urbana. Bakker. 2O0O. Urbana. 1993. 22. Technical Research Centre of Finland. 1995. K. "WSTRESS 2. J.0. 24. R. First MIT Symposium in Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics. Pugh.. E. 416.. 12651296. Planman. Wallin. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . Vol. "Weibull Stress Model to Predict Cleavage Fracture in Plates Containing Surface Cracks. University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. C. Illinois. Valo. A.. P. Wallin. Bathe. A. Elsevier. X. R. R. A." University of Illinois Report UILUENG952013.. H. pp." Constraint Effects in Fracture Theory and Applications: Second Volumr ASTM STP 1244. K. M. Dodds. J.. WARP3D." Metallurgical Transactions. L. M. Ed. Illinois. ON TRANSFERABILITY OF PROPERTIES 47 References [1] Beremin. 310313. pp. "A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel.
astm. 2003. 48 Copyright 9 2004 by ASTM International www. Osaka 5650871. Abstract: A correction of CTOD for constraint loss in largescale yielding conditions is made on the basis of the Weibull stress fracture criterion. Japan. Weibull stress criterion. however. LTD. Amagasaki. transferability analysis.org . constraint effect. Keywords: brittle fracture.and Jcontrolled fields and depend significantly on the crack size and geometry of specimens employed. fracture toughness. that eliminates an excessive conservatism in the conventional fracture assessment and material fracture toughness requirement." Predictive Material Modeling: CombiningFundamental Physics Understanding. Department of Manufacturing Science. which is more significant for a high yield ratio YR and a deep surface crack in the wide plate.. the structural integrity evaluation and the material qualification rely on the stress intensity factor K. structural steels Introduction Fracture mechanics approaches to the defect assessment.. ASTM STP 1429. 2 General Manager. "Constraint Correction of Fracture Toughness CTOD for Fracture Performance Evaluation of Structural Components. Osaka University. Japan. It is known. The CTOD ratio fl is decreased to a large extent after full yielding of the wide plate component. Kirk and M. A case study is presented on the application of the CTOD ratio fl to the fracture performance assessment of fullscale cohmmtobeam connections subjected to cyclic and dynamic loading. K. American Society for Testing and Materials. FusoCho. that in largescale yielding (LSY) conditions the actual stress fields do not necessary follow the K. 18. PA. Suita. In notched tension panels and bend specimens with i Associate Professor. crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) and Jintegral as the mechanical parameters controlling stress fields near the crack tip. Hyogo 6600891. Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior.Fumiyoshi Minami ~and Kazushige Arimochi 2 Constraint Correction of Fracture lou0hness GTOD for Fracture Pertorrnanco Evaluation of Structural Components Reference: Minami. Sumitomo Metal Industries. West Conshohocken. Eds. Graduate School of Engineering. A CTOD ratio fl = ~3e / ~rre (< 1) is proposed. E and Arimoehi. The Weibull modulus m exerts a marginal influence on ft. fracture performance.. equivalent CTOD. This is due to a loss of plastic constraint around the crack tip. where 6rrP is the CTOD of a wide plate component and 83P is an equivalent CTOD of the fracture toughness specimen at which the toughness specimen gives a compatible Weibull stress with the wide plate. Erickson Natishan. Plate & Structural Steel Project Promoting Department. M. T. 21 YamadaOka.
On ihe other hand. As a practical application. the TSM does not reflect the variation of stresses within neartip stress contours and not consider a statistical aspect of cleavage fracture. 12]. respectively [15]. In order to characterize the constraint loss effect on the stress fields. Aparametric study is performed on the CTOD correction ratio ]7. This model insists on a similarity between neartip stress contours in different yielding conditions. that includes the effects of the work hardening property. 8c and Jc at brittle fracture initiation. Such constraint loss relaxes the nearcrack tip stress fields.MINAMIAND ARIMOCHION CONSTRAINTCORRECTION 49 a shallow crack. the crack size assumed in components and the Weibull modulus m related to a scatter of the material fracture toughness. a modified toughness scaling with the Weibull stress was attempted [9. In order to overcome limitations of the TSM. a marked growth of plastic zone decreases the crack tip constraint to a large extent while the standard fracture toughness specimen with a deep crack maintains a high level of constraint even in the LSY state. 10]. the fracture toughness to be used for the fracture performance evaluation in service conditions should be quantified in conjunction with the constraint condition. the Tstress and Qparameter at fracture can not be estimated in advance because they change with the load level as a function of the specimen geometry. Anderson and Dodds [7. Fracture toughness results for different specimen geometries are scaled with the Tstress and Qparameter at fracture. however. and transfers the fracture toughness in largescale yielding to one under smallscale yielding with equivalent stressed areas ahead of a crack. the Tstress and Qparameter were developed in the K. The Weibull stress crw is derived from a statistical characterization of instability of microcracks in the local approach [ 11. CTOD Toughness Scaling with the Weibull Stress This paper introduces a CTOD toughness scaling methodology to correct the constraint loss in largescale yielding conditions. Those methodologies focus the attention on toughness scaling in smallscale yielding conditions. Nevertheless. The Weibull stress orvis used as a driving force for cleavage fracture of ferritic materials. 8] have proposed a toughness scaling model (TSM) to correct the fracture toughness for constraint loss in the LSY conditions. For simplicity. the KT and JQ characterizations posed a problem in the fracture assessment. which leads to an apparently increased fracture toughness Kc. and given by the integration of a neartip stress CreffOverthe fracture process zon~ Vf in the form 0"14" :L r t]' vO ~'iVf ( [ffeff]mdVf] l/m (1) . the fracture performance of fullscale models of columntobeam connections subjected to large plastic deformation is analyzed with the CTOD ratio ]7. This paper addresses the constraint correction of CTOD as a function of the deformation level of structural components. that requires the attainment of a specified Weibull stress to cause cleavage fracture at the same probability in different specimen geometries. From a structural design point of view.and Jcontrolled fields. A series of fracture tests using different specimen configurations are required for the transferability analysis of test results [6]. The Weibull stress is used as a medium of the fracture transferability analysis.
of the wide plate. 8Wp CTOD " _.cr at brittle fracture initiation obeys the Weibull distribution with two parameters m and ~r u F(CrW. 18. 19] on the cleavage resistance of fracture mechanics specimens were successfully predicted on the basis of the Weibull stress criterion.~ O L ~3PR=I~. This paper quantifies the CTOD ratio/3 as a function of the applied strain e. . the CTOD design curve (= relationship between applied strain e. The critical Weibull stress aW. Because a direct connection of the material fracture toughness with the CTOD design curve may lead to a very conservative estimation of the fracture performance due to a constraint loss... . cr= 3P.) Figure 1 .~ >./ O 0 Applied strain.. and generally is in the range 10 to 40 [11.oF : Fractureperformance. ~oo L results (~3Pcr . the crack depth effect [1517] and the specimen type and geometry effects [13. Figure 1 illustrates the CTOD toughness scaling between the standard fracture toughness specimen (threepoint bend specimen with a deep crack is considered in this study) and a wide plate component with a crack.awPR J * ~ 0 CTOD design curve 1 ~. This paper defines the CTOD ratio/3 [19] as P = 3p/ wv (3) where ~rv? is the wide plate CTOD.cr)= l_exp[_ (Crw. . ~ ) cr mJ (2) that is considered as a material property independent of the size and geometry of specimens. .CTOD toughness scaling between wideplate component andfracture tough ness specimen by way of the Weibullstress.50 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING where V0 and m are a reference volume and a material parameter. 1319]. the CTOD ratio fl will pronounce a fair judgement of the incidence of brittle fracture. . .~ ] requirement ] ~~ . In fact. ('FracturetotJghness~ ~ . respectively. the thickness effect [13. and ~se is an equivalent CTOD at which the fracture toughness specimen gives the same Weibull stress as the wide plate. The mvalue reflects the distribution ofmicrocracks for the material. aiming at a reasonable fracture assessment as the: A / L 3P bend (e/W=0.5) : ' ~ plate t~ ~ I ~ f f ] $ W ~/ "~"~Wide 9 E. 14]. This feature enables the fracture transferability analysis among different specimen configurations. [ / v I [ Applied v I wP.J ( "~*~ Requireddef0rmabilit L~. o.p . and ~we) is conventionally used for the fracture assessment of notched components. and Vf almost corresponds to the plastic zone near the crack tip. In structural engineering fields. .: l I_.
respectively.004 0. Figure 2 shows the configttration of test specimens employed. a unit volume is adopted as V 0 for convenience [14].12 0.05 !0. Method for Determination of Kit .0 .004 <0. The plate thickness of each steel was 25 mm.0. with different work hardening properties were used.8 1026 1036 99. GT: Tensile strength.55 0.89 0. ejj. The fracture mode of the HT490 steel was almost pure cleavage. the Weibull modulus m has no relation with V 0. V Ceq HT490 0.02 0.1'9 0.MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION 51 . Critical CTOD and Critical JValues of Metallic Materials (BS7448Part 1 : 1991). o'y: Yield stress. The compact and deepnotch 3PB specimens with a/W = 0. A shallow notch of a/W = 0. W: specimen width) were of a standard type specified in the British Standard of Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests . where the specimen width 2W= 100 mm. Fracture tests were conducted at 100 ~ for both steels in a lower range of the fracture transition. The notch tip of each specimen was finished with a fatigue precrack of length 2. T : Uniform elongation . Low and extremely high YRs (yieldtotensile ratios) are noted for HT490 and HT950 steels. HT490 and HT950. an effective stress . [14] considering a random spacial distribution of microcraeks is employed in this paper. Transferability Analysis of Fracture Mechanics Test Results Experiments and numerical analysis were conducted to demonstrate the advantage of the Weibull stress criterion for the fracture transferability analysis.012 0.2.58 0. The selection of the reference volume V 0 does not affect the fracture transferability analysis.30! 0. Table I shows the chemical composition and mechanical properties of these steels. and the .03 0.Part 1.5 (a: notch length.3 for both steels.001 2. By contrast.61 0. Fracture toughness tests were conducted with the compact and threepoint bend (3PB) specimens.Determination of minimum required fracture toughness ~sfi to meet a design solution e ~ of structural components. Furthermore.5 mm. or.. The Weibull stress in this paper is numerically evaluated by the Gaussian quadrature using the isoparametric representation of finite elements [20].17 1. Chemical composition (mass %) C 0Si3_3 Mn P S Ni Or Mo Cu.Chemical composition and mechanical properties of high strength steels used 1.40 HT950 0.1 was also prepared for the bend specimen of HT950 steel. Hence. Test results were given in Figure 3 in terms of a cumulative distribution of the critical CTOD at brittle fracture initiation. Two highstrength structural steels. although the absolute value of the Weibull stress depends on V0.60 Mechanical properties (Rolling direction) HT490 HT950 1 (~y(iPa) O'T(MPa) YR=(~y/(YT(% ) ET(%) 356 520 68. the HT950 steel exhibited a small amount of the crack growth before Table 1 .Accurate estimation of fracture performance e=~ of structural components from frac~tre toughness test results 83e crAs for the neartip stress a_=in Eq 1 to calculate the WeibuI1 stress.3 13.01 .22 0. Tension specimens had a doubleedge notch (DENT) of a/W= 0.1 ~ 612 " Ceq=C+Mn/6+Si/24+Ni/40+Cr/5+Mo/4+V/14.
independence of o'~ cr on the specimen geometry. respectively. the evolution of the Weibull stress with the CTOD was calculated for the DENT and shallownotch 3PB specimens. _ 30 / ~ (a2) Doubleedge notched tension specimen for HT490 steel (al) Compact specimen for HT490 steel B=t=25 ~ ~1' Load P 250 _. Using the CTOD test results of the standard fracture toughness specimens. One for the shallownotch 3PB specimen was evaluated by a method proposed by Wang and Gordon [22]. One may argue the reliability of . The nearcrack tip stress fields were addressed by a threedimensional FEM with the FEcode.8.J ~ .05 mm. ~0 25 [I   ~. 5. I l/2w=1oo I. that is based on the area under the load versus CMOD record (CMOD: crack mouth opening displacement).7 18. brittle fracture.5 . the critical CTODs of the DENT and shallownotch 3PB specimens were predicted on the basis of the Weibull stress criterion. According to the Weibull stress criterion. the critical CTODs of these specimens are estimated as the CTOD level at which these specimens exhibit the same Weibull stress as the standard toughness specimen at any cumulative frequency. The estimated results are drawn with a solid line in Figure 3. W=50 62.01 • 0. A good agreement is observed between the prediction and experimental data.. The minimum element size at the crack tip was 0. that was common to all specimen geometries.r ' ~ Load P .'50 300 2W=100 r a=l 5 a~ I 8OO 250 e< B=t=25r 200 'P ' t=25jJ ~ 60 .52 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING / _(~12. ~. ABAQUS ver. A marked effect ofconstraint loss is observed in the DENT and shallownotch 3..75 T . The CTOD values were calculated according to BS7448Part 1 for the compact and deepnotch 3PB specimens and by the Dugdale model [21] for the DENT specimen.01 • 0. The mvalues determined from the standard toughness specimens were 17 and 20 for HT490 and HT950 steels.J I..~.I) Threepoint bend specimens (b2) Doubleedge notched tension specimen for HT950 steel for HT950 steel Figure 2 . apparently higher critical CTOD values than those of the compact and deepnotch 3PB specimens (standard fracture toughness specimens). 0=15 t: ~r I= _ 1000 2__. With these mvalues.=I.PB test results.Fracture mechanics specimens used in experiments. An iteration procedure [14] was employed for the determination of the Weibull modulus m.75 18... :=I I ' 200 ' (b.
_~ E 0 5 2 fl I f I I I o o o o o 0 o o o i Prediction (m = 17) > 0 O E 0 5 2 0 Prediction (m=20) r r I I I I.5 Critical CTOD (mm) 1. In order to address this subject. nonuniqueness in smallscale yielding conditions [9]. the mvalue determined by the iteration procedure.3) O A 9 O~ .. Table 2 gives basic variables employed in the FEanalysis. the size of a surface crack in the wide plate. which include the work hardening property of the material.5 1. a parametric FEanalysis was conducted to investigate the controlling factors of the CTOD ratio ]3.95 .5 are considered (Figure 4). 9 0 at 100~ o 9 98 90 70 50 30 3P Bend (0/W=0. For these specimens.. and the Weibull modulus m.]) DENT (a/W=0.05 0.3 0. A tension wide plate with a surface crack and a standard threepoint bend (3PB) specimen with a deep notch ofa/W = 0.5~n indicated that such bias hardly affected the prediction of the critical CTOD.. where the Weibull stress is calculated over a specific region responsible for fracture initiation.at 1 o o ~ o o [] ~o O A 70 ~ v O 50 g 3o .1 0. In this study.3) 98 .0 (a) HT490 steel (b) HT950 steel Figure 3 .1 0..3 0.5) 3P Bend (o/W=0. where m is the Wethull modulus determined by the iteration method (m=17.03 0.0 Critical CTOD (ram) 0. Work hardening property : The work hardening properties affect the nearcrack tip stress fields to a large extent.5m < m _ 1.03 0..05 0. I 0.60 to 0.MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION 53 Coml~act (a/W=0. a bias was introduced in the range 0.5) DENT (a/W=0.20. The numerical investigation with m = m + 0. the YR (=err/err) was varied in the range 0. a ~amework begins in this study to construct the CTOD toughness scaling diagram that corrects the constraint loss in the fracture assessment in largescale yielding conditions. CTOD Toughness Scaling Diagram Parametric FEAnalysis As an engineering application of the Weibull stress criterion.20. It is demonstrated [18. 20 in this case).CTOD test results and estimation of critical CTODs of tension and shallownotch bend specimens based on the Weibull stress criterion.5m. 19] that the Weibull stress criterion is also applicable to the fracture transferability analysis of welded joints.
that was common to the 3PB specimen and wide plate component. The crack tip opening displacement o f the Table 2 . Cracksize : The Weibull stress of the wide plate component depends on the crack tip constraint as well as the process zone size of the surface crack. The mvalue ranged from 15 to 40 in the numerical analysis. Weibull modulus m : The Weibull stress includes the shape parameter m in the form of Eq 1. The parametric FEanalysis was conducted with the FEcode. o"T : Tensile strength. These cry.54 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING with a given yield stress o'y= 583 MPa. In the FEanalysis. (r e and e r values were referred to the mechanical properties of a high strength pipeline steel of grade 550 MPa [23].067 • 0. The uniform elongation e r (nominal strain at attainment of err) was kept constant. and the latter has a volume effect on the Weibull stress.Threepoint bend specimen with a deep notch and wide plate with a surface crack used for parametric study of CTOD ratio ft. the YR was also varied with a given tensile strength o'T= 711 MPa. JOHNIKE3D.Basic variables in parametric FEanalysis of CTOD ratio ft. . The former controls the intensity o f the stress fields. the length 2a and depth b of a surface crack were varied in the range 16 < 2a < 100 m m a n d 1 < b < 6 mm. For comparison. where m = 20 was used as a standard value. The minimum element size at the crack tip was 0. eT= 11. ET : Uniform elongation.4 %. 2 ~ : Equivalent throughthickness crack size Figure 4 .5 ram. Gy : Yield stress.067 • 0.
MINAMIAND ARIMOCHION CONSTRAINTCORRECTION
55
surface crack was evaluated at the center of the crack, and calculated by a tangential method [24]. The CTOD of the 3PB specimen was calculated according to the procedure in BS 7448Part I: 1991.
Effect of Work Hardening Properties
The yieldtotensile ratio YR (= ~ r / ~ r ) had a large influence on the CTOD ratio ft. Figure 5 shows the change in fl with YR for the surface crack of 2a = 40 mm and b = 6 ram, where the results are given as a function of the nondimensional overall strain eo~/e:~of the wide plate (or: yield strain). In the Weibull stress calculation, a standard mvalue of 20 was used. As described earlier on, the CTOD ratio fl corrects the CTOD ~zee for constraint loss in the wide plate so as to give the identical Weibull stress with the 3PB specimen. Namely, the wide plate CTOD offlSg7, is equivalent to the 3PB CTOD ~sP in terms of the Weibull stress. It can be seen that the CTOD ratio fl is considerably reduced after full yielding of the wide plate, which is more significant for a high YR. This is mainly related to a crack tip opening behavior of the wide plate, as described below. The change in YR under a constant crr condition gave substantially the same results as in a constant crr condition. Similar dependence of fl on YR was observed for other crack size and mvalues. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the maximumcrack opening stresses ( oyy r ) max near the crack tip for the 3PB specimen and the wide plate with a surface crack of2a = 40 mm and b = 6 ram, where the results for YR = 0.60 and 0.82 are shown. Due to a constraint loss, the wide plate component gives a lower nearcrack tip stress (trey)maxthan the 3PB specimen at a large CTOD level. The increase in YR increases the neartip stress (cry)max under a constant crr condition (Figure 6(a)), but d e c r e a s e s (O'yy)maxunder a constant crr condition (Figure 6(b)), respectively. Nevertheless, the difference between the Weibull stresses for the 3PB specimen and wide plate is nearly independent of the yield ratio YR. The work hardening properties also affect the crack opening behavior. Figure 7 shows the effect o f y R on the CTOD 8g,p of the wide plate with a surface crack of2a = 40 mm and b = 6 ram. A definite dependence of 8wp on YR is observed; increasing 8we with increasing YR in both o'rconstant and orconstant conditions. This is related to a localization of plastic strain: Low work hardening (= high YR) yields a marked strain localization in the crack tip region, which produces a large CTOD 8wP [2528].
1 •0 ~" 'i
i ........ crv : constant (ev=0.28%) "ii_~!i ''r ........i I ~ GT : constant (e,r=0.21.0.33%
...... = o.6o...i ........ m=26
O.8
...~ 0.6 . ~ ~!_~_'~. . . j . . . . O~ /~ i7!0 . ......... .~ ........ i . . . . . . ~ . 2a=4Omm .I
o,,
o.,izii!ii
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
~/~y
Figure 5  Effect of yield ratio YR on CTOD ratio [3.
56
PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING
Q. 400 300
200
~m: constant I
13. 400 "~ 300 200
~
Y
~

m 100 12.
I ~~ YR=0.60 ~. YR=0.82
t
/
I
I
~ lOO
t~
0.30
t~ "~
YR=~
I
I
0.30
~
o
0
I
I
I3_ 2200
E
2000
1800
~
~/~f'
0.10 0.20 CTOD, 5 (mm)
o
o
n ~ 3000
E
O.10 0.20 CTOD, t5 (mm) Gy: constant ] 3 P B ~ ~   ~
[[ CT:constant] ~" 2500
/Z
oS .oo 
1600
2000 Wide plate
t
1400 IJ~
O
[~r
_1 b=6mm l
~ ~ 1
12a=4omml
t
E 1200[~ [ ~ E tf l: ~
L :V_RoO.~I
lOOO" ;
0
~  ~ ; 0.10 0.20 0.30 CTOD, 8 (mm)
~" 1500 E E "~ 1000
2a=40mm l L b=6mm
I I
0
0.1 0.2 CTOD, 5 (mm)
0.3
(a) t~:rconstant condition ~o) t~},constant condition Figure 6  Effect ofyield ratio YR on evolution of nearcrack tip maximum stress and Weibull
stress for 3PB specimen and wide )~late.
t ........ ~ : constant _.Y ~y=o.28~ YRo95 ...~" ~T: constant ~..,~/
3 t~
Q,.
2
o.7ov~/,,.,f/"
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
e=/ey
Figure 7  CTOD  overall strain eoo relationship for wide plate with different yield ratios.
MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION
57
It can be understood from Figures 6 and 7 that the dependence of the CTOD ratio fl on
YR is mainly dominated by the crack opening behavior of the wide plate. Remember that
the difference between critical CTODs of the DENT and deepnotch 3PB specimens for HT950 steel with YR = 0.99 was apparently larger than one for HT490 steel with YR = 0.68 (Figure 3). This is consistent with the numerical results in Figure 5, small fl for a high YR.
Effect of Crack Size in W{dePlate Component (a) Effect of Crack Length The size of a surface crack exerts an influence on the Weibull stress of the wide plate in two aspects; the nearcrack tip stress errand the volume V~ of the 9 e]j j . fracture process zone. In addition, the crack size governs directly flae crack opening behavior of the wide plate. The CTOD ratio fl is determined by the combined effects of these properties. Figure 8 shows the effect of surface crack length 2a in the wide plate on the CTOD ratio fl for YR = 0.82. The crack depth b is fixed at 6 ram. The CTOD ratio fl seems to be not so sensitive to the crack length. With different YR, the results were almost similar. The little effect of the crack length 2a on fl on is discussed below. Figure 9 shows the evolution of the nearcrack tip maximum stress (O'ye)m~ x for different
1.o
........ i ......... i
]
er=711MPa 
o. 0.8 ~~ ........~........i[~u
vo
oo II
0.6
0.4 ....... !}i ........ ! ......... ....... i........ i ........ :........ ~._~.L ........ ~~f.i30rnrn ..i ........
e~
0 0
I 1
i
I 2
i 3
i, 4
i 5
Figure 8  Effect of surface crack length 2a in wide plate on CTOD ratio ~.
2200 ,.~2000 1800 1600
0
3PB 9 ""'"2"~'=100 mm
...................
1400 1200
16 mm
I I I I I
E ~
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
CTOD, ~ (mrn)
Figure 9  Effect of crack length on nearcrack tip maximum opening stress of wide plate.
/EymLi.~. " _ 1000 .82 [ 3PB ..... .. This contributes to decreasing fl for a long crack. 2o=100mm: ~ / Weibull stress for wide 5wp=0...2) lira "O'W(2az) (4) The Weibull stress in Figure 10 is slightly larger than one estimated by Eq 4 for a I > a 2.47rnrn 0. so that the CTOD ratio fl seems to be insensitive to the crack length 2a in the range of calculations in this paper (16 < 2a < 100 mm.82 ] . 1800 1 2a=100mm .. at e /ey.4 0. Such volume effect may lead to a larger fl for a longer crack9 On the other hand.... a long surface crack produces a large CTOD Swp..7' #16oo :" ~ ~ ~ .2 0..3 .. 0.. I:1... i 2a=4Omrn.5 .. As an example. i 1 . max length 2a....... The positive and negative effects are almost evenly balanced.4 "[ YR=0. Namely. 8 (mm) Figure 10 Effect of surface crack length 2a on evolution of the plate. the Welbull stress for the wide plate is increased with increasing the crack length 2a..1 0. ~'.14mrn w I I 0 1 e=/ey 4 5 Figure 11 . the CTOD 2000 YR=0.... as shown in Figure 11..~ ! m E 0...CTOD .. 0 0.. L )ol. as showia in Figure 10. the crack length 2a brings about two opposite influences on the CTOD ratio ft.oo .....: l . I.5 CTOD..3 0. . It is found that the 9neartip stress (or) is not affected very much by the crack ]5. ~" b=6mm I . m 0. the Weibull stresses for crack length 2a] and 2a 2 are related in the form O'W(2al) = (ai/a.=3 I . b = 6 mm).1 0 ~ / ~ / 1 t ~ I I I m ' 2 3 awp=0.overall strain e~ relationship for wide plate as a function o f surface crack length 2a. EyO28% " m m v E ~vP=.. a F. This is due to a volume effect of the surface crack9 Provided that the neartip stress ((rre)max is independent of the crack length and uniform along the crack front. The (O'yy)maxfor the 3PB specimen is also presented as a reference. However.58 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING crack length in the wide plate..
....26r.......25 0.t . the crack length effect on ]3 is slightly enlarged.. as discussed below...... ~ ......~ 0 0. 1400 O I ] 2a=A0mm J 0. b=6mm 0..4 .. % 22oo 2000t 3PB .~ .. ..... For a small mvalue..overall strain e~ relationship for wide plate as a function of surface crack depth b.. b=3mrn b=lmm I i E _.....~ .....i..r ..30 r i 0.CTOD ... i . say m < 15..~ .05 0.. ~ .. o... i .~ . ~...82 and 2a = 40 ram.2 0 " ~ 0 J 1 i i 2 i 3 = J 4 i 5 Figure 12 ........_... Figure 13 shows the effect of crack depth b on the evolution of the neartip maximum stress ( oy:y) m a x for the wide plate " A deep crack elevates the neartip stress (or) definitely.......~.Effect of surface crack depth b in wide plate on CTOD ratio ft...=O.. (b) Effect of Crack Depth .....~ ..5 ...7~..15 0 0 1 2 CTOD...........3 0.. as exhibited in 0... ee~ 0...rn O ' ~ b=6~" 1600 o.. I I YR=082 2a=4Omm ~Y=0'28% I "~"1800 r =011rnm ~ w p = w.... b=lmmt ..........10 0.MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION 59 ratio fl at the overall strain of e= / er = 3 is given in Figure 10.... ~ .20 0.6 ....The effect of surface crack depth b on the CTOD ratio ]3 is investigated in Figure 12 under a condition of YR = 0. 8 (mm) ~=/~y 3 4 Figure 13 Effect of surface crack depth b on nearcrack tip maximum opening stress of wide plate.......... The CTOD ratio ]3 is decreased with increasing the crack depth. ...... It should be remembered at the same time that the wide plate CTOD Swp is enlarged with increasing the crack depth.. 0..4 E~0......o~ 0.. yymax as informed by the study of Newman and Raju [29]. This may lead to a larger fl for a deeper crack...1 E 1200 i E .!. but the results in Figure 12 are opposite...2 /'~. This tendency is determined by a competition between the crack depth effects on the stress fields and on the crack opening behavior............ Figure 14 .. This is discussed later (Figure 16).
............3 CTOD.... I . .i... b=6mm ~ 1 8PB ....2 0 iiiiiiiii i I .... w h e n a large process zone Vfis combined with a small m.1 :i~ii~ii ..Effect of Weibull modulus m on CTOD ratio ft. . i(~"=6T2'~i%~:12a=lOOmm1 ~ : ~1 b=6mm I .. ..... 0.6 "iiiii_~.......i..... On the other hand.i"'i. that is shown in Figure 12.6 .i '}=~"um=:~O~:40... ! ......../ey (a) Crack length 2a = 40 mm (b) Crack length 2a = 100 m m Figure 16 ../Tm=2o!.. ... D. Figure 15 shows the evolution o f the Weibull stress for different crack depth........0 0..i...i(~v:0"28'.i I i I i I i 0 1 2 ~/~u 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 e. :.. i ...1 0.. A smaller fl for a deeper crack.... i~ i.... ..... "~ 1400 ~ ~ i 2 0 0 ~ ~ 1 3 _ atOZu/ey~_3 10001.........i. The CTOD ratio ~6 is slightly increased with decreasing m....... i 1.. i ....... "...... II .......i. which decreases the CTOD ratio ft....8 n 1. where the CTOD ratio fl at the overall strain o f ~ / e r = 3 is calculated as an example.... however...2 0.~176176176176176176176 1.. the crack depth effect on fl seems to be weakened (Figure 12).... Figure 14..8 0...... ~o 0. ....... ... i .... .. The deep crack results in a small C T O D ratio ft....im=15'~ '~ .. At a large deformation level...... :'....... The latter b e c o m e s active.60 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING ~ 1800 2000[ [ YR=0..... r" ' i / ..82 ] r2a=4Omml 1600 ~ ..4 ....i. 5 (mm) Figure 15 Effect of surface crack depth b on evolution of the Weibull stress for wide plate. I ..... ..4 .... 0 0....................2a=40mm " ~o 0.... Effect of Weibull Modulus The influence o f the Weibull modulus m is exhibited in Figure 16 for the surface crack o f 2a = 40 and 100 mm......./~ t [ b:6mm t" CO ~i .. The stress term is expressed as (cretin) ]/n and almost independent o f re...... the v o l u m e term includes the shape parameter m in the form V/1/m........i ....... This is explained as follows: The Weibull stress crw consists o f a stress term and a volume term..0 0....2 0 i I i i ] I i 1 i O....i[! ...i.........". suggests that the crack depth exerts a larger effect on the C T O D 8wp than on the neartip stress intensity of the wide plate.....i.T ~ : . However. the effect o f shape parameter m on fl is marginalfor m > 20.......
12~ 1250' Pin ~ support~ i 7::~L. 24 (Unit: mm) Figure 17 . a practical application of fl is included in the fracture performance assessment of largescale components. with/without expansion of the beam flange at the beam end.. the history of the load and strain (macrostrain) at the beam end was recorded.oo. Authors' recent study [31 ] has derived the relationship between the temperature shift ATpDand the flow stress elevation Aafez) "00 sup P'~ o__" J .Through diaphragm T / Hshaped beam ~ 500X200X 13X24 25O0 1/ 7 35~ FB9X2~ I16i ~ .k 28I Diapllragm flUaPnP(~. In WESTR 2808. Various details of connection were applied. Cyclic loading was applied to the specimens at 0 ~ Some tests were conducted in a dynamic loading condition. Method for Assessing Brittle Fracture in Steel Weldments Subjected to Large Cyclic and Dynamic Strain (WESTR 2808 : 2000) published by the Japan Welding Engineering Society. ~.I ~ i~ (BCR295) /~ OiliA~. The fracture assessment guideline.. A typical example of the specimen configuration is shown in Figure 17. is characterized by two key ides. During the tests. the strain rate at the beam end was in the order of 10 %/s. and the extension of diaphragm from the column etc. the results are described briefly. different curvature of the access hole. It was observed that brittle fracture was originated at the bottom of the access hole or from the weld bond near weld start/end of the coltmmtobeamjoints. ~ 35 =. The cyclic loading causes a prestrain effect.MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINTCORRECTION 61 Fracture Assessment of Steel Structures Using C T O D Ratio The CTOD ratio fl proposed in this paper has been implemented in the fracture assessment guideline. In the following. which elevates the flow stress and deteriorates the fracture toughness of materials. . The temperature shift concept (Figure 18) enables the fracture toughness evaluation in cyclic and dynamic conditions from the static toughness results without prestrain. Materials used were high strength strucatral steels (rolled Hshape steels) of 490 MPa strength class.~ :OXcolumn ~" Loadcell . although the mechanism is different from the prestrain effect. 1) a temperature shift concept for fracture toughness evaluation in cyclic and dynamic loading conditions and 2) the CTOD ratio fl to correct a constraint loss in structural components subjected to large plastic deformation. (.. that included the type of weld access hole.=. A series of largescale fracture tests of columntobeam connections have been carried out [30]. The dynamic loading also brings about a similar effect. A total of 30 largescale specimens were tested.Largescale test specimen of columntobeam connection.OoMPao. .. WESTR 2808.
18. respectively.~Tpo: Temperatureshiftcausedby " i J I prestrainand dynamicloading c (Static.4 was applied to all specimens as a mean value.62 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING O O t~ O AT. where Atr~ D and Aty~D are the increase in the yield stress and tensile strength. Noprestrain)at TATpD) ii I T : Servicejemperature TATpD T Temperature Figure 18 . Since the columntobeam connections failed at large strains exceeding 3er (er: yield strain) in the fracture region. . 19]. The yieldtotensile ratio.. by prestrain and dynamic loading at the service temperature T. YR. the ATpD  AtrfPo relationship is more simplified as :100_<AoffD<300(MPa) .5 to 18. Figure 19 shows the change in fl with the applied strain e** for the wide plate component..CTOD ratio flfor fracture assessment of columntobeam connections. (Aay +Aa~D)/2 (5) for structural steels of 400 to 490 MPa strength class.n/~.7 in asrolled conditions. of the high strength structural steels tested was nearly 0.~. from the analysis based on the WeibuU stress criterion. Prestrain I(3 (~c(Dynamic.Temperature shift concept for fracture toughness evaluation in cyclic and dynamic loading conditions. Figure 19 . the CTOD ratio fl for the columntobeam connections was evaluated with YR = 0. where a is a half of the equivalent throughthickness crack size. In WESTR 2808. Plrestrain)at T ] .2 mm. The size of a surface crack was varied in the range of2~ = 2. ~Dynamic.Static. The m = 20 was employed in the light of mvalues of recent Japanese steels [16.6 considering a reduction of YR due to the Bauschinger effect during cyclic loading. Nevertheless. An empirical formula for estimating Acrf ~ and Aare~ as a function of the prestrain and strain rate is given in WESTR 2808. the CTOD ratio offl = 0. Noprestrain .
.... i ...'" ... .MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION 63 The CTOD &of the columntobeam connections was evaluated with the CTOD design curve in WES 28051997 (Method for Assessment for Flaws in Fusion Welded Joints with Respect to Brittle Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth) 8 f (~z/2) (elocat i~y)2 (etocal < ~y) s x/(/l/2)[9 (eloca l/ey)..4 was applied to all specimens.'" ~176176 ~ 10./" ..'" .. 2) Correction of the fracture toughness for constraint loss in the columntobeam connections using the CTOD ratio ft.~ xa.... . ~ ..'" 1~~ / I . r ..5] (eloca l > st) (6) where eloc. Namely. . 102 / J " High toughness steel ~ b e r of specimens =30) .cr / fl' where ]7 .."" .l is a local strain in the crack region.. . ...0o . 102 101 10o 101 Fracture macrostrain measured (%) Figure 20 ... .ATpo in the static condition without prestrain (T : test temperature = 0 ~ The temperature shift ATpo was calculated with Eq 5.. L.. The fracture strain (macrostrain) at the beam end of the columntobeam connections was estimated as follows: 1) Evaluation of the material fracture toughness 8se c~ at a temperature of T . . where the prestrain accumulated up to the fracture load cycle and the strain rate in the fracture load cycle were used for the estimation of A ~ Pp.~. .'" 9 columntobeam . '.0."" ! 9 d..cr = ~sP.. The local strain elocat is converted from a macrostrain emacro using a strain concentration factor Ke emacro = elocal I K s (7) Typical values of K~ for the columntobeam connections are given in WESTR 2808. 10~ o~ "" o ~ . o I~ a ~' x Fracture at access hole bottom (Static) Fracture from weld bond (Static) Fracture at access hole bottom (Dynamic) Fracture from weld bond (Dynamic) Unobvious fracture origin (2a = 0.5 mm) Fullscale . ~rep.. .'..Comparison between fracture macrostrains of columntobeam connections estimated with CTOD ratio fl and measured in experiments.~ connections of I ~" 9 490 MPa class steels .1 / Lt.~ .
S. A. "TwoParameter Characterization of ElasticPlastic CrackTip Fields and Applications to Cleavage Fracture. Vol. etocal. "TwoParameter Characterization of ElasticPlastic CrackTip Fields. C. The corrected fracture toughness 8m~ ' cr was substituted for ~ in Eq 6. J. Major factors controlling ~ were the work hardening property of materials and the depth of a surface crack in the component. Further work is in progress to make a monograph for a simple evaluation of for engineering applications. [2] Beteg6n.l. that aims at establishing the procedure for fracture performance assessment of steel structures subjected to large cyclic and dynamic strain. Vol. 263277. "Influence of NonSingular Stress Terms and Specimen Geometry on SmallScale Yielding at Crack Tips in ElasticPlastic Materials. G.D. The estimated results are almost consistent with the experimental data. A CTOD ratio fl = ~P/~WP (< 1) was introduced on the basis of the Weibull stress criterion.." Journal of Applied Mechanics. A low fl was found for a low work hardening (= high yieldtotensile ratio YR) and a deep surface crack. as emac. "/he CTOD ratio fl corrects the CTOD of structural components for constraint loss in largescale yielding conditions. with the CTOD design curve (Eq 6)." Journal o f the Mechanics and Physics of Solids.. 21. The equivalent crack size ~ was calculated from a preexisting flaw or a ductile crack nucleated during cyclic loading. Y. Conclusions This paper focused on the CTOD toughness scaling between structural components and fracture toughness specimens. Thesis. W. It is expected that the CTOD ratio fl proposed in this paper will exclude an excessive conservatism in the conventional fracture assessment and material fracture toughness requirement. 104110. The fracture test of a structural steel of 950 MPa strength class steel was conducted in Nippon Steel Corporation as an investigation of fracture properties of high strength steels for future applications.F. pp. and Hancock.Y. Figure 20 compares the fracture macrostrain estimated with one measured in the tests. Department of Mechanical .. ~ = etoc." Ph. References [1] Larsson. F~ K e . pp. The courteous permission to analyze the test data is also highly acknowledged. [3] Wang. where Srre is the CTOD of a wide plate component and ~3~'is an equivalent CTOD of the standard fracture toughness specimen at which the toughness specimen presents the same Weibull stress as the wide plate. and Carlsson.. 1991.o.64 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 3) Evaluation of a local strain at fracture. Acknowledgments This study was performed as a subtask of the LDF Committee in the Japan Welding Engineering Society. The length of a surface crack and the Weibull modulus m did not exert a large influence on fl within the range of calculations in this paper. 1973. 58. J. The CTOD toughness scaling with fl was conducted as a function of the applied strain of the wide plate component and the CTOD S3p of the toughness specimen. The authors acknowledge useful discussions from engineering viewpoints and cordial supports by the Committee members. 4) Determination of the fracture macrostrain at the beam end.
493499." Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Japan.. C. "A Proposal for Specimen Size Requirements in Toughness Qualification with the Weibull Stress Criterion. pp. 1991. Paper 27. Vol. N.MINAMI AND ARIMOCHI ON CONSTRAINT CORRECTION 65 Engineering.. F. R. pp. Jr. R. pp. Vol. Vol.. T. [7] Anderson." Journal de Physique IV. pp. C. M. pp. 1992. CEA. [13] Bakker.. supplement au Journal de Physique 11 I. Minami. Framatome and AEA." International Journal of Fracture." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids.. 123134. 199 i. University of Illinois." NUREG/CR6259. 1998. "A Local Approach to Cleavage Fracture. H. R. et al. [14] Minami.. [ 12] Mudry. and Dodds. M. [4] O'Dowd. W. D. "Journal of Testing and Evaluation. Cambridge. Vol. 1992. 1992. [18] Minami." Metallurgical TransactionsA. C. A. R. Anderson. F. Vol. Hagiwara. Vol. 9891015. pp. "A Framework to Correct a/WRafio Effects on ElasticPlastic Fracture Toughness.. F. 1987. Structure of Fields. Br/icknerFoit.. 6576. 39. TWI. 29. 6265. N. 1994. "Calibration of Weibull Stress Parameters using Fracture Toughness Data. H. pp. and Hongkai.. "Specimen Size Requirements for Fracture Toughness Testing in the Transition Region. and Koers. 92. 48. 28.I. and Kirk. T. 197210. and Inoue. 122." International Journal of Fracture. Y. F. "Estimation Procedure for the Weibull Parameter Used in the Local Approach.. Munz. "Prediction of Cleavage Fracture Events in the BrittleDuctile Transition Region of a Ferritic Steel... H. and Dodds. Jr. and Toyoda. Abington. P.. Jr. and Trolldenier. Vol. 613632. M. L. 939963. UILUENG942009. 175200.. "Local Approach to Fracture Applied to Reactor Pressure Vessel: Synthesis of a Cooperative Programme Between EDF. 1996. Jr. M. Tagawa. 54. 1992." Journal of Testing and Evaluation. and Shih. [9] Gao. C. F. T. F. "A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel. Fracture Applications. Toughness TestsandApplications. X. Vol. 2000. J. pp. 14A. pp. T.. 19. [6] Dodds. Mechanical Engineering Publications.. [5] O'Dowd.. "Family of CrackTip Fields Characterization by a Triaxiality Parameter .. 315340. T. pp. L. Vol. J. 6.. pp. and Shih. "Family of CrackTip Fields Characterization by a Triaxiality Parameter. "Local Approach to Notch Depth Dependence of CTOD Results. Toyoda. F. A. pp. R. ." Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics.. F. M. and Mudry.II. pp. 1999." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. Coll6que C6. H. [8] Dodds.. [15] Di Fant. Vol. Y. and Frtmd. [11] Beremin." Nuclear Engineering and Design. 22772287. C6/243C6/257." International Journal of Fracture. "Evaluation of Fracture Toughness Results and Transferability to Fracture Assessment of Welded Joints. 40. 1991." ESIS/EGF 9. [ 17] Moinereau. P. 1991. B.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 105. [16] Ruggieri. Vol. T. Vol. ASTM STP 1332. "Constraint Effects on Fracture Initiation Loads in HSST WidePlate Tests. 1991.. M. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1983." Proceedings of International Conference on Shallow CrackFractureMechanics. 171. [10] Miyata. ORNL/TM12796. D. Ruggieri. "Interpretation of Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics Tests with a Local Approach to Fracture.
. 1980. 1. 151174. pp. pp. St. [22] Wang. "The StateoftheArt in Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Testing and Analysis. 146151. J. pp. and Sorensen." Metal Construction. H." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. pp. 304314." Pipeline Technology. 362372. Vol... Paper 28.. M. M. Toughness Tests and Applications. K. K..Background and Testing Methods. E. M. [30] Morita. 1963. K. F. pp. D. "Finite Element Solutions for CrackTip Behavior in SmallScale Yielding. E.. E. [21] Bilby. E. pp. 2001. Minami. "Stress Intensity Factor Equations for Cracks in ThreeDimensional Finite Bodies Subjected to Tension and Bending Loads.Y. Vol. and North... 357381. The Japan Welding Engineering Society. R. Katou. [23] Minami. American Society for Testing and Materials. C. Vol.. I993. A. "The Spread of Plastic Yield from a Notch. 1984. [24] Harrison. . 1979. Smith. 98. 1976. K. T. "The Effect of Weld Metal Yield Strength on the Fracture Behavior of Girth Welds in Grade 550 Pipe. Cambridge. E andArimochi. "The Limits of Applicability ofJand CTOD Estimation Procedures for ShallowCracked SENB Specimens.Y. Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology.. "Proceedings of Seminar on Brittle Fracture Incidence in Steel Framed Structures and Fracture Toughness Properties of Structural Steels. Arimochi. TWI. 1999.. Vol. 25. "ANumerical Investigation of Plane Strain Stable Crack Growth Under SmallScale Yielding Conditions. T.~ "Continuing CrackTip Deformation and Fracture for PlaneStrain Crack Growth in ElasticPlastic Solids. R.." ElasticPlastic Fracture. M.. H. 112. M." NASA Technical Memorandum 85793. G. "Equivalent CTOD Concept for Fracture Toughness Requirement of Materials for Steel Structures. and Toyoda. T. John's. J. [25] Tracey. 12. J. R. ASTM STP 668. "Finite Deformation Analysis of CrackTip Opening in ElasticPlastic Materials and Implications for Fracture. Abington. [31] Minami. and Raju. 1995. Vol. E. K. Nakamura. S. "Effect of Strength Mismatch on Crack Tip Stress Fields of HAZNotched Joints Subjected to Bending and Tension." Journal of the Society of Navat Architects of Japan. Toyoda. pp. [27] Rice.. Tokyo. Vol. and Arimochi. A. 1977. JWESIS9901. I. A272.. D.and Gordon." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. pp." Transactions of the ASME. [28] Sorensen. pp. and Swinden." Transactions of the ASME. J. [29] Newman Jr. 1999. C. 3342 (in Japanese). T." Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE)." Proceedings of International Conference on Shallow Crack Fracture Mechanics.. Newfoundland. 163186. 1978. 415422. "Evaluation of Prestraining and Dynamic Loading Effects on the Fracture Toughness of Structural Steels by the Local Approach.. 123. 543549. P. B. 441461. "Fracture of ColumntoBeam Joints. Vol. 26. Glover. Cottrell. H. 1992.66 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING [19] Minami. A. Journal ofEngineering Materials and Technology. [20] Ruggieri. E. OMAE99/MAT2130. Tanaka. [26] McMeeking. Vol. pp. pp.. Ohata." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. Part 1 .. 174..
Two approaches to model development have been defined. S.. College Park. University of Maryland. ductility." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. Electric Power Research Institute. Exploring the limits of applicability of the ZA equation used as the basis for this model provides the information required to firmly establish the limits of material condition applicability of the Master Curve. M. The Physics Approach seeks to derive mathematical expressions of material behavior from an understanding of the basic physical phenomena controlling the behavior to be predicted. PA 2003. Philadelphia. MD 20742. ASTM International. one that looks to understand and define material behavior at a very basic level (the socalled Physics or Local Approach) and one that seeks to use trends in experimental data to predict material behavior (the socalled Empirical Approach). Rosinsld3 A PhysicsBased Predictive Model for Fracture Toughness Behavior Reference: Natishan. and Rosinski. Eds. Inc. Dislocation mechanics.. Calculations based on limited data provide validation of the proposed model..Marjorie E. MD 21035. NC.. for the Master Curve. ASTMSTP 1429. Keywords: Cleavage fracture. M. Characteristic distance Introduction The goal of most any model development program is confident prediction of material behavior over a wide range of material and load conditions. Wagenhofer. M. T. Often. Steels. 67 Copyright9 2004 by ASTM International www. Transition temperature. T. It is also desirable that the input parameters be readily obtained.2 and Stan T. "A PhysicsBased Predictive Model for Fracture Toughness Behavior.astm. Natishan. 2 Graduate Research Assistant. Charlotte. Mechanical Engineering Department. Computational Methods. 3 Program Manager. E. Kirk and M.org . Phoenix Engineering Associates. The models ability to predict shifts in transition temperature with irradiation and its application to RP vessel integrity assessment will also be discussed. Davidsonville. and toughness) are interrelated through 1 President. The model predicts an exponential dependence of the plastic work on temperature and thus is comparable to the exponential dependence of plastic work predicted by Wallin et al. assumptions are made that many properties (strength.. i Matthew Wagenhofer. a physics model suitable for predicting the fracture toughness transition behavior of ferritic steels has been developed. If the model is well understood and accurately reflects the mechanisms controlling material behavior then the limits of applicability are well defined. Erickson Natishan. Abstract: Using the ZerilliArmstrong (ZA) constitutive model for BCC materials and a combined strengthstrain model of fracture. and Empirically Observed Behavior.
Therefore. In the Empirical Approach. The Master Curve method (ASTM 192197) for identifying the fracture toughness transition temperature for ferritic steels defines this temperature as that at which the fracture toughness is 100 MPa~/m. Problems arise in each due to the methodology and assumptions made. but instead. our goal was to define the temperature and strain rate dependence of the fracture toughness. This requires that every condition of interest be tested so as to determine these calibration factors. the models often need recalibration each time a microstructural featatre is changed. In this region the fracture mode is predominantly cleavage with little or no gross plastic deformation prior to cleavage fracture. The temperature region of interest in the current study is the lower transition region of the fracture toughness transition curve. depends on statistical analysis of data against test conditions to identify and derive mathematical expressions for trends exhibited by the material. it is often assumed that properties are controlled by some combination of physical phenomena that are not necessarily related. detailed microscopy. The Empirical Approach makes no such assumptions. This requires testing of all new material conditions of interest to bound the data. such as dislocation motion. those requiring high resolution. The general approach taken in developing this sort of model was to combine an appropriate constitutive model describing the basic physical phenomena controlling fracture resistance with mathematical descriptions of the failure criteria (cleavage). The Empirical Approach also has its limitations.68 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING their dependence on only a few. The objective of this study is to develop a relatively simple. physical. Typically model parameters are backcalculated from experimental data. phenomena that can be mathematically described with aknowledge ofmicrostructural parameters that control all material behavior in some way. resulting in a model that is not really predictive at all! Considering all effects independently can result in very complicated models with many calibration factors and the need to measure data on the material and service condition of interest is burdensome. This assumption only holds for properties within the temperature and strain rate region for which the mechanism of plasticity is dominated by dislocation motion. we cannot predict the scatter in the data. predictive model of material fracture toughness transition behavior that combines the best of both model approaches. The Physics models look to tie all global properties to a basic. basic phenomena. We started with the assumption that the temperature and strain rate dependence of plastic behavior is controlled by the temperature and strain rate dependence of dislocation motion within the material. The differences lie in the approach. It is often difficult to translate the local parameters to the global properties~ And often. More specifically. The Physics Approach models tend to require input of parameters that are often difficult to obtain. Each of these types of models can have an underpinning in a physical understanding of the mechanical deformation and fracture process and each requires some level of empirical calibration. This value occurs just above the lower shelf region and thus is well within the temperature region for which plasticity is expected to be dislocationdominated. TemperatureDependence Natishan and Kirk [ l ] utilized dislocation mechanics to provide the physical basis for the existence of a universal curve shape for the fracture toughness transition behavior .
B0. Natishan et al. and the initial dislocation density. the thermal constants for all ferritic steels should be statistically similar to those of pure iron. As such. This helps validate the proposed origin Of a single toughness transition curve shape. Strain is denoted b y e . the lattice presents itself as the only temperature dependent obstacle to dislocation motion in BCC metals [2]. the ZA temperature AND strain rate dependence of the flow stress is contained entirely in the yield stress and is due to PeieflsNabarro stress interactions. ON A PHYSICSBASED PREDICTIVE MODEL 69 of ferritic steels. including precipitates. Natishan and Kirk [1] proposed a predictive. ln~ and c o = o"o + kd v2. [3] showed that the temperature dependence of the yield strength of a wide range of ferritic steels is well represented by the thermal terms of the ZA equation using ARMCO iron values for. In the case of most BCC metals.NATISHAN ET AL. such as ferritic steel. a function of the lattice spacing. dislocation mechanics based description of the plastic work term used by Wallin et al.[4] to describe the temperature dependence of fracture toughness. k is the strain rate. making their effect on dislocation motion independent of temperature. Similar to Wallins proposed Master Curve Approach their approach assumed that the temperature dependence of the plastic work per unit area of crack surface created controls the temperature dependence of the fracture toughness. All other obstacles. is governed by the PeierlsNabarro stress describing the effects of lattice atoms on dislocation motion. This stress is. ill. Figure 1. therefore.80 .80. and B0. This behavior is well described by the constitutive flow stress equations proposed by ZeriUi and Armstrong [2] for materials of various crystal structures. = jOaowde. The equation proposed for BCC materials is given by: O'za = c o + Bo e .f l . precipitates.. K and n are constants specific to a material. T is the absolute temperature. solute atoms and other dislocations. d is the average grain diameter and oa is the contribution to the flow stress from solutes. Work conducted by Zerilli and Armstrong showed that as a result of the favorable comparison between the spacing of the lattice atoms and the magnitude of thermally induced lattice atom vibrations. leading to a uniform transition region curve shape. The values k. Fracture Toughness Model Recognizing the potential of combining dislocation mechanics with the Master Curve Method [ASTM E1921]. They suggested that the shape of the toughness versus temperature curve for BCC metals. They represented this plastic work term as: e~ w. fl0. ill.g + K s " (la) (lb) (l c) where fl = .e o (2) . have interobstacle spacings that are orders of magnitude larger than the thermally induced atomic vibration amplitudes.
(ff)dY (5) to the results o f a uniaxial tension test.. is defined as the slope of the uniaxial stressplastic strain curve at the current effective stress value.Yield stress versus temperature for a variety offerritic steels in various irradiation enbrittled conditions.. (4) to be useful. however. that is based on a uniaxial tension test. (4) In order for Eqn. this is done by correlating the following simple relation. The plastic modulus. Generally. In the current work.I r 150 * x "o 0 + ~ o ~ x >. ' 150 "O >"300 200 I r r I 1 &A I l 100 0 100 200 300 400 T e m p e r a t u r e [~ Fig.lrr Wed/Unlrr o o ~ Forging/Power Rate/Power Weld~ver 0 0 A Forging/Test Plate/Test Weld/Test 9 R 3oo Prediction E '< . It can then be shown [5] that the increment of plastic work per unit volume defined in terms of the stress and incremental plastic strain tensors dW. such as the ZA equation. (1) are used to represent the effective stresseffective strain relationship. = (3) is equivalent to that defined in terms of the effective stress and incremental effective strain dWp = ~d~ . 1 . 45O P= /~ ~ ~ + X X Forging/Lhlrr RatelUn. d ~ = H .70 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING where the integrand is a measure of the strain energy density calculated from a uniaxial tension test and g is the length scale over which the strain energy density is applicable The flow stress was taken as Eqn.l. If the material is assumed to be isotropic then the yon Mises criteria can be used to defme its yield surface. "'6OO Q. The incremental theory of plasticity provides justification for describing the plastic work with a constitutive relationship. Natishan and Kirk's [1] approach to a physically based model . Hp (~). Eqns. (1). a relationship between the effective stress and effective strain must be defined.t. By so doing.
With the constitutive stressstrain relationship taken as Eqn. [15] for CMn steel . ON A PHYSICSBASEDPREDICTIVE MODEL 71 is preserved while at the same time it is justified for use in a multiaxial stress state application such as plane strain fracture. specifically the limit of integration and the length scale. Chert and Wang [12] and Chen et al. Many researchers [69] have studied these mechanisms and attempted to describe them quantitatively to various degrees. This is well documented to be the result of dislocation motion and accumulation at longrange obstacles such as grain boundaries and second phase particles. In this case the fracture stress is the microscopic cleavage fracture strength and 022 is the normal stress perpendicular to the crack plane. given by 6cin Eqn. Through careful metallographic examination of a variety of CMn base and weld steel specimens tested at various temperatures. Wilshaw and Rau (TWR) [10]. These three quantities were examined in detail in a series of papers from 1991 to 1993 by Chen et al. There is a stress triaxiality ratio that describes the ability of the mierocrack to propagate through the first grain and there is a strength value that must be achieved at the next grain boundary in order for unstable fracture to occur. (2). The constants in Eqns. The stress fields of these immobile dislocations are additive and the net effect is a stress concentration that reaches the level of the cleavage stress of the second phase particle in question. but instead required that the material achieve critical values of each of the three quantities just mentioned ahead of the crack tip for unstable fracture to occur. If this tensile stress is just equal to or lower than the level of the fracture stress at the critical boundary of TWR's third event. We feel that as the temperature increases through the transition region it becomes increasingly necessary to quantitatively account for the ability of TWR's second event to occur and that the Chen model provides a solid starting point for developing a physically based expression for the plastic work involved in fracture. They state that three events must occur for cleavage fracture to take place in mild steel. can be examined in detail. (2). The second event is the propagation of the microcrack through the grain in which it was nucleated. The third event is the subsequent propagation of the microcrack through boundaries surrounding the nucleating grain.) the other parts of Eqn. Definition of these components first requires an understanding of the mechanisms involved in transition region cleavage fracture. There is a value of strain necessary to nucleate the microerack that leads to unstable fracture.NATISHAN ET AL. they measured the distance from the crack tip to the cracked carbide that cansed unstable fracture. then unstable crack growth will not occur. (1) necessary for the calculations in this paper were gathered from literature reporting tensile data for similar CMn steels and are listed in Table 1. The last criteria for fracture is stated as: o'22 > o': (6) "over at least one grain diameter in the plastic zone ahead of the notch" [10]. The thermal coefficients were taken from Armstrong et al. A measurable quantity can be associated with each of TWR's three events. TWR then state that the first two events occur more easily in materials such as mild steel where brittle grain boundary carbides are present leading to the observation of nonpropagating cracks [11]. They proposed a model of transition region cleavage fracture that did not contain a characteristic distance such as the RKR model [14]. In this instance we choose to examine the 1968 work ofTetelman. (1. [13]. [11]. The first event is mieroerack nucleation.
By using the friction stress.. defined as o. is used instead of the effective shear stress.23 [ I Fracture Stress and the Effective Energy Equation (2) is now rewritten here as the effective energy to reflect TWR's required events in addition to the use of the ZA equation as the effective stress and the Chen model's critical strain: ~c = ~Oz~dE. is not equipped to describe this constraint effect. Table 1 . (7) as a scalar multiplier Y~ = ..0004 K (MPa) 1198 n 0. the triaxiality ratio compares the ability of the stressstate to propagate the microcrack to the material's resistance to dislocation motion. ~i. (2). Eqn. Cry = cri + k d . being representative of the uniaxial stressstrain curve. The c0 value was the result of a bestfit calculation to the Chen and Wang [ 12] yield data. In the HallPerch definition of the yield stress. Said constraint causes an artificial elevation of up to three times the yield and subsequent flow stresses of the material [16].0075 I I ~1 (K "~) 0. The ratio itself is altered from that described by Chen et al.Coefficients used in Eqn. Analogously in the ZA equation for the yield stress. o (7) At this point. The numerator of the ratio remains the mean stress. Following Petch [6].~ = ~ + o'22 + ~ 3 (9) (~ The extent ofmicrocrack blunting is directly related to the ease with which dislocations can migrate away from the crack tip. (1 O) the friction stress represents all resistance to dislocation motion that does not arise from grain boundaries. [11] in that the material's friction stress. i. (1) that are not associated with grain boundaries. . . ~.o'zad~" e (8) k ai ) I o Here the subscript on the triaxiality ratio refers to the value at fracture at the critical microcrack location. Cottrell [7] described the necessity for a ratio that compares the normal stress to the shear stress. The ZA equation. ~m.Co(MPa) 176 _ Bo OVIPa) 1000 13o(K'I) ~ 0.~ . the friction stress is represented by all the terms in Eqns. (7) does not accurately represent the plastic work in a fully constrained toughness specimen.72 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING and are very close to the ARMCO iron coefficients used by Natishan and Kirk [1].e. Thus smaller strains are required to reach the fracture stress as compared to uniaxial behavior. the stress triaxiality ratio is introduced to Eqn.
a .e 13 o / I c 0.. Like Chen and Wang's data [12].. (1) describing the material behavior.Ir I .. being the product of dislocation motion. propagation of the micro crack through the first grain. 1~ 80 60 "40 20 0 Terrmrature(~ Fig.008 o~ra~ Ene~ Dem~ ~ [] t I .00 "c~ o 0.Chen and Wang [12] effective plastic strain to fracture and corresponding strain energy density (integrand o f Eqn. Figure 2 shows the Chen and Wang [I2] strain data and corresponding values of the integrand of Eqn.oo 6. 0~. Tetelman and Wilshaw's displayed an exponential temperature dependence..0. greater strains and thus more strain hardening is required to develop the stress necessary to crack the carbide. I .002 0. So as the temperature is increased.00 ORasticStrain 0..000 120 ZOO "~ o0 . Plastic strain. ON A PHYSICSBASED PREDICTIVE MODEL 73 (11) cri = era + Boe at + K e n Incorporation of the above form of the triaxiality ratio thus serves two purposes: 1) to properly account for the elevated stresses ahead of the crack tip and 2) to quantitatively represent the ability of TWR's second event.. which as previously mentioned. (12) In the current methodology. This dependence is seen explicitly by solving Eqn..010 . the strain of interest is that necessary to raise the stress sufficiently at the critical carbide to cleave it. is controlled by the friction stress.....NATISHAN ET AL.... O 8. (1 a) for the strain: [ 1 er CoBoe )]~.006 ct. I .m. decreases with increasing temperature. Tetelman and Wilshaw [17] calculated values of the fracture strain in threepoint bending for a carbon manganese steel...012 10.. With Eqns.. to occur. the strain will increase exponentially with temperature.004 o L__L/. 0. (8).. 0. The cleavage stress of an FexCy carbide is independent of temperature. (8)) versus temperature_ .. 2 . ] .
GIc. This leads to a greater possibility ofmicrocrack blunting and failure of event ~ o . but different. A comparison of Eqns. Thus an analogous. must be significantly large as compared to the friction stress so that dislocation emission and motion is suppressed. When the temperature is raised.25 ram).~ (planestrain) (14a) (1 .f (13) where ef is the tensile strain at fracture corresponding to the point ahead of the notch tip where the maximum triaxial stress is first reached [17. length scale is needed to fit into Eqn. however. So if the microeraek is to successfully traverse the grain in question. (8) can now be described by tumfaag attention to the following conceptual description of the fracture process zone. In 1973.. the friction stress decreases and allows dislocation emission and motion to occur more easily.. which can be represented by the hydrostatic stress. this is a safe assumption in large part because the friction stress. This is a temperature dependent quantity.25. Tetelman and McEvily suggest that the area under the stressstrain curve is more appropriate than the product of the yield strength and the fracture strain. This is because both TWR and RKR assume the insignificance of event two in the fracture process. (8) and (14c) leads to the conclusion that the length scale is twice the notch root radius. which is temperature dependent. The length scale of Eqn. Equation (14c) is valid for perfectly plastic materials [20].. (8).74 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Now we look at the length term at the end of Eqn.2po. the constraint at its tip. since increased temperature leads to cracktip blunting and an increased root radius. needed to cause plasfica/ly induced Mode I cleavage frac~tre is then: KI~ = / . however. They expanded on TWR's hypothesis and were able to confirm their own 'characteristic distance' of two grain diameters at lower transition region temperatures. Assuming that the crack tip strains remain small (s < 0. The RKR model does not perform well at higher temperatures. .. p = 0. Tetelman and MeEvily [20] suggested that the region of material in front of the notch of a toughness specimen could be represented as a series of small tensile 'specimens' of gage length 2p where p is the notch root radius. When strain hardening occurs. The mierocrack is thus allowed to grow to the next grain boundary. Thus the critical crack tip opening displacement can be written as 2Vc = 2pe. At lower transition region temperatures. 2122].2) GI~ = 2r (14b) (14c) . then all of the notch tip opening displacement will be concentrated in the 'specimen' adjacent to the tip [ 17]. The energy.6 . RKR [14] suggest a characteristic distance or length scale over which the stress at the crack tip must exceed the fracture stress of the material. is high enough to prevent significant dislocation emission from the tip of the microcrack and its subsequent blunting [1819]. (8).
Above and below the carbide. vis Poisson's ratio.NATISHAN ET AL. The concept is extended to the microcrack to illustrate the current choice of length scale in Eqn (15). the region to the left of the carbide can be viewed as a tensile specimen with a gage length that is. However. Inserting Eqn. Taking this gage length as the length scale gives the final form of the equation for the effective energy: YqI = cr fo fCrz~dE. Do.. ON A PHYSICSBASED PREDICTIVE MODEL 75 The fracture process zone for a carbide must include the material to the left of the carbide as shown in Figure 3 for it is in this region that the dislocations accumulate to crack the carbide.Schematic of Tetelman and McEvily's hypothetical tensile specimen concept as they applied it to the macrocrack.Do . as shown in Figure 3. (15) into the Griffith fracture equation leads to the elimination of the carbide radius from the Griffith equation: . So in a manner similar to the Tetelman and McEvily approach. The fracture stress of a material can be written using the modified Griffith equation for the fracture stress. 3 . 1rE 7~ 71/2  . ro is the size of the fracturecausing microstructural feature and 7effis the effective surface energy of the material that is dominated in the transition region by the plastic work consumed in moving dislocations. (15) Crack tip Carbide %~ Do = 2pQ Fig. the diameter of the carbide. (2c) and do not contribute to the stress concentration needed to crack the carbide. dislocations will move and accumulate at grain boundaries and other obstacles. these 'pileups' only affect the overall stress state of the material through the grain size term of Eqn. 207)ro j (16) where E is the elastic modulus.
__~.1 pan.I 9e (~ J [ . measured the sizes of the cleavage initiators...Plot ofplastic work versus temperature for results predicted from Eqn. (15) versus the equation derived by Wallin et al.o 1 < "E 3 0  / / / (zx A .I "~ "~ "~r t y" + we = 9. Numeric results for Eqn.'s. The difference in values at the various temperatures arises from the difference in yield strengths of the two steels. [4].. It is well known that in a comparison between two similar materials. the one with the higher yield strength will have a lower toughness at a given temperature. 200 150 50 (~ 0 50 Temperature Fig. Values can be calculated for Kle and compared to the measured Chen and Wang [12] values. Chen et al. the values calculated from Eqn. Wallin et al. 4 . (15) exhibit a curve shape that is very similar to the shape produced by Wallin et al..' I 100 r J ~ ~ ] = E q . (15) are shown in Figure 4 using their median carbide diameter of 1. 7s+wp equation.17 + O.76 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING = I xEY. f f I 20 .'s curve is based on a tool steel that has a higher yield strength than the CMn steel used in the current calculations..23 50 I / . 60 ~ PlashcWork/UnitArea [WST'~ 19841 Eqn. empiricallyderived. Fracture toughness values can be calculated based on the current methodology through the use of the following equation ..a 0 ' ' ' ' I ' ' '. r~.]'/z (17) In their metallographic observations.(416) n=0. As can be seen.
First.. (17) in which the length scale. Inclusion of the scatter data for the higher temperatures would certainly cause the curve in Figure 5 to rise more sharply with temperature as the critical strain values are greater. values of KssY. In Eq. (2o) The fracture stress is defined by Eq. . the current results for the CMn steel indicate a lower transition temperature.NATISHAN ET AL. Additionally. (17) and solve for K to get: Kss. Since the current methodology has a very strong dependence on the shape of the critical strain versus temperature curve.V7 = or.m 1/2.006 m are superposed on the Wallin et al. Fracture initiated in their test specimens at different distances in the crack plane ahead of the notch and application of finite element stress analysis to such results yields different critical strains for the same temperatures. it is important to know where any data lies with respect to the overall scatter. (15). ro cancels leaving a length scale that can be interpreted as a crack length. K values calculated from CTOD data [12] are shown for comparison to the current model. In this way. about 70~ at 100 MPa. Turning attention to the comparison between the two steels. data [4].m 1/2. Chen and Wang [12] state that their fracture model represents the lower bound of toughness versus temperature and does not account for statistical scatter. (18). In spite of these concerns. In Figure 5 values of Kssr calculated from the Chen and Wang [12] trend and average data with a crack length of 0. (16) into Eq. Also.. about 47~ at 100 MPa. lower bound data was chosen for use in the current study. r0. ON A PHYSICSBASED PREDICTIVE MODEL 77 g ss7 = ~ " (18) Some rearranging is necessary before coherent results can be obtained from Eqn. Since the yield strength of the CMn steel is approximately 100 MPa lower than that of the tool steel at all temperatures. was removed and the strain energy density involved in fracture is defined by Eqn.= . can be calculated. The correlation between the measured data and the current model is quite good despite the limited amount of data. rewrite the fracture stress as _ [~] EYseo (19) Now substitute Eqn. than that shown by the ferritic tool steel of Wallin et al. this is indeed a positive indicator that the current methodology can predict the shape of the curve as well as the shift in transition temperature. it can be seen that the current model's values do not rise as sharply at the higher temperatures as Wallin's data. This is most likely the result of scatter in the Chen and Wang [12] data. (20). As such.
~ K~r. Natishan and Kirk's original proposal for the form of the energy involved in fracture has been expanded to include the three requirements for cleavage fracture detailed by Tetelman.78 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING NQ ~ A5888v~ues 0 Llimacla~. 5 B Results offracture toughness testing compared to results predicted using Eq. The question of the appropriate length scale has been resolved by considering the size of the fracture process zone carbide. Q/ // / . Wilshaw and Ran. . / / /' ot 9 o/ # ).. J Ko. The calculated values of the effective energy compare favorably in both value and trend to the 1984 results of Wallin et all whose work forms the basis of the current ASTM Master Curve Method. Overall the results presented here are positive indicators that a complete model. Summary Significant strides have been made in developing a physicallybased model that can predict the shape of the fracture toughness versus temperature curve.Ii [] 1~ 1~ 50 0 ~ 1~ Test Terrpe"&u'e (C) Fig.~ 9 l i I%~ / .20.6 / 9 . 20 and datafrom NUREG/CR5504.~F~F::~CR~04 9 F~dd~ valuesob~nedu~r~ ct~ cua U2]~nEq.. utilizing finite element calculations is close at hand.
Z.. D. 7. Wang.21:395410.. L." Met Trans A. Zhu. O. Smith."JAppPhys. 13. 2044. Halford and J. Vol. Jr. "Further Study on the Scattering of the Local Fracture Stress and Allied Toughness Value." Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics. A. M.. F. Plasticity for Structural Engineers. ZeriUi.. J... PA. 1959.. 11.. "Statistical Model for Carbide Induced Brittle Fracture in Steel." Proc of Conf on Physical Basis of Yield and Fracture. Y. and TfrrSnen. Z.. 1968.. J. "Study of Mechanism of Cleavage Fracture at Low Temperature. 1991. 18:13. . 5464.. ASTM STP1360. Knott. West Conshohocken. C.." Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics.. L. Wang. Petch. et al. "A Micromechanical Evaluation of the Master Curve. 30. Eds. Cottrell. "DislocationMechanicsBased Constitutive Relations for Material Dynamics Calculations. T... 1992. 1984.61(5):18161825. West Conshohocken. Eds. Wilshaw. and Kirk. B." Averbach. E. T. Ran. L. '~fhe Critical Tensile Stress Criterion for Cleavage. ASTMSTP1389. Eds. B.. Eds. "On the Relationship Between Critical Tensile Stress and Fracture Stress in Mild Steels. 1." JMech Phys Sol. Chen. W. 1959. p.t 6. Rice.. K. M. Chen. P. 14. "A Theory of the Fracture of Metals. W.4(2):147157. J. N.. Wiley & Sons. P. 3. M.. Fracture. Z. K. 1966:3646. R. "Dislocation Mechanics Basis and Stress State Dependency of the Master Curve. 2000. Wang. Vol.. Tetelman. Natishan. "Further Investigation of Critical Events in Cleavage Fracture of CMn Base and Weld Steel. G. 2000. 1993. H. H. F. 5.. Z. J. Paris. 4. Stroh. Chert. L. Wang. ASTM International. H. Y. R. R. "The Nucleation and Growth of Cleavage Microvoids in Mild Steel. 31. ON A PHYSICSBASED PREDICTIVE MODEL 79 References 1. Ritchie.22A:22872296." Metal Science.. L. G. 9. G. N. PA. K. Zhu." Met Trans A. Wagenhofer." Met Trans A... R... F. A. "The DuctileCleavage Transition in Alpha Iron~" Averbach.. 8.'" Advances in Physics 1957. T. Natishan. and Kirk. Wiley & Sons. Gallagher. M. p.NATISHAN ET AL.. Gao. and Armstrong. ASTM International. 6. C.. 1987. New York: SpringerVerlag. Jerina. E. M. S.6.24A:659667. J. Wang. Saario... Wallin. J.. 12. 2. Fracture.. E. et al. H. R. 1973. "Theoretical Aspects of Fracture. A. 10.."lntJourFracMech. T. 1988. and Han...23A:509517.. A.. Z. G. Chen..
F. Nagumo. Samara. 1973.. O. Holt. Yah. Koide. A. Sun.. G.176(12):171175. F. J." JMech Phys Sol. A. 10011004. W. Mechanical Behavior of Materials.... HighPressure Science and Technology . Ritchie. Fracture of Structural Materials.. J. 1967. p. T. 20. J.... M.. M.. J.. 2 na ed. W. T. R. W..." Phil Mag. Upper Saddle River: PrenticeHall. 1993. H.. Shaner. C.42( 1):251261. New York: Wiley & Sons.. R.. Armstrong. S. Singapore: World Scientific. Dowling.. 1994. 15.. A. Weertman. 1974. E. 1999. W. A. 1994. Mock. Knott. Zerilfi. Eds. Thomson." Proc 2~t Intl Conf on Fracture.. R. J..80 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING 14. Yagi.21:395410. Rice. "On the Relationship Between Critical Tensile Stress and Fracture Stress in Mild Steels." Acta Metal. Kikuchi. Dislocation Based Fracture Mechanics. "Further Study on the Mechanism of Cleavage Fracture at Low Temperatures. Rice. Chart. "Ductile Versus Brittle Behavior of Cyrstals. Mater. McEvily." Marls Sci Eng.. J. J.. 17. 21. 18. Jr. Ross.. N. 16. 22..H...1993.. 19. A. J. 1996. M.. S. .29:7396. AlP Press. 1968:18/118/10. C. "Dislocation Mechanics Based Constitutive Relations for Plastic Flow and Strength of HY Steels. R. Tetelman. Tetelman. R. "Brittle fracture initiation in low carbon steels at the ductilebrittle transition temperature region. "A Criterion for Plastically Induced Cleavage After General Yield in Notched Bend Specimens. R. Jr.." Schmidt. S. Wilshaw.
using the ASTM E14572002 to evaluate C*. Comparisons of reference stress Crre f and the stress intensity factor K for a surface cracked plate under tension and bending and a pipe geometry under internal pressure and external bending using formulae from available codes of practices such as the R5/R6 [12].org . "Sensitivity in Creep Crack Growth Predictions of Components due to Variability in Deriving the Fracture Mechanics Parameter C*. Eds. Mechanical Engineering Department.astm. PA. Computational Methods. c*. using the same material properties and specimen dimensions. steels. SW7 2BX. that the uncertainty associated with calculating or~fcould be as much as +40% whereas for the stress intensity Kit is about +10%. constraint Introduction l Dr K. it is shown that predictions of cracking rates could vary by as much as two decades in magnitude. The tendency is that 'global' limit load analysis will give a lower and more conservative C* than the 'local' analysis. 81 Copyright 9 2004 by ASTM International www. UK. Nikbin l Sensitivity in Creep Crack Growth Predictions of Components due to Variability in Deriving the Fracture Mechanics Parameter C* Reference: Nikbin. on component defect assessment. T. high temperature testing. and Empirically Observed Behaviour. Abstract: In this paper the uncertainties in estimating C* creep fracture mechanics parameter. reference stress.K." Predictive Materials Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. The Crrefvalues are used to calculate C* using the mean properties of a base 316LN type stainless steel plate tested at 650 ~ and a crossweld P22 circumferentially welded pipe tested at 565 ~ Both the pipe and the plate were tested within a European collaborative programme 'HIDA' between (19962000) [5]. is considered. life assessment. ASTM STP 1429. West Conshohocken. M. fracture mechanics. BS790/' [3] and A16 [4] are made with threedimensional Finite Element (3D FE) analysis calculations. crack growth rate. M. Kirk and M. limit analysis. Keywords: creep. Nikbin. M. Imperial College. M. From the comparisons of the pipe and plate initial cracking rates. 2003. This inconsistency yields itself to an analysis based on an empirical model for predicting crack growth in components. It is shown. Eriekson Natishan. with standard creep crack growth rate data on compact tensions (CT) specimens. London. using different C* estimations. ASTM International. K.. k.
High Temperature Fracture Mechanics The arguments for correlating high temperature crack growth data essentially follow those of elasticplastic fracture mechanics methods. precracked pipes under internal pressure and bending with an axial elliptical crack.6].82 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING In order to predict. and a longitudinal pipe under pressure and fourpoint bend containing a circumferential crack. It is clear in these assessment methods that the correct evaluation of the relevant fracture mechanics parameters. creep crack growth rates in engineering structures both material properties and the fracture mechanics models used need to be examined in detail. for which the lifetime prediction times are dependent upon. Material properties vary in creep crack growth and are reflected as scatter in test data [5. The fracture mechanics parameters K. Defect assessment codes [14] in the power generation industry use linear and nonlinear fracture mechanics parameters to predict initiation and crack growth of components at elevated temperatures. c = A'oN and by analogy for a creeping material =Ao" (2) (1) . C* and ~q[510] will also contain a certain degree of uncertainty since the analytical and numerical methods for their derivations vary. will largely determine the accuracy of the life predictions. However as creep is a nonlinear time dependent mechanism even in situation where small scale creep may exist linear elasticity my not be the answer. C* and O're f are presented using three Dimensional Finite Element (3D FE) analysis and analytical modelling of collapse loads. For creeping situations [510] where elasticity dominates K may be sufficient to predict crack growth. High performance and parallel computing has allowed nonlinear and time dependant calculations of 3D geometries to be modelled faster and more efficiently. By using the J definition to develop the fracture mechanics parameter C* it is possible to correlate timedependent crack growth using nonlineR fracture mechanics concepts. A simplified expression for stress dependence of creep is given by a power law equation which is often called the Norton's creep law and is comparable to the power law hardening material giving. The differences are discussed in the light of life assessment methods for cracked components operating at elevated temperatures. In this paper a comparison of solutions of K. Results of standard CT specimens are also presented and compared to the experimental tests n the plate and the pipe geometry. Emphasis is placed on the differences in results that are obtained from seemingly perfectly acceptable methods and boundary conditions using the same material properties. with confidence. In some cases 2D calculations can now be performed interactively with the results of finite element calculations being incorporated into an assessment code. Three dimensional meshes are used to model a plate under bending and tension.
The C* integral has been widely accepted as the fracture mecharlics parameter for this purpose [510]. n. such as in laboratory Compact Tension tests. The stress fields characterised by K in elasticity will be modified to the stress field characterised by the J integral in plasticity in the region around the crack tip. creep strain rate and applied stress respectively. It is also evident from previous work [110] that for most creeping materials there exists a relationship between crack growth rate and C* so that d = D C *~ (5) . In cases where the loadline deformation rates are available.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACKGROWTH PREDICTIONS 83 where A'. A. However the engineering method available to calculate C*. The value of Plc will depend on the collapse mechanism assumed and whether plane stress or plane strain conditions apply. as described in ASTM E145902.N.o'. The collapse loads solutions are available for some geometries [14. t. When N = n for creep and plasticity it is assumed that the state of stress is characterised in the same manner for the two conditions. 1115] using. the creep loadline displacement is used for estimating C * . for component shaped tests.13] and in some cases need to be numerically derived. Equation (2) is used to characterise the steady state (secondary) creep stage where the hardening by dislocation interaction is balanced by recovery processes. are material constants e. Usuallyit is convenient to employ limit analysis [1315] to obtain o%ffrom (trey = ~ y Plc P (4) where Ptc is the co/lapse load of a cracked body and 17y is the yield stress. In the case of large scale creep where stress and strain rate determine the crack tip field the C* parameter is analogous to J. The data is used as 'benchmark' for materials creep crack growth properties in the same way as creep strain rate and rupture is in uniaxial creep tests. k and oare the strain. The experimental derivation for C* for standard laboratory CT estimates the parameter under steady state [69] or under small scale creep [10].:l J (3) where Srey is the unaxial creep strain rate at the appropriate Gre f . is based on the reference stress concepts [14. The typical value for n is between 5 and 12 for most metals.
7E27 1 0 .3'!7 I 0. France. For this reason specific O'refValUeS are used to calculate C* using the appropriate material properties.01 [ <0.036 17.0E27 1 0 .10 [ 0.l Mo I Ni I Cu Table 2The chemical composition C Mn Si S P Cr 0.batch SD.002 [ 2. The first specimen is a P22 circumferentiallywelded pipe tested at 565 ~ by SPG in Dresden.97 I 0.2% (/s) modulus yield (GPa) (MPa) P22 4e3 157 282 316LN 5. dimensions and loading taken from a precracked pipe and a plate component tests.9 2 . [ c 0.10 I 0!21 [ 0.8 365 27 2. Material Temp~ IA " ]n failure IRA% Condition Istrain ef] base 565 3. 0 2 0.17 I 0. The details of the materials properties. Both tests were performed within a European collaborative programme called 'HIDA' [7].0E24 8.8e30 10.313 0 .55 . for validation of results. Materials.59 0.44 [ 0.02 0. Germany. and the second is a type 316LN stainless steel plate tested at 650 ~ by CEA in Saclay.7 0.038 1.3 Table 3Tensile propenies of P22 Strain rate Young" s 0.8e3 161 170 Material (parenO Material P22 P22 316LN Table 4Uniaxial creep deformation vroperties. and creep crack tests for these specimens have been reported elsewhere by [7]. In addition.067 0. Geometry and Test Information The main object of the present exercise is to highlight and compare the differences that exist in the calculated results of Crreffor cracked components using available analytical collapse load solutions [14] and comparing them with 3D FE calculations.830 0.913 I 0.19 base 650 9.84 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING where D and r are material constants depending on temperature and stress state. 4 6 <0.014 Sn ethe test material 316 LN.4 412 65 " P Is I c.27 at 565 ~ and 316 L(N) at 650 ~ A' N UTS Failure (MPa^n) (MPa) strain (%) 5. standard creep crack growth test on CT specimens were also performed by part/aers [7] in the programme using the same batch of material and test temperatures. Ni Mo Ti I Nb N Cu 11.4] to predict crack growth rate under steady state conditions. geometries.3. 7 0.3e24 9. It is therefore sufficient to identify the relevant data that will be used in the present analysis. In general equation (5) is used in the codes of practice for high temperature defect assessment [1.01 0. 7 0.37 0. Table 1The chemical composition of the test material P22.65 XW 565 2.
..SPG's fourpointbend pipe dimensions in (ram) showing the loading points.. as shown in Fig....... The present analysis only deals with the cracking in the HAZ notch as there was insufficient growth in the base material.2 ram. surface crack length 2c=43mm ram.. >/[ > I Fig. Table 4 gives the uniaxial creep properties for both materials used in the evaluation of C* from the reference stress method. Table 3 shows the tensile properties of the steels at the relevant test temperature. . 7 MPa. 1.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 85 Tables 1 and 2 show respectively the material composition of the alloys. Containing a circumferential crack with initial crack depth ao=5. The crack was placed in the HAZ region for the pipe as well as in the parent.. 1290 63. . 2. 7ram. making sure that they were sufficiently apart not to allow interaction.. 1. z 1200 / [1< _. This information is used in the 3D FE limit load analysis. < I I . Since the pipe test contained a crack in the region of the heat affected zone (HAZ) of the specimen. The nominal dimensions for the pipe and the plate tested are shown in Figs. pipe thickness W=2Omm. Both geometries contained premaehined semielliptical EDM (electrodischarged machined) cracks with the notch tip diameter of 0. internal~external radius R/Ro=80/l OOmm.. 1 and 2 respectively. table 4 also gives the information related to crossweld (XW) uniaxial properties of P22.. internal pressure of 20 MPa and bending moment of 25. The bending and axial stresses are comparable in magnitude in the cracked section of the pipe whereas the plate was loaded under a primarily bending load. at 1 cycle/hour dwell at peak load. .0 .. It should be noted that the XW properties are shown to be very similar to the base material properties. 7KNm giving a bending stress of 100.. The pipe was internally pressurized and was loaded under fourpoint bend as described in Fig.
Essentially for deriving cr~ef from equation (4) calculations for collapse load of the cracked geometries need to be performed. Given the slow cycle dwell on the plate it has been shown [11] that the mechanism for failure is predominantly intergranular and creeps dominant. 2 . 3 was shaped circular for the pipe and flat for the plate using the dimensions given in Figs. However for the present purposes the mean material properties. The plate and the pipe meshes were modeled around a generic 20noded three dimensional (3D) mesh structure containing a crack shaped out of a series of collapsed elements as shown in Fig.1 Hz [511 ]. they will both contribute to an increased uncertainty in C* estimations. as shown in tables 3 and 4 will be used and differences derived only from o'~efsolutions will be considered.9mm.0 KNm. Therefore the extended mesh in Fig.86 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING Fig. It is also important to note from equation (3) that the important factors determining C* for the component ease is the correct employment of the material properties given the extent of scatter in the data [56] and the interpretation of the collapse load. 3. Since material properties data always contain an inherent variability and creep properties in equation (2) are sensitive to the creep index n. Finite Element Analysis The ABAQUS package [16] was used in the FE analysis to derive K and the collapse loads for the pipe and the plate geometries. plate thickness=2Omm. The present analysis therefore disregards fatigue and is carried out at maximum load where creep damage is at a maximum. at low frequencies of less than 0.CEA 's plate specimen dimensions in (mm) showing the loading points. does not make a major contribution to the growth of the crack. It has been observed that fatigue. surface crack length 2c=86mm mm. It was assumed that the material was made up of elastic perfectly plastic material as required for the . Initial crack depth ao=7. Only a quarter section of the geometries were modeled due to symmetry. width =175mm and slow dwell (l cycle/hour) bending moment of _+14.. 1 and 2 respectively.
local. The mesh used in the plate analysis was modified in order to fit the shape and dimensions of the fourpoint bend pipe with a circumferential semielliptical defect (a=5. stresses in the farfield (away from the crack) were linearly distributed and were null at the neutral axis of the plate. Bending solutions for the reference stress were also investigated using finite element analysis.Perfect plasticity in ABAQUS was modeled using the *PLASTIC option. In a purely elastic analysis run. Stress Intensity Factor K Calculations . and the second. The first one. For the plate. to validate the mesh. global measured at a remote point using the load displacement diagram giving rise to global plasticity in the pipe's section.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 87 calculation of O'ref. The second option consisted in linking a remote node to the node set containing the nodes on the top surface of the plate using the subroutine *EQUATION. as predicted by simple beam theory. two options were tested in order to apply a uniformly distributed bending load on the top surface of the mesh. A bending moment could then be applied to that remote node. in the net section of the defect when plasticity covered the section. of half the magnitude of the experimental bending moment (because of symmetry). The second loading option proved to be the best. Two measures of collapse were made. The first option necessitated the creation of 8noded shell elements using the top surface nodes of the 3D mesh. c43mm). A linearly distributed pressure (*DLOAD) was applied to the shell elements simulating the remote stress distribution in the plate. Fig. This bending moment would then be transmitted evenly to the nodes on the top surface.7 ram. The material properties used for the plate and the pipe analysis are shown in tables 3 and 4. The load was applied using the same procedure as for the plate. The pressure on the shell elements could then be transmitted to the plate. 33D FE mesh region local to the crack straight pipewith circumferential external surface semielliptical crack and the plate mesh with surface semielliptical crack were shaped around this mesh form. The elasticplastic plate and pipe were then collapsed by applying an incrementally increasing bending moment for the plate and a bending and pressure for the pipe. It was then decided to apply the load using the remote node option.
An elastic FE analysis was performed for the pipe and the plate and the results are compared to table 5. The codes [14] all use a closed form solution and for the present comparison.a/WandW/Ri (8) where the dependent on and are given in the literature [17]. This validation was an important prerequisite in using the meshes.(al3.j Gjare a/2c. The variation i n K i s shown to be small (about +10%) when comparing different methods for its derivation. Also since the subsequent FE runs were nonlinear elasticplastic and the meshes were modeled with cracks it was necessary to try different boundary conditions and loads in order to see the effect on the calculations. The @ relevant to this investigation were obtained from interpolation or extrapolation according to the dimensions in Figs. Validation of the mesh for the pipe and the plate was made by comparing values of the Jintegral calculated numerically using the *CONTOUR INTEGRAL with the above RajuNewman solution used for the stress intensity factor of a surface semielliptical plate. which can be written as: andFe z =IV.(~eele.88 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING A survey in the literature shows that there are several formulae to determine the stress intensity factor for the semielliptical crack.I2. However.a F(a a W) = where Q is approximated by: W .G I.f f "t )c' w ' (6) (7) is the boundarycorrection factor of an external surface crack.( R7 ]. the Raju and Newman formulae [17] are compared to the 3D FE calculations for the pipe and the plate. . all of them are based on Raju and Newman [17].G3] R. The K from Raju and Newman were also obtained for a surface crack by using a threedimensional finiteelement stress analysis and is defined as: R~ ~. [ o +2. for limit load and reference stress calculations.Gz+4.Gl+3. 1 and 2.(a <R. with sufficient confidence.
no assumption had to be made concerning the state of stress.78 18. It should be noted that generally global collapse solutions from the codes tend to give a lower C* values than local solutions as shown in tables 6 and 7.9 mm 17.m m ) (K in MPa. The results at a fixed initial crack length are tabulated in tables 6 and 7. It can be derived from the limit load of a component (see equations (3) and (4)) which is the value of the load parameter that corresponds to the end of the restricted plastic flow and to the initiation of the unrestricted plastic flow and collapse is the global failure mechanism associated with the attainment of the limit load [14. K calculations and the RajuNewman solution for the pipe and the plate assumin ~. 1 and 2.initial defect dimensions shown in Figs.2 21 Reference Stress Calculations The reference stress is a unique value of stress in a loaded body associated with a specific failure mechanism. Analytical expressions exist [13] for collapse solutions or the 'global' limit load can be performed numerically using a load versus displacement ctwve as shown in Fig. The various solutions for O'refand C* are then compared to the local and global solutions of the 3D FE analysis for the pipe and plate that use the same material properties. Fig. I Geometry Raju and Newman: 3D FE analysis: (K in MPa.02 Pipe: At deepest point a=5.m m ) Plate: At deepest point a=7. 4a). 7 mm 20. The finite element calculations show that the 'local' reference stress evaluated in the ligament is higher by almost 4050% compared to the reference stress calculated form the 'global' collapse for both the plate and the pipe. I and 2. 4a.13]. Also since 3D FE analysis used the actual material and specimen condition. . The choice of the local collapse region is therefore 'judgmental' and will give differences in the value for collapse loads reflecting on the reference stress calculations. However in cracked components the relevant parameter for limit load may not be global collapse but 'local' collapse. 7. The various life assessment codes suggest that Crref should be taken from the collapse of the crack region [14]. The solutions for Crrefhavebeen taken from appropriate codes [14] and are shown in the Appendix. The grey 'local' regions do not necessarily correspond to 'global' collapse (as shown in Fig. 4b shows a schematic example of the regions of local collapse around the crack tip that would constitute a relevant reference stress for a cracked body. Comparison of C* solutions In order to determine the significance of the different methods of calculating ~efi from equation (3) CrrefiSestimated for the initial crack length of the pipe and the plate test using the relevant material properties data shown in tables 3 and 4 and the applied loads set out in Figs.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 89 Table 5Comparison of the 3D FE.
with the starter crack in the HAZ region. give an initial crack rate of 1. P22 material.42 E3 mm/h respectively. Therefore a comparatively few tests have been performed [7]. in Figs. Figs. The crack growth versus time for the pipe and plate. The experimental creep crack growth data.is shown in Figs. C* was estimated from the XW data in table 4. The Figs. XW. as specific points for both geometries. b) Crosssection showing regions of local and global collapse.a) Schematic diagram of the global with respect to local displacement in a cracked component. in both cases. 7 and 8 also compare the CT data crack growth data for both alloys exhibiting the usual degree of scatter. For the purposes of this study an example comparison is therefore made between the experimental compact tension crack growth data and the pipe and plate data of the same batches of material [7]. that initiation of the cracks from the EDM notches occur instantly. Since material and specimen specific 3D FE analysis for the pipe and the plates were performed for one crack length only the present comparison with Grefis made on one specific load and initial crack length where test data exists. For the case of the pipe. 5 and 6 for P22 pipe and 316 LN plate respectively. . These are plotted. Analysis of crack growth rate predictions in components Testing of component sized specimens is both costly and the data difficult to obtain.36 E3 and 1. 7 and 8 versus the different calculations of C* values derived from the various or~fsolutions shown in the Appendix and detailed in tables 6 and 7. 7 also shows that the CT data for P22 exhibits little difference between the crack growth rates for the base and crossweld. 5 and 6. show.90 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Fig. 4. shown in Figs. chosen to highlight the sensitivity of C* to the choice of O'ref. Fig.
4E4 r b) a) 8. 8.'. ..No defectGlobal [1..7! .9mm.0E7 7..3D FE [MPa] 144 140 93 109 143 [MJm2h] 1. ~ .. combining Internal Pressure of 20 MPa and Bending moment of 25. at 565 ~C comparing different solutions for an Initial crack depth ao=5.2] A16 ... .5E6 8. loading of P22 pipe.2E4 9.3 9 r.. Initial C* Reference O'ref (MPa) BS7910 Local [3] R5/6 .. ~ . 6Crack tength versus time on first loading of 316 L N plate.. ..Local [!. 7KNm giving an initial experimental cracking rate q ~1. tested at 565 ~ Initial cracking rate 1..NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 91 Table 6Reference stresses and C* evaluated for P22 HAZ material properties. Reference Initial C* Gref B S 7 9 1 0 Local [3] R5/R6 ..1E6 1.0E6 Table 7 .. . .) 8.4. 7.Global [4] Global .2E3 mm/h.1E5 3.. 7ram.rate of l. tested at 650 ~ Initial cracking rate 1.7 IO 8.. Bending moment _+14KNm giving an initial experimental crack#..i f 6t It II J l l P t l l l I l ~ F I I I ! gJ II [ l l l [ P F l l [ 0 soo 1600 Time (h) 2400 7... 5Crack length versus time on first 9 Time [h] Fig.42E3. .Global [4] 3D F E Global 3D F E .3E3 mm/h. ... ...5 ~ 8 o o 0 '~ 8...Reference stresses and C* evaluated for 316LN steel at 650 ~ comparing different solutions for an Initial crack depth ao=7.' 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Fig..36E3.2] A16 ..Local 137 105 149 78 116 [MJ/m 2 h] .0 E5 3.3D FE Local . ~ .5E4 9.0 E6 1.....
for the plate. 6. It should be noted that the plate was predominantly loaded in bending.92 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING In Fig. 7Comparison of crack rate versus C ' f o r P22 parent and HAZ material at 565 ~ tested as CTspecimens. The details of the solutions are shown in the appendix. 8. These differences are likely due to the modeling of the large bending/tensile loading ratio that exists in the pipe test. It is clear that a detailed sensitivity analysis is required to fully quantify the differences in this case~ Fig. Fig. . At the same time what is termed as 'global' in A16 gives C* values higher that the 'local' BS7910 solution. 7 for the pipe the 3D FE results show the right trend of a lower Oref. shows the plot of C* derived from the codes and the 3D FE analysis. The 3D FE solutions also compare better to the analytical solutions in the plate than the pipe. versus initial cracking rates measured from Fig. From the different C* solutions and the 3D FE calculations there is a clearer trend for the global ~efi solutions of giving a lower C* values than the local solutions. with the initial crack growth rate of P22 Pipe material (in the HAZ region) using different reference stresses and 3d FE analysis.for the global analysis but when compared to the analytical solutions the local solution from the 3D FE is substantially below the rest.
7 and 8. Fig. Any comparison in this way should therefore be treated with caution. 8Comparison of crack rate versus C ' f o r 316 L N parent material. tested as CT specimens. 7 and 8 that the CT data can be described as conservative or not depending on which solution of C* is chosen. A scaling method is proposed which links the appropriate laboratory test data for crack growth to predict . The tendency is for the pipe to span over the CT data in Fig. It is clear that additional data over a wider range of cracking rates would be needed to establish these trends precisely. Effectively the range of C* solutions extend to two orders of magnitude. gives a tentative indication of how far predictions for crack growth would diverge depending on the choice of the C* solution. 7 and for the plate data in Fig. drawn parallel to the mean slope of the CT data. The grey region also highlights the region where the pipe data lie with respect to the CT data. Discussion and a Proposed Method It is difficult to dissociate the intrinsic problems involved in deriving crack growth predictions using reference stress solutions and relating the data to different geometries.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 93 Comparing the 'benchmark' CT data with the pipe and plate data it can be seen both in Figs. 8 to generally show higher cracking rates compared to the CT. Since the standard CT data is used to derive the crack growth properties of the material as proposed in ASTM E145702 and is taken as the 'benchmark' data in equation (5) for crack growth prediction it is important to be able to quantitatively relate it to component crack growth behaviour using the C* reference stress solutions. with the initial cracking rate of the plate tested at 650 ~ using different reference stresses and 3D FE analysis. The highlighted grey region in Figs.
However caution is advised as the specimen size and mode of loading may be different between the CT and the component. should be allowed for these differences.J (9) .C.94 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING crack extension in components. In order to deal with this problem the following should be taken into consideration . . Laboratory tests specimens should reflect the stress state of the component under investigation. If crack growth data for the relevant geometry is not available data derived from CT tests performed according to ASTM E145702 could be taken as the benchmark for any crack growth analysis prediction. at Dspec~. In this way these solutions. .ec. Reference stress is a convenient approximation for simplifying the evaluation of the appropriate stresses at the crack tip being relatively insensitive to creep properties of the material. At present this is only possible if a sample component shape is tested to validate the difference that exists in the CT data.02 needs evaluation. in the calculations. Once these steps are considered it may then be appropriate to use a scaling method to ensure a way to predict component crack growth similar to the method suggested for crack initiation in R5 [1]. Therefore the differences in constraint on testing geometries other than the CT used in ASTM E1457. once validated experimentally. Therefore compensation. Both size and geometry should match the component as closely as possible. Since capability to perform 3D FE analysis has increased substantially in recent years a wide ranging nonlinear 3D numerical analysis should be undertaken to tabulate the reference stress and C* for a range of crack lengths and geometries and components using both collapse load solution and actual derivation of C* from the contour integral. Furthermore an agreed solution specific to the geometry and mode of loading if universally implemented would reduce the problems associated with differences between solutions.~. The choice of the reference stress solution for the component should therefore satisfy the failure mechanism relevant to the component. . Provided that crack growth is in steady state and the value of in equation (5) and the creep index n in equation (2) is the same for the CT as well as the component then by using its. could act as benchmark solutions for every geometry.
7 and 8 shows the scatter in the same batch of P22 and 316 LN data. However for comparison between the same materials and similar size specimens.pe~< C~*o. Once the appropriate reference stress is established and C* for the component is calculated then equation (9) can be used and crack growth rates for the component data can be scaled with the CT benchmark data. this factor could be about 5 [18]. If batch specific data is not available and generic data were needed to be used for the defect assessment analysis it would be selfevident that a less accurate assessment analysis would be produced.NIKBIN ON CREEPCRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 95 where Dspec and D~o. C.pis the crack growth rate in the component.pfor the same cracking rate... It is shown from the comparisons of the .p. The value of tcis linked to the range of crack growth that could occur over the plane stress/plane strain range of crack growth [810]. The predictions will be conservative if C... Material Variability There is an additional factor other than parameter variability that is important in defect life assessment of components. The scatter in the data is a reflection of the time dependent creep damage and crack growth development and any other differences in deviation in specified testing procedures and specified specimen geometries. 7 and 8 is given by equation (5) as ~ and in the NSW predictive model [89] ~b=n/(n+l) it is clear that variability in n will also have an affect. Since the slopes in Figs. Figs. If tr when the component under test has the same constraint as the test specimen. taking into account validated results.~ is the experimental C* solution for the specimen using ASTM E145702 and C*~o. Conclusions In this paper the r values are used to calculate C* using the appropriate properties of a 316LN type stainless steel plate tested at 650 ~ and a P22 circumferentially welded pipe tested at 565 ~ These were tested within a framework of a European collaborative programme 'HIDA' between (19962000) [7]. Scatter in creep properties and creep crack growth data are well known [57]. p in the validated reference stress solution for the component and x is the constraint factor. This difference can be as much as a factor of 30 for a wide range of material properties and sizes.c~is the crack growth rate in the laboratory specimen. for evaluating C* equation (9) may be used to empirically predict crack growth in components based on laboratory tests. p are the respective constants in equation (5) for the specimen and the component. Subject to the results and the appropriate safety factors the reference stress solution can be adopted by identifying the relevant values of Dspec and Dcomp. It follows if the codes provide an agreed reference stress. This method will need knowledge of the crack growth rate for the generic component to establish the constants in equation (9). under creep ductile conditions. 3~o. fis~.
The methods bypasses the fundamental problem of the disunity that exist in the evaluation or the estimation of the C* parameter which needs further analysis. [5] ." Revision 3. However more experimental data on component type tests at different cracking rate as well as full 3D FE solutions at different crack lengths are needed in order to quantify this trend with the variation in. "Guide to Methods of Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Fusion Welded Structures. These should be validated using experimental. that a very wide range of C* values can be achieved. N.96 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING pipe and plate cracking rates. 2000. "Assessment Procedure for the High Temperature Response of Structures. France and APG. A. The advantage of this approach is that users of the codes can compare data and crack growth predictions of their data in a unified fashion. J. M. Nikbin. AFCEN. ligament size and a wider range of cracking rates. using the ASTM E145702 to evaluate C*. K." BSI. analytical and FE solutions. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank the partners in the European Commission funded 'HIDA' collaborative project (19962000) for the provision of the plate and pipe data which were tested at CEA in Saclay. Germany." MPA Stuttgart. M. British Energy Generation." Nuclear Electric procedure R5 Issue2. with standard creep crack growth rate data on compact tensions specimens. C. A. G. British Standards7910. Germany 4 . References [1] [2] [3] [4] Ainsworth. Celard for performing parts of the calculations. Thanks is also due to Dr N. Tan.. No account has been taken in this paper regarding material variability.. Paris. AFCEN (1985) "Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear Islands" RCCMR. Appendix A16.. 1999. "Assessment of the Integrity of Structures Containing Defects. using different reference stress estimations. based on different assumptions of the extent and mode of collapse. R. C.6 October 2000. For the differences found in reference stress and hence C* solutions in components it is suggested that the codes should choose specific solutions on the basis correct crack tip conditions. London. 1999. Celard. 1999. J. On this basis any differences found between component crack growth and standard laboratory crack growth should be dealt with using a scaling technique taking into account the differences in constraint between the laboratory test and the component test and adding appropriate safety factors. Webster. It appears generally from the present analysis that the global solution of reference stress produces the lower C* solutions compared to the local solutions. Dresden. The analysis of the plate and the pipe has highlighted the range of reference stresses that can be calculated from either analytical formulae or numerical results. "Comparison of Creep Crack Initiation and Growth in Four Steels Tested in the HIDA Project: Advances in Defect Assessment in High Temperature Plan.
C. Miller. 1992. Nikbin.. C. 21922.. 15. "A Comparison of High Temperature Defect Assessment. 396. Eds." Journal of Materials at High Temperature. A. Vol. pp.. E. N. 1998. G. R. S. "Prediction of Creep Crack Growth from Uniaxial Creep Data.." Effects of Product Quality and Design Criteria on Structural Integrity. 32. and Webster. pp. pp. 1320. M. 29. and Budden.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 97 [6] [7] [8] [9] [ 10] [ 11] [12] [ 13] [14] [15] [16] [ 17] [18] Nikbin. Webster. G. 293298. K. 104. "The Influence of Constraint on Creep Crack Growth in 316H Stainless Steel. 1989. Ainsworth. G. K. J. 1899." International HIDA Conference. / "Creep and Fatigue Crack Growth in High Temperature Plant. Saxena. pp.. 108. D. 197267. ASTM International. G. R. Sept. 1994... K. Nikbin. K. Series A." Materials at High Temperatures. Webster. Ober. M. pp. G. Edwards et. Eds. 201208.. July 2327.. pp. Bettinson.183193. J." Journal Strain Analysis." Journal of Materials at High Temperature. A. A. A.. D. A. Webster. C. M. Cellard. pp. M. J. J. Nikbin. Smith. 1986. I. EMAS.1982. M. and Newman. K. M.. Smith. G.." Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. "StressIntensity Factors for Internal and External Surface Cracks in Cylindrical Vessels. A.. "An Engineering Approach to the Prediction of Creep Crack Growth. 1998. Ober. N. O'Dowd.. ASME PVP. A.. West Conshohocken. M. R. N. R. 149159. "A Comparison of High Temperature Defect Assessment Methods.. Cambridge. PA.. P. M. D. N. ABAQUS.. ASME. K. 10. C. pp. Vol. 15(3/4) 1998." 2000.al. Joint ASME/JSME PVP Conf. R. Raju.. 1984. A." Proc." International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping. A. Vol. Chorlton. and Webster. M. Hawaii. Celard. "Nonlinear finite element package.186191.. H. 1998.337347. Tritsch. A.. 170." Structural lntegrity in the 21st Century. 2000.. J." Journal of Engineering Material and Technology. HKS. 7991. Honolulu. "Evaluation of Crack Tip Parameters for Characterizing Crack Growth: Results of the ASTM RoundRobin Program. Journal of Materials at High Temperature. pp. . 15. "Review of Limit Loads of Structures Containing Defects. Vol." Proceedings of the Royal Society. J. Ainsworth. "Approximate NonLinear Fracture Mechanics Calculations Using Reference Stress Technique. Rice. Nikbin. "Design and Assessment of Components Subjected to Creep. "Consideration of Safety Factors in the Life Extension Modelling of Components Operating at High Temperatures. Chorlton. ASTM STP 1337. J. Nikbin.
both hoop and radial stresses are neglected since they do not contribute to crack opening in the axial direction (only mode I is considered). Axial stresses (o'x) are obtained from 2 const.0) r. d0 where 2JrRo 2xRo (a4) N A (AS) (A6) and N= I I"'o(r'O) d ' ' e ~ 0 R~ where r is the distance from the crack tip and Ois the polar coordinate. O)gives . The bending moment M over the length of the pipe is given by (hi) M(x)=P. RjR.assuming a linear stress distribution (i. 1 giving ~M ~X x>__A = 0 (a3) Bending stress resulting from the application of this global bending moment can be obtained by the integration of M.98 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING Appendix A: Expressions for Reference Stress Loading and Stressesfor the Pipe under Pressure and Bending The fourpoint loaded pressurized pipe gives rise to bending (ob) and tensile stresses (oR) at the crack tip. For pure cantilever.e (Ro. In this instance. . N=O and ~ = o.I Ir'. hoop and radial stresses in the nominal section of the component.(x)P.) The fourpoint bend condition has been chosen to obtain a constant global bending moment between the supports. Internal pressure gives rise to axial.(xA) (a2) with x is the distance from the centre of the pipe and A the length from the centre of the pipe to the loading point as shown in Fig. if the pipe remains elastic) defined by p(r.e.(r.eos0.
The expression for the reference stress takes into account on the one hand the membrane and local bending stress through the thickness of the pipe and on the other hand the global bending moment of the pipe giving (A13) The use of either formula to combine the reference stress in tension and bending gives rise to two distinct loci for the equivalent reference stress under combined. O.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 99 p(r. r . A16 [4] however.[_Ore f (All) (A12) r~ r B where superscripts T and B are for PLc and MLc are the collapse load and collapse moments..O) = .4 M (A9) The Codes of Practice [14] propose a number of formulae for the reference stress in various forms: separately for pressure loading or for bending or in the form of a combined pressure and bending formula.cosO Ro (A7) O" 2~:R~ 0 R~ M =~o" I I r' "c~ The outer fiber bending stress is then given by r b= (A8) 4. uses a different formula for combining references stresses in tension and bending.crb . Org f m. .ref . Under combined loading a conservative estimate to the limit load could be obtained from [11]: P + M <1 (AIO) Pzc M Lc crr +o_Bgc <O'ma .
the limit load is given by: eLc = ( R o . the A16 [4] formula gi~eenbelow assumes a defect of rectangular shape with characteristic lengths a and c. ( cos(fl ~ a 4)0"5~'sin(fl4)) "r (A15) where M is the bending moment and P is the pressure.o c .a Y . 2)+ M. the chosen reference stress solution for internal pressure was based on an axisymmetric external defect. In order to keep the analysis simple at this stage of the procedure.Ri P.a. yield criterion and loading conditions) are represented for a wide range of configurations.(Wa).+1/2"a'c) 1e [P.a.. Axisymmetry also implies global collapse.] + q~ ~ (RoR/)l/2.w . where all variables . R~ and the bending solution under the same assumptions: Mzc =ft.R i R? o.100 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING For pipes under internal pressure. Under such conditions.4o'y . It also assumes a plane stress thin shell solution with global collapse [~ P'(R'2. It contains a very comprehensive compendium of solutions for limit loads. A16 suggests a formula validated for thin pipes (plane stress) and with the same assumptions for the extent of collapse and the yield criterion so that O'ref = 3 x" ( R.Ro . (A16) (A17) o'. R5 [1] refers to the R6 [2] manual for reference stress calculations.a y .(extent of collapse.R~ r =VL(R~oR/)I/2"a.c) P.(Ro .((RoayRT) M (A18) (A19) .Rml 2 1 P..c W r (A14) For bending. state of stress.cJ +L .(R~+I/2.
8) 'local' estimates of r be up to about 70% greater than 'global' values which can report in a substantially different prediction in crack growth. The intent is to define a limited region over which the 'local' limit load is determined. It assumes local collapse Although all the solutions for defect dimension a/W<0. This formula is valid under combined tension and bending. M n ( ~ l } O'ref (l_wl. The formula is based on a circumferential intemal surface flaw and can be used for external surface flaws in cylinders.(_~)} = (A20) c a where o'm is the membrane and orb is the bending stress. + c r o ) .. P 2BW (A22) . The reference stress from BS7910 [3]. which seeks to reflect the limited strain capacity of the ligament ahead of the crack tip.f _(~ml. information on recommended reference stresses may be obtained from BS 7910 [3]. the recommended calculations are often based on a socalled 'local' limit load. 7 the same formulae were used but assuming that no defect is present in pipe (setting a=c=0). for larger crack depths (a/W=0. BS 7910 [3] uses the reference stress solution given as {(o'. valuable sources of information are also given in the compendia produced by Miller [11]. which is termed the effective 'net section stress' is given by: _ + + s ' s(z. ~ .4 are broadly in agreement..W ) + 2 . (4b). ( 1 . with and without defects.NIKBIN ON CREEP CRACK GROWTH PREDICTIONS 101 where O'refCis the reference stress of a cracked component. ~ r . Collapse solutions for the plate For cracked plates subjected to primary membrane and primary bending stress. y + (ml) where. For more complex geometries. It should be noted that usually for partially penetrating defects in plate structures. The growth o f the defect is then taken into account by the stress intensity factor solution only. R6 [2] and A16 [4]. Ob 6M 2BW2 and cr. This is the region shown as local in Fig. In Fig.
Finally for A16 [4] the reference stress is given by . where for global collapse the geometric constant ~ = W and for local collapse~ = (W . using pure bending and the Tresca criterion. It can also be seen that an average crack depth is selected in this case. (A25) 6M o'b 2BW2 and P O"n 2BW. gives the reference stress by the following equation: 6M/2BW 2 crrq= l l 6 ) { WZ+2eW2(l_a_. agreed and validated set of closed solutions for generic component shapes. There are however many other options which may also affect the calculations. where. A summary of the reference stress given in R6 [2]. W) J (A24. . This highlights the difficulty of producing a uniform.q_)2 l 2~Jce ~ 2~ 4 4 ~. 3 ) + o.a ) .102 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING _J l+W/c a C [ a/w for for 2B>_(c§ (A23) where omand orbis the membrane and the bending stresses respectively.xac/2 (A26) The above are examples of relevant reference stresses that have been applied in the analysis. oq = 3 V~..
Nuclear Material Department. COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE. The results discussed in the paper are focused on the upper shelf behavior of the French RPV material. Modeling of the material is achieved using the Rousselier coupled damage constitutive equations. FRANCE. DEN/DMN. It is motivated by the fact that a smaller amount of material can be used to obtain the fracture properties. FRANCE. COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE. conventional and subsized Charpy specimens.) and empirical observations. Amongst the approaches that are available. 3 and Bernard Marini4 On the Identification of Critical Damage Mechanisms Parameters to Predict the Behavior of Charpy Specimens on the Upper Shelf Reference: Poussard. Comparisons between the numerical results and the experimental observations are given and the computed local temperature elevations and plastic strain rates discussed to explain the behavior of the specimens. M. ComputationalMethods. 3 Research Engineer. Erickson Natishan. finite element modeling 1 Research Engineer. PA. 2 Head of Laboratory. FRANCE. which can be of great economical interest when dealing with activated materials. DEN/DMN. 2 Pierre Forget.. which combines a description of the material microstructure (void density. West Conshohocken.org . Abstract: The use of subsized CharpgV specimens to monitor the mechanical properties of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) steels is receiving increasing attention. is a promising way to investigate the transferability of mechanical properties. RPV steel. COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE. a generalpurpose finite element code developed by the French Atomic Energy Agency. F91191 GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX. "On the Identification of Critical Damage Mechanisms Parameters to Predict the Behavior of Charpy Specimens on the Upper Shelf." PredictiveMaterial Modeling: Combining FundamentalPhysics Understanding. Prior to use reducedsize specimens. It has been successfully used to describe the macroscopic behavior of a wide range of cracked or notched specimens and components of various dimensions but restricted so far to quasistatic loading conditions. Eds.Christophe Poussard. P. DEN/DMN. Nuclear Material Department. B.. investigations are still necessary to verify that the properties obtained from subsized specimens are comparable to those obtained from standard size specimens. and Marini. Kirk and M. FRANCE. and Empirically Observed Behavior. equivalent to the American ASTM A508 C1. distance between inclusions. 103 Copyright 92004by ASTMInternational www. ASTMSTP 1429. F91191 GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX. C.. Forget. 4 Head of Laboratory. Nuclear Material Department... C. Nuclear Material Department. 1 Claude Sainte Catherine. DEN/DMN. This model is implemented in CAST3M. the local approach to failure... Keywords: Damage fracture mechanics. COMMISSARIAT A L'ENERGIE ATOM/QUE. T. Sainte Catherine. upper shelf.3 material. ASTM International. F91191 GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX. 2003.astm. F91191 GIF SUR YVETTE CEDEX.
allows increasing substantially the number of experimental results that may be collected for a given volume of material. at the end. However. This model accounts for the presence of voids in the matrix of the material that may grow and coalesce when subjected to external loading. The purpose of the work is to identify and model the different physical phenomena that may affect the results obtained from impact testing on the upper shels Dynamic effects including striker impact. on the upper shelf. the material at the notch root.3 material. Amongst the approaches that are available. specimens may be machined from broken halves of previously tested conventional Charpy specimens which. Modeling of the material is achieved using the Rbusselier coupled damage constitutive equations [1] implemented in CAST3M [2]. Material Material Origin The material investigated in this project is a low alloy Manganese ferritic steel with Nickel and Molybdenum additions. ductile crack extension and therefore the global response of the specimens. The results discussed in the paper are focused on the upper shelf behavior of the French RPV material. It is referenced as 16MND5 in the French designation and is very close to from the American ASTM A508 C1. It is known that absolute ductile to brittle transition temperatures and upper shelf energies depend strongly upon the geometry and the size of the specimens. equivalent to the American ASTM A508 CI. Before using reducedsize specimens. both strain rate effects and temperature elevation during impact are likely to influence locally the mechanical behavior of the material. the local approach to failure. It is therefore perfectly representative of the . imposed specimen bending vibrations and wave propagation as well as friction effects will not be discussed in this paper because it has been shown in an earlier work [3] that.104 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Introduction The use of subsized CharpyV specimens to monitor the mechanical properties of RPV steels is receiving increasing attention. it is sufficient to account for strain rate effects on the material stressstrain curve to reproduce the specimen behavior successfully. on the lower shelf. It has been successfully used to describe the macroscopic behavior of a wide range of cracked or notched specimens and components of various dimensions but restricted so far to quasistatic loading conditions. which combines a description of ductile damage (void density.3. a generalpurpose finite element code developed by the French Atomic Energy Agency to support its research investigations. This is motivated by the fact that a smaller amount of material earl be used to obtain fracture properties. which can be of great economic interest when dealing with activated materials. The batch of material originates from the nozzle opening of a real nuclear pressure vessel forged by Creusot Loire Industry for Eleetricit~ de France. Also. investigations are still necessary to verify that the properties obtained from subsized specimens are comparable to those obtained from standard size specimens. growth and coalescence) and empirical observations is a promising way to investigate the transferability of mechanical properties.
9x10 4. This batch of material has already been largely investigated in preceding studies and in particular in [48].POUSSARD ET AL. The analysis has revealed ellipsoidal MnS inclusions (12x10x8 pan) that can be reasonably assumed to be spherical with an average diameter of 10 ~tm.50 RCCM[9] Max 0.  Stress relief: was performed at 610~ for 8h00. Another analysis (based upon a Delaunay triangulation) gave a larger value (about 270 pan). water quenching by product immersion was performed. An analysis of the material microstructure has been performed [5.Chemical composition for PWR 16MND5 steel. The specimens were machined at 3/4 of the nozzle thickness.70 0. Table 1 .tin. 3/4 thickness 0.80 0. . The analysis has also shown that the average distance between inclusions (determined from the number of inclusions per surface unit assuming an homogeneous inclusion distribution) is close to 1001. The chemical composition is given in Table 1.02 0.20 0.24 0.005 0. C Mn Si Ni Cr Mes. which supports the view that the spatial distribution of the inclusions is nonuniform and that most MnS inclusions are gathered in clusters. This step was repeated two times. Microstructure Metallographical observation of the material achieved using an optical microscope [6] reveals a bainitic microstructure (Figure la.03 Thermal treatment of this steel includes three different steps: 9 Quenching : after austenitization at 865/895~ during 4h40.10 0. For tensile specimens. the direction is axial (T) whilst for Charpy and toughness tests. after Nital chemical attack) and the presence of manganese sulfides (MnS) inclusions (Figure lb.015 0.4x10 "4 in the T direction).30 0.25 Mo Cu S P AI V 0. without chemical attack).37 0.008 0.43 0.57 0. 9 Recovering : 630/645~ during 7h30 followed by a cooling step in free air.22 1. Figure lc shows the microstructure along the three orientations.15 0.06 0.17 Imposed Min 1. the direction is axialradial ifS).159 1.50 0. which is approximately two times lower than the value resulting from image analysis (9.01 0.023 <0.60 0. 6] in order to determine average inclusion parameters such as the initial void volume fraction and the spatial distribution of the inclusions used for the micromechanical modeling. Franklin's [10] formula gives a value void volume fraction of 3.04 0. ON IDENTIFICATIONOF CRITICAL DAMAGE 105 material used to manufacture the vessel of 1300 MW PWRs.
... 0 0 50 '~ o= v~ 200 150 100 50 250 200 150 100 Temperature (~ Temperature (~ . ~ .5O Figure 2  16MND5 basic mechanical properties. ""'At.1  Tensile Tests 400. The material yield stress %. ~ 8 ~ . 5 16MND5 C=473... ~in T orientation 20o. the ultimate tensile stress CUTSand the uniform elongation Ag% decrease with temperature whilst the total elongation A% and reduction of area at rupture Z% increase between 196~ up to 125~ Although not shown here.. "'I.10 4 s 1) are shown in Figure 2.2 =A exp[T(~C)/B] +C A = 49.4 B = 83.t. . fractographic examination of NT (notched tensile) specimens has been performed [6].. 800 ~ ~1 1 ] < Rp0.106 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Figure 1  Material microstructure (from [6]). Basic Mechanical Properties The material characterization of the steel has been performed with round tensile specimens over a range of temperatures between196~ and 30~ The standard tensile material properties (strain rate of 4... and ductile damage initiated on MnS inclusions prior to cleavage fracture has been almost systematically observed above 100~ 16MND5 ~ ~ / / / TTests e n s i l " e ~ I. . a .. . ~ .
1 J for subsize Charpy. Both the testing machine and the specimen geometry are in conformity with the EN10045 standard [11]. Characteristic values have then been determined using the Oldfield hyperbolic tangent adjustment [ 13]: E(J)=A+B. Specimens. the temperature correction varies respectively from +3~ at 150~ down to 10~ at 300~ Additional detailed information on the experimental procedure and calibration of the load cells can be found in reference [3]. The striker is instrumented with strain gauges. More than 100 CharpyV specimens have been used to establish the transition curve (Figure 4a). t g h [ ~ ] (1) The results are summarized in Table 2. ON IDENTIFICATIONOF CRITICAL DAMAGE 107 Impact Strength The geometry and the main dimensions of the conventional and subsize CharpyV specimens are shown in Figure 3. It is also of great value to perform a confidence interval evaluation. striker and anvil geometries are in accordance with ESIS TC5 Draft 9 [12]. which also gives a good definition of the transition curve (Figure 4b). is also indicated.1 55 Dimensions in mm Dimensions in mm (a) CharpyV specimen (b) Subsize Charpyspecimen Figure 3 . the test device used is a 50 J subsize pendulum equipped with an automatic specimen positioning system. which is commonly equal to 68 J for CharpyV and 3.POUSSARD ET AL. For the subsize geometry. For the subsize specimens. Span = 40 Span = 22 60~ ~ 4 ~ / ~ r=0. more 'than 60 specimens have been broken. The temperature index (TK) corresponding to a particular energy level.Main dimensions of(a) CharpyVspecimen (from [l lJ) and (b) subsize Charpy specimen (from [12J). A careful calibration of the temperature losses during specimen transfer from the furnace to the support until impact has then been performed for subsize Charpy specimens. This gives a reliable shape and wellidentified characteristic points. The test device used for conventional CharpyV tests is an instrumented 350 J impact machine. It can be noticed that the ductile to brittle transition . It has been shown that during transfer 0. and an optical sensor is installed on the pendulum mass for displacement measurement.85 seconds).
.6 Material Modeling Rousselier Model Constitutive Equation The model used for the simulation is the Rousselier model [1] as implemented in CAST3M [2]. The constitutive equations of this model are based upon the Von Mises yield condition extended for porous media: lf0 where)Co is the initial void volume fraction..oo. USE (J) TK (~ 168.~ (a) Charpy.)rV 86. 14~ .0 43..8 but 6.3 14. E 0 ) .1+7.14I. the results show that the scatter associated with subsize Charpy appears to be greater than the one observed for CharpyV.Characteristic parameters o f the hyperbolic tangent E (J) A (J) B (J) To (~ C (~ LSE (J) '.641. a general Finite Element (FE) code developed by CEA.2• 82. crh is the hydrostatic stress.00 7t~. This model is based on a thermodynamic approach of porous media in which both the current void volume fraction f and the effective plastic strain p are considered as internal variables.5~ The ratio between upper shelf energies is 23.46 3.2+0.~ 6 I ' I I I 1~ 200 750 . a2A ~E.7~ and the temperature index shift (ATK) equals to 62. R(p) is the tensile stressstrain curve of the material.Charl?.. 2~ 150 leo J// 2Ji/ "t SO 0 5o T~Vecatu~ (~q 1~ ~.2 7.l~a~s i':>'. 9.3 only for lower shelf energies..63 71.1 adjustments.840.4 23.445.... This however requires further confirmation..0 0. A + 15 ~ ( ( Y ( ~ Q ..444.00.~ B ~ { f f { ' C ) .~ 150 1 ~ 1 Kx~ p Q = . Table 2 .V specimens (b) Subsized specimens Figure 4 .4+15.649. / s ~ A .T o ~ a. .~ ". D is an .T d / Q USE= .1 76. Finally. /// t.8• Subsize 3. treq is the Von Mises equivalent stress.4 3..346..16MND5 absorbed energy transition curve for (a) CharpyV and (b) subsize specimens..04.108 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING temperature shift (ADBTT) is equal to 66. It allows one to account for the presence of voids in the matrix of the material as well as for the influence of the hydrostatic stress responsible for the fracture mechanism.~ IS ~ a M 2.
~ . .25 0.3 and Young's modulus depends upon temperature [4]. strain rate hardening effects are likely to occur in the steel depending upon strain rate fields. the material is damaged and i f f .f~. even at low temperatures such as 90~ Static and dynamic compression tests (with Hopkinson bars). as implemented in CAST3M. following Cowper and Symonds relationship: oo. the material is damagefree. f~. the material is fully damaged and void coalescence occurs (the stresses at the Gauss points are forced to 0). = 1 ki0) J (3) Figure 6 represents the true stressstrain curve of the material resulting from the Cowper and Symonds relationship at 0~ It shows that strain hardening has a pronounced effect on the material behavior. ifJb <f<f~.10 4 sl).15 True strain 0.POUSSARD ET AL. The Rousse[ier model. no account is given to nucleation and an initial void volume fraction ~ has to be specified. Rossoll et al.2 () 0. which is related to the yield strength and the hardelaing of the material. . The evolution of the void volume fraction depends upon the plastic strain rate and is defmed by )~=(1f)tr~p where ~p is the effective plastic strain rate9 In this model. Quasistatic Material Behavior The quasistatic temperature dependent material stressstrain curves as determined by Renevey [6] have been used as an input in the FE calculation (Figure 5). 8] have shown that strain rate is a significant parameter for this RPV steel. Strain Rate Effects Since the Charpy test is a dynamic test. ~ 9176176 ~ i 4o01 200 0 ~60"C "30"C ~300C "~" I00*C "r 200"C " " ~ I 400"C [ 0 0. have allowed to identify the parameters (p0=12 and ~o=10 s s l) of the 9 . Iff=/b. includes a modification proposed by Seidenfuss [14] to account for the coalescence of voids9 This modification allows to perform fracture mechanics calculations [15] and consists in comparing the current value o f f to a critical value.3 Figure 5 .1 0. ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 109 integration constant for the model and ot characterizes the flow stress of the material matrix. . achieved over a wide range of temperatures. Poisson ratio is equal to 0.16MND5 quasistatic true stressstrain curves (~ = 4. [7.05 0.
2 0. 22] have proposed modifying the original Rousselier model to account for such effects and have succeeded in predicting the ductile behavior of Charpy specimens.6' 0. In contrast to the multiplicative form of the GursonTveergaard and Needleman [19. Some of these investigations have been performed via Round Robins organized within the ESIS (European Structural Integrity Society) Technical Committee on Numerical Methods [ 17] which will serve as baseline data to draft an extension to the already existing ESIS guideline [18].41. The o'1 parameter of the Rousselier model however. The damage parameters to identify are the initial void volume fraction~ and the dimension of the square elements Lc (average distance between inclusions) to be used to model the material at the crack tip and along the crack growth path. 20] constitutive equation.. consists in defining o1 as a function of temperature and strain rate.. this procedure was therefore modified to account for the strain rate dependence of the material stressstrain curve. Tanguy et al. which characterizes the flow stress of the material matrix has to be strain rate and temperature dependent.110 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 1600 1400 r . Both of these parameters can be reasonably assumed to be independent upon temperature and strain rate. 2) implies that both the stressstrain curve and o"t have to be corrected to account for strain rate or temperature effects.104 s1 J 1.4 I '1. exposed below. It results from a wide number of computations applied to a number of structures and components made of various steels for which however only quasistatic loading conditions have been considered. the additive form adopted by Rousselier (eq.Id 800 [1~ 600 400 200 0 O 0.6 1.16MND5 true stressstrain curves at O~ Identification of Critical Damage Parameters to Model Ductile Tearing on The Upper Shelf at O~ Outline o f the Model Parameters Identification Procedure The procedure developed and adopted by CEA [16] to identify micromechanical damage parameters for ductile crack extension in ferfitie or austenitic steels was used in these investigations.2 =. For the present investigations.1000 s1 "*" 100 s1 4ls1 "*" 4. identified from . [21.4 0. Another possibility.6 1." .8 True strain () Figure 6 . restricted so far to crack free specimens and components with uncoupled damage models and quasistatic loading conditions.
the influence of temperature being much less pronounced over the range of temperatures under consideration. Three different specimen geometries have been used with notch radii equal to 2.380.POUSSARD ET AL.8 2 0 0. ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 111 uniaxial NT tests results performed at different temperatures and imposed strain rate conditions. the Rousselier damage parameters were assumed to be constants for strain rate independent materials (cr1:445MPa.4 0..Calculated and experimental load versus diametrical contraction curves at O~ with fo=2xl 04 under quasistatic loading conditions.. 0.05).380a35 " " ' AE 106computaUon . it is shown that the temperature (ranging between 60~ and 0~ has little influence on crack initiation. ..4 Dlametral ~ o ' a c f l o n ~D (ram) Figure 7 .Influence of the geometry.a32 ~ I \ ~6 1. 4 and 6 mm for NT 26. 46 and 106. Further work is however underway to account for both effects simultaneously to model the brittle to ductile transition.2. Also. Figure 7 shows that at 0~ a value off0=2xl0 "4 describes well the influence of geometry whilst for a given geometry (Figure 8). test results obtained at temperatures ranging between 60~ and 0~ have been considered to evaluate the dependence of Jb upon temperature. the model was simply updated to account for a strain rate dependency of o"1.o. Identification offofrom NT Specimens Subjected to Quasistatic Loading Conditions For the material investigated in this work.a30 380a31 " AE 46 computalic~ ~ 380a34 " * . In the present work. 35 I 10 I 5 0 I 380.. This gives a value of f0=3.8 1 1~ 1.9x10 "4 that was then adjusted by comparing the result of computations to experimental test results obtained from NT specimens subjected to quasistatic loading conditions. fo has been first estimated with Franklin's formulae [10] and the material chemical composition (Table 1). the plain lines represent the computed values and the lines with marks represent the experimental data. On these two figures. This value of3'0 is found to be in good agreement with the value derived from the chemical composition of the material but approximately four times less than the value arising from the microstructure analysis.6 0. respectively. In these calculations. D=2 and f~=0.
Figures 9 and 10 show the comparison between calculated and experimental load versus CMOD and CMOD versus crack extension curves.computabon .2m m . a 2D plane strain analysis is sufficient to reproduce the experimental observations. respectively.8 12 ~D (ram) 1A f. one half of the element length is considered to be damaged. With the sidegrooved specimens.o. 60 .2 04 06 0.8 Diam~dral r Figure 8 .Calculated and experimental load versus diametrical contraction curves at O~ with. Identification of Lcfrom CT Specimens Subjected to Quasistatic Loading Conditions The test results used for the identification of Lc have been obtained from two 20% side grooved (SG) CT25 specimens tested at 0~ and 30~ subjected to quasistatic loading conditions.// 50 ~0 f Lc=O.a .ct350 .(11351 ct352 r 3 20 10 =~ i 0 0 05 t5 2 25 3 35 CMO0 (mini Figure 9 .. As a Gauss point of an element reaches the critical void volume fraction. Crack extension is computed using a postprocessing procedure that consists of comparing.Calculated and experimental load versus CMOD curves at O~ .112 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 35 f I 3O 25 g10 5 0 0. a value close to that resulting from the microstructure observations of the mean distance between inclusions [6]. the value offtofc. It is shown that a very good correlation between the calculation and the observations is obtained with a L c value of 200~tm. at each load step and for the Gauss points of the elements in the remaining ligament.[o=2xl 04 under quasistatic loading conditionsInfluence of temperature.6 t.
Strain rate dependence of yield strength (Gy). for low strain rates close to quasistatic loading conditions (less than 5x10 "4 sl).2mm. the value of ~ is indeed close to 445 MPa. j ~ #. j J i 9 1. 85O 8 O O 75O 70G .0E+O0 Stan Rate (s1) 1.0E03 1.2mm.0E01 1.e [ et~o m . At 0~ the temperature of interest for the Charpy and subize specimen computations. a352 g x_~ ~ r 05 ~'~E__ 1 ~5 2 2S 3 35 Figure lO .02 II / II. Figure 12 shows the results of mechanical computations o f a NT specimen (NT106) performed for strain rates between 4x10 "4s "t up to l x l 0 a s 1.POUSSARD ET AL. [21.0E+01 1. ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 113 with fo=2xl ff4 and Lc =O. a constant o'1 value leads to a decrease of the diametrical contraction at initiation (Figure 12a) whereas with a strain rate dependent o"1.~~ J 1. the value of crt commonly used to simulate quasistatic tests. In the computations. but the diametrical contraction at crack initiation remains almost constant. i . It shows that as the sWain rate increases.0E+03 10E+O4 450 1.0E+I~ 1. Identification of ~rl The dependency of o'1 with respect to strain rate was calibrated from an analysis of the strain rate material yield strength (Figure 11).Calculated and experimental CMOD versus crack extension curves at O~ with fo=2xl O 4 and Lc=O.0E.e m ~ Renevey) i J ~ j . This is in good agreement with the experimental results obtained by Tanguy et al. it was therefore assumed that o~ would vary as cry with swain rate. .the load bearing capacity of the specimen increases (Figure 12b).go.0E04 Figure 11 . At higher sWain rates (greater than lxl03 s'l). . The drop of diametrical contraction at initiation observed experimentally for load line velocities greater than 10mm/mn corresponds to a significant increase of temperature.c f f f f J / k~6~ 600 I. I . 22] for the same geometry but for another cast of the material (Figure 2c). % approaches 700 MPa.
A displacement is imposed at the back face of the striker.. the striker and the anvil.1 14 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING (a) Global NT specimen response with constant o'i (a~A/. ! 0 ...01 .. 0...... 22]) Figure 12 .. . ~ 0. Contact conditions without any interpenetration nor friction are imposed to the specimen.. 780 10 .35 ~ '~ 840~ s2o "~ <1 0..25 m/.meScal contraction at crack initiation (from [21.. The ligament is modeled with calibrated elements along the crack growth path with the Lc value identified from the CT specimen.. In total.'""l ' ' '"""1 (b) Global NT specimen response with calibrated o'I . CUB20 reduced integration elements with 20 nodes and 8 Gauss points are used to model the specimen.Rousselier model computation of a NT 106 specimen at O~ Discussion Meshes Used to Simulate Ductile Tearing in CharpyV and Subsize Charpy Specimens Both 2D and 3D simulations have been carried out in this work to investigate the influence of adiabatic heating and strain rate effects... 1 880 860 0..5MPa) 0. .. m 0.40 ! ..30 av~JS0.. anvil and striker. . respectively.... the meshes are composed of 2560 and 1365 elements with 13220 and 7451 nodes for the CharpyV and subsize Charpy specimens.. j 100 load line velocity [mm/mn) (c) Experimental die. the latter two being considered as perfectly rigid. For the 3D modeling.1 1 .. The anvil is fLxed on the back in the vertical direction and at one point in horizontal direction.. the symmetry planes allow modeling only 1/4 of the specimen. .
the maximum temperature is obtained at the notch root. Perfect adiabatic heating is assumed in the calculation. The temperature increases rapidly in the material under the striker and becomes greater than at the notch root as the crack propagates.Comparison between 21) FE calculations and subsize Charpy test results at O~ The results show that the strain rate affects the results significantly. is obtained at the notch root whilst in the ligament. the influence of strain rate on crj was neglected. A maximum of 133~ and 110~ for the conventional and subsized geometry. as shown in Figure 13. Despite these large values of temperature elevation. In the material located under the striker. It indicates that at the early stages of impact. This is attributed to the fact that the temperature rises are very localized and are negligible for the ligament. therefore not sufficient to affect the global mechanical specimen behavior nor crack propagation.. At this stage of the analysis. i. adiabatic heating has only a minor influence on the global behavior. which corresponds to a conduction distance of 190~m. It is however important to bear in mind that at lower temperatures. ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 1 15 Influence of Strain Rate and Adiabatic Heating (219Modeling) Figure 13 compares 2D FE computations with the result of two subsize Charpy tests performed at 0~ The results reported in this figure refer to quasistatic computations and strainrate dependent computations including adiabatic heating or not. conduction was neglected since the test duration is less than 2ms. It increases the maximum load and the crack growth rate once initiation has occurred. the temperature elevation remains negligible. Figure 14 shows the temperature elevation that arises in both specimens at different imposed striker displacements.e.POUSSARD ET AL. Figure 13 . respectively. the temperature elevations reach 280 and 241~ respectively. in the ductilebrittle .
The results obtained with a constant value of 0"1 and a variable value are given for both geometries. adiabatic heating may be sufficient to shift locally at the crack tip from a cleavage failure mode to a ductile failure mechanism. which favorably compares with the experimental observations. On these figures. it is clear that the 2D modeling does not allow to predict satisfactorily the loaddisplacement curves. the fully damaged elements have been removed. Figures 17 and 18 give the temperature elevation and the plastic strain rate in the ligament of the conventional Charpy specimen for a 4 mm striker displacement. the maximum temperature elevation (183~ is obtained at the crack front on the shear lips that forms on the free surfaces due to high plastic deformation localization. The results clearly indicate that the dependence of the o'1 parameter with strain rate allows one to describe well the observed behaviors. Figure 14 . High temperatures are also predicted in the material under the striker (about 140~ whilst at the crack front on the midthickness. The 3D modeling was achieved since from Figure 13. the correlation between the computation and the experimental data is acceptable.V and subsized specimens at O~ 3D FE Simulations With Strain Rate Dependent o'1 Parameter Figures 15 and 16 compare the global response of the specimens resulting from 3D FE computations with experimental data. allowing one to visualize crack growth. A pronounced tunneling effect is predicted. adiabatic heating does not influence the global mechanical behavior of the specimen as much as the strain rate.116 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING transition. An excellent agreement is obtained for the subsize specimen whilst for the conventional Charpy specimen. Also shown for the subsized specimen is the result of a 3D computation that includes both the influence of strain rate and temperature on the stressstrain curve. At this temperature.Adiabatic temperature rise for Charpy. the temperature elevation does not exceed 80~ in agreement with the 2D results. . As expected.
POUSSARD ET AL. . however. with the temperature field is that the whole ligament has a high average plastic strain rate (about 100 sl). in contrast to the temperature elevations. Large values of plastic strain rate are also obtained in the material under the striker (around 4000 s'l).3D subsize Charpy computational results at O~ Figure 16 . ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 117 Figure 15 . The main difference.3D Charpy computational results at O~ Isovalues of the plastic strain rate (Figure 18) show that. the maximum value is obtained at the crack front at the midthickness position (4830 sl). which necessarily influences significantly the global behavior of the specimens.
118 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Figure 17 .3. Ductile tearing at 0~ was computed using the Rousselier coupled damage model for which the damage parameters have determined with an identification procedure that uses both uniaxial tensile specimens (smooth and notched) data and conventional ductile . Concluding Remarks This paper has reviewed both experimental and numerical investigations that have been performed to investigate the behavior of unirradiated subsize Charpy and conventional CharpyV specimens made of the French 16MND5 RPV steel. The purpose of the work was to verify that the local approach to failure could be used to describe the behavior of such specimens.Computed temperature elevation for the conventional Charpy specimen at O~ with a 4 mm striker displacement. a steel equivalent to the American ASTM A508 C1.Computed plastic strain rate for the conventional Charpy specimen at O~ with a 4 mm striker displacement. Figure 18 .
"Finite Element Simulations and Empirical Correlation for CharpyV and Subsize Charpy Tests on an U "ntrradiated LowAlloy RPV Ferritic Steel". A. BP 1. Ph. 2D and 3D modeling has shown that the ligament undergoes an average plastic strain rate of about 100s1 which significantly influences the global mechanical behavior of the specimen.. (2001). Forget P. in this model. (1998). Galon. References [1] Rousselier. http://www.. France. pp. "Etude Exp~rimentale et Numtrique de l'Amor~age et de l'Arrbt de Fissure. A. R. November. "Approches Locale de la Rupture Ductile : Application & un Acier CarboneMangan~se". 2002. Small Specimen Test Techniques: Fourth Volume. Rossoll. CEA Report R5784. DEN/DM2S/SEMT/LM2S. CEA and Ecole Centrale de Pads. and G.. Berdin. Thesis.. Ecole des Mines de Pads. And Madni. It was also shown that despite high temperature elevation (greater than 100~ adiabatic heating has little influence on the global mechanical behavior and crack propagation on the upper shelf since it remains localized at the shear lips of the specimen and in the material under the striker. (1996). A. "Les ModUles de Rupture Ductile et leurs Possibilitts Actuelles dans le Cadre de l'Approche Locale". Poussard. However. F77250. Genty. "Mechanical Aspects of the Charpy Impact Test".. All these tests have been performed under quasistatic loading conditions and do not reflect the hardening or softening of the material due to strain rate or temperature for example that prevails in impact testing. it may have to be taken into account at lower temperatures in the ductilebrittle transition region. S.D.POUSSARD ET AL. Renevey. Phi) Thesis. RCCM. Finite element code developed by CEA. American Society for Testing Materials. D. Service Rtacteurs Nucltaires et Echangeurs. ON IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL DAMAGE 119 tearing tests resulting from CT specimen. F91 191 Gifsur Yvette. PhD Thesis. P. both on the stressstrain curve of the material and on the o~ parameter which. Hourdequin.. P. AFCEN.. C. 217229. G. France. C. characterizes the mechanical resistance of the matrix of the material. Banvineau. West Conshohocken. 188. B... Les Renardi~res. C. Lucas. CAST3M. (1985). N. C.. L. J.. MoretSurLoing. sous Choc Thermique dans un Acier Faiblement Alli6 (16MND5)". A. J. Prioul. Nuclear Engineering and Design.castem. (1999). Paris. EDF. "Approches Globales et Locales de la Rupture dans le Domaine de la Transition FragileDuctile dkm Acier Faiblement Allit". PhD Thesis. And Forget. M. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] .org:8001. Vol. France (1989). Schill.. ASTM STP 1418.. Landes. Ecole des Mines de Paris. (1998).. Sokolov. "Fracture Toughness Determination of a Low Alloy Steel by Instrumented Charpy Impact Test". (1986). France... Rossoll. Vodinh. "Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear Islands". Eds. Sainte Catherine.E. France. It has been demonstrated that the original Rousselier model can however successfully predict the behavior of the dynamic tests provided that strain rate effects are accounted for. PA.
(1969). Ecole des Mines de Paris.. Eds KarlHeinz Schwalbe. M. [16] Poussard.Result of a European Numerical Round Robin". March. (2000). B. [18] ESIS. "Modrlisation de l'Essai Charpy par l'Approche Locale de la Rupture. Octobre (1990). September. "An Extension of the Rousselier Model to Predict Viscoplastic Temperature Dependant Materials". Solids. "Comparison Between a Quantitative Microscope and Chemical Methods for Assessment of non Metallic Inclusions". C. (1992). [22] Tanguy. GERMANY. "Curve Fitting Impact Test Data : A Statistical Procedure". GERMANY. G. . Geesthacht. pp 461490. Lyon.Part I : Yield Criteria and Flow Rules for Porous Ductile media". "On the Simulation of Ductile Crack Growth using the Rousselier Model". A. "Continum Theory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth .. AFNOR. C. To be published in International Journal of Fracture. W. (2001). [17] ' Bemauer.. pp. And Seidenfuss. "An Analysis of Ductile Rupture in Notched Bars". "MicroMechanical Modelling of Ductile Damage and Tearing .L. A. (1984).. [19] Gurson. [11] EN 10045.. January (1977). 2429. "Essai de Flexion par Choc sur Eprouvette Charpy".120 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING [10] Franklin. D. C. And Besson. European Structural Integrity Society. GKS S. 32. And Brocks... W. [12] ESIS TC 5. Sainte Catherine. GKSS Report Nb 2000/15.. s Mech. And Miannay. ECF 13. Transaction of the 14th SMIRT conference. M. Phys. MPA Stuttgart.. (1998). France. s of the Iron and Steel Institute. [14] Seidenfuss. (2000). GW/7. ASTM Standardization News. "Proposed Standard Method for Instrttmented Impact Testing of subsize CharpyV Notch Specimens of Steels". And Tvergaard. (1997). 673680.. "Finite Element Modeling of a Smooth Tensile Specimen and a Compact Tension Specimen with the GursonTveergardNeedleman and Rousselier Micromechanical Models". November. GERMANY.. "Untersuchungen zur Beschreibung des Versagensverhaltens mit Hilfe von Schadigungsmodellen am Beispiel des Werkstoffes 20 MnMoNi 5 5". J. Transaction of the ASME. Draft 9. [21] Tanguy. pp. A. ( 1975). France. [13] Oldfield. Parties 1 et 2. Vol. Application au Cas de I'Acierl6MND5 dans le Domaine de la Transition".G. PhD Thesis. [15] Poussard. Spain. GKSS. [20] Needleman. B. Geesthacht. (2001). PhD Thesis. V. (2000). Technical Committee n~ on Dynamic Testing Standards. San Sebastian. "ESIS P698 : Procedure to measure and calculate material parameters for the local approach to fracture using notched tensile specimens". No 6. European Structural Integrity Society.
Electronic Materials .
Osaka University. 9. However. dissimilar material joints. delamination. Simple but accurate evaluation of interface strength is required to improve the reliability of electronic packages.astm. Graduate School of Engineering. 1 Wataru Takahara. "Interface Strength Evaluation of LSI Devices Using the Weibull Stress.. and Nakamura. West Conshohocken. local approach. T. which is responsible for the interface fracture of the device. proposed a stress singularity parameter approach using two stress singularity parameters. and Empirically Observed Behavior. ASTM International. 21 YamadaOka. Eds.Fumiyoshi Minami. and 2 is the order of stress singularity [811]. package geometry. 123 Copyright92004by ASTMInternational www." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding.. Hattori et al. at fracture initiation is almost independent of the package geometry.. It is shown that the critical Weibull stress. Abstract: Interface fracture strength is evaluated by the Weibull stress criterion for LSI devices composed of epoxy resin and FeNi alloy sheet. 2003. 1518]. 12. W. Takahara. Shape design to decrease the Weibull stress values would be effective to improve the LSI devices reliability. Keywords: interface strength. an integrated stress over the stressed body along the interface. respectively. Suita. r is the distance from the singularity point of bond edge. Weibull stress Introduction Interface fracture evaluation is important not only for fundamental fracture mechanics [17] but also for electronics industry [817]. Research Associate and Graduate Student.. Japan. Computational Methods. ASTM STP 1429. Mismatch of the thermal coefficients of expansion often causes delamination at the interface in electronic packaging because of the high thermal stresses near the bond edge [8.org . 2 and K in cr = K / r z (1) where cr is the thermal stress. Department of Manufacturing Science. F. LSI devices. M. Erickson Natishan. PA. a clear assessment procedure has not yet emerged because the stresses have a singularity near the idealized interface edge [1]. They 1Professor. Considerable progress has been made toward understanding the interfacial strength. Kirk and M. Osaka 5650871. although both the local stresses and the singularity parameters in the LSI device significantly depend on it. 1 and Tetsuya Nakamura 1 Interface Strength Evaluation of LSI Devices Using the Weibull Stress Reference: Minami. K is the intensity of stress singularity. The difference in coefficient of thermal expansion of the epoxy resin and FeNi sheet causes a stress singularity at the comer ends of the device in the cooling process during LSI packaging. T. Electronic devices consist of multilayered structures of different materials.
Two materials bonding specimens composed of epoxy base resin and FeNi sheets were used. Delamination Test of Resin and FeNi Alloy Bonding Specimens Experimental details on the delamination test were reported in the literature [8. 91. In resinmolded electronic material. The analytical model proposed by Hattori et al.. 9] is based on twodimensional joints. Interface strength is evaluated by the Weibull stress in the local approach [1823]. 9] for plastic encapsulated LSI devices composed of epoxy base resin and FeNi alloy sheets. I 2. which is a singularity independent parameter.0 ~ 30 13. Y~r&~x (a) Model 1 19..124 PREDICTIVEMATERIAL MODELING evaluated delamination criteria using these two parameters. Figure 1 shows the three metalresin models used for the delamination tests... 9]. thermal stress generated and delamination occurred at the comers. Consequently. .0 Figure 1 . Xu and Nied discussed the stress singularity for threedimensional comers [15].. 13.. Here we reanalyze the fracture data reported by Hattor/ et al. However. the singularity order X changes with the specimen geometry in both two.Models for metalresin bonded specimens. the criterion K=K= loses the physical meaning for the evaluation of fracture strength of bonded joints with different geometries. ~ 14"0 (Unit: ram) u (c) Model3 13. During the cooling process from the curing temperature to room temperature....0 I Me a.0 L..0 "~ ~r&~x ~'"~ 19.0 Y '11 1~2. the molding material becomes an adhesive and the delamination might be caused by the thermal stress under the cooling process. Resin 144.~'~Q~~ .o II. 2 and K in plasticencapsulated LSI device models composed of epoxy base resin and FeNi alloy sheets [810].and threedimensional edges. Two materials were bonded at the curing temperature 170~ for five hours. . Figure 2 shows the test results of the temperature changes to initiation of delamination AT from the curing temperature [8.0 (b) Model2 19.. [8... The delamination was detected using two strain gauges mounted on both the resin and the metal surfacesl Temperature of the models was measured with thermocouples.0 Resin A.. [8.
7GPa.MINAMI ET AL.3 and coefficient of thermal expansion a=5. The minimum element size was assumed to be 0.25 and a=19. one quarter model was used. .9] (*Model 3: Average data).F E M m e s h of model 1 (ZXplane).5. Because of symmetry.01mm for all three models. The FEcode employed was ABAQUS ver. Thermal Stress Analysis In order to evaluate the thermal stress distribution.Delamination test results of metalresin bonded specimens [8. The twodimensional plane strain analysis was also performed for comparison with the threedimensional analysis.8. Figure 3 shows the FEmodel used for the analysis of Model 1. Figure 3 .01mmx0.0 x 106/~ Those of resin are E=14. Poisson's ratio v=0. v=0. It was confirmed that analysis with the smaller mesh also gives the same 2 value of stress singularity parameter.0 x 106/~ These material constants were assumed to be independent of the temperature in the analysis. threedimensional elastic FEanalysis was conducted.01mmx0. ON INTERFACE STRENGTH EVALUATION 125 Figure 2 . The material constants of FeNi alloy are as follows: Young's modulus E=148GPa.
respectively. i . I . These results indicate that the stress environment near the threedimensional comer is more severe than that near the twodimensional edge [15]. the actual threedimensional analysis is very important to investigate the delamination criteria. On the other hand.. 2D plane strain analysis ..126 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 200 P 150 Q. 1 2 3 X (mm) 4 5 0 1 2 3 X (mm) 4 5 Figure 4 . 9]... It is necessary to consider the threedimensional analysis in the dissimilar material joints.. Outside . 0 5o 100 0 ~ "CZX . Further. along PO line. normal stress ~ of Model 2 is largest and that of Model 3 is smallest. .... 7 mad 8 show the stress distribution under the temperature decrease into 70~ from 170~ (AT=100~ in resin side close to bonded interface along the QP line of model 1. In twodimensional analysis.. AT=I O0~ Figure 5 . Although the normal stress components o'z and Crx have similar distribution both in two.. respectively.... In the threedimensional model of Figure 5. the shearing stress component" ~• is largely different in two. Figures 6.and threedimensional analysis.. The normal stress ~ distribution level around the Q point in the PQ line of Figure 6 is higher than the level around P point in the OP line of Figure 5 in Model 1.and threedimensional models. However. ~ 50 100 . ~zx . the shearing stress rzx is sure not to be caused by the symmetry of the threedimensional object in Figure 1..005mm .9 i 200 150 p Resin side O ~ 10 0 r o.. 3D FEanalysis . is based on twodimensional analysis [8.and threedimensional analysis [15]. v O~ oZ Resin side z=0. the package is actually a threedimensional object and has comers.. the distribution is along the PO line in Model 1 of Figure 1. . . .Stress distributions in resin side close to bonded interface obtained by 2D plane strain FEanalysis (Model 1. . / BIO ... the shearing stress r~x clearly generates at the Q point in the PQ fine of Figure 6 although the r= is zero in Figure 5.. Comparing the effect of model geometry on stress around the Q point. So. the absolute value of sheafing stress r= is large in Model 3. As shown in Figure 5.... It is necessary to make clear an essential difference in the two... . Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the stress distribution in the resin side close to bonded interface obtained by FEanalysis when the temperature decreases to 70~ from 170~ (AT=100~ Figure 4 and Figure 5 are the results of twodimensional plane strain and threedimensional analysis. 2 and 3.Q.0OSmrn 50 t. i . . AT=I O0~ Results of Thermal Stress Analysis The delamination criteria using stress singularity parameters by Hattori et al.x 100 ~/ 50 (YZ ~x z=0.Stress distributions in resin side close to bonded interface obtained by 31) FEanalysis (Model 1. . z= is caused by the constraint on the deformation in ydirection perpendicular to the PO line direction.
AT=I O0~ <.. . .. . .. 10 and 11 show the dalamination strength evaluated by normal. ..A~ .. ....005mm 150 100 ~ crx lOO I 5OI 0 . . . . ~ ... (5"X x " z x ' . .Stress distributions in resin side close to bonded interface obtained by 3D FEanalysis (Model 1.. .. . ..005mm 3D FEanalysis I .Z~t .005mm 250 fl_ v .MINAMI ET AL ON INTERFACE STRENGTH EVALUATION Q 400 350 300 p~ 200 Q 150 ( n v 127 p~ Resin side z=0. . . . b X 50 0 " ~H o ....' ~ .. 3D FEanalysis i . .. . OZ 200 X (~Z Resin side z=0.. .. . .. "~ .. . Evaluating the Delamination Strength Figures 9. In cooling process a large amounts of resin shrink and this causes the increase of shearing stress component. . . ~"~" ... . ......Stress distributions in resin side close to bonded interface obtained by 3D FEanalysis (Model 3. . "ITZX N t~ • t~ Resin side z=0. along QP line. i . .. . v R.. . 1 2 3 Y (mm) 4 0 1 2 3 Y (mm) 4 5 Figure 6 . .. .... Every kind of critical stress varies remarkably in .S Q Figure 7 . ... (Model 2. . . AT=IO0~ p~ ~ 100 50 Q.. . .. along SQP line. . shearing and maximum principal stress...dr .g~.. . .. . respectively. .. . ZX . AT=IO0~ resin has a large coefficient of thermal expansion in Model 3. . .. .. ooo _ ~z o 0 ~ 50 100 150 2002 i I i I r . . t~ 50' 100 0 i TZX I i ~ t 3D FEanalysis I i I i 50 I00 5 .. ..... .. . .. I r I T I T 1 0 1 2 Y (mm) 3 4 5 Figure 8 . ..Stress distributions in resin side close to bonded interface obtained by 3D FEanalysis. . .. . along QP line.
Although one can draw a critical curve as shown in this figure proposed by Hattori et al. These local stresses can be confirmed not to be evaluation parameters for delamination strength.Delamination criteria using maximum normal stress. 20 "E Figure 9 .1 0.2 and 3. Application of the Weibull Stress Criterion This paper applies the Local Approach [ 18. v ~ 150 E o130 8 136 0") t E 100 ~73 50 8. 19] to estimate the delamination strength [22. 9].Delamination criteria using stress singularity parameters K and 2.5 0. Figure 12 shows the delamination criteria using stress singularity parameter [8.52 O 841 0 I Model 1 Model2 m Model3 =78 l 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Figure 10 ."O 0 0 ~ ~ 150 o141 Q 10 r o " ' ~ loo ~97 =78 m Model 1 l Model 2 m I. The local approach employs the Weibull stress Gwas a fracture driving force. 23].. [8. X Figure 12 .Delamination criteria using maximum shearing stress.2 0. Model I Resin O~Metal 2oo 0 15 153 o~ >.128 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 200 150 O O O &. not only the order of stress singularity 2 but also the intensity of stress singularity at delamination Kcr are different in these three models. 9]. The different order of 2 leads the different dimension of the stress singularity parameter and one does not know the physical meaning of the dimensional difference. the three models of 1.4 Order of stress singularity.dodel 3 t' Figure 11 Delamination criteria using maximum principal stress.26 b 100 _8. 0.3 0. The Weibull stress ~7~is given by the integration of an effective stress ~ffover a flracture process zone in the form .
Since the crack plane is parallel to the interface.. 2 Iwasa. The debonding seemed to occur in the resin side by examination using a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive Xray spectroscopy 2 and only the resin side region is considered as the VUto calculate the Weibull stress ~ .. The resins show glassbrittle behavior because the resins consist of a network of carbon atoms covalently bonded together to form a rigid solid. AT(~ Figure 1 4 Weibull stress values 0 Figure 13 Delamination criteria using Weibull stress values. respectively. The likelihood estimate of m is obtained when the moment mvalue derived from a statistical sample of Owx~is consistent with an assumed mvalue used for the calculation of Owx~[23]. personal communication. ON INTERFACE STRENGTH EVALUATION 129 where m is the Weibull shape parameter of the material. Since the mvalue does not depend on the reference volume Vo. The glass transition temperature Tg of the present resin is about 170~ The delamination temperatures are much lower than the Tg.. s Model 2 "t~ 60 40 1939 42 13 ~30 if) 20 U} 20: 0 m Model 1 Model2 m Model3 20 40 60 80 100 Temperature reduction. and Vo and Vy are a reference volume defined in the local approach and the volume of the fracture process zone.. . May 2000. and Httori. The iteration procedure usiv the maximum likelihood method was employed for the determination of the mvalue [21]. T.. respectively.=) = 1. generated by the thermal loading..1  (TW'cr ~ (4) m=7 ~..MINAMI ET AL. a unit volume is convenient to Vo for calculating the' Weibull stress [21]..(2_v)2 I (3) where ~y and r~ are the normal stress and the shear stress. 100 13. The local approach assumes that the onset of unstable fracture is controlled by the instability of the weakest microcrack in the fracture process zone... F(cYrv. M. the effective stress Geffis given by cy~ = ~ 4. m=7 Resin~kMmodel 1 80 D G9 .exp which is expected to be a material property independent of the specimen geometry.. The critical Weibull stress owx~at fracture obeys the Weibull distribution with two paraneters m and o. 100 8o II .
That is to say.. On the other hand. To improve the reliability of the dissimilar material joints. Figure 14 shows the relationship between Weibull stress and the reduction temperature from the curing temperature for the three models. for permission to use their experimental delamination data of this work. "Analysis of Singular Regions in Bonded Joints. . References [1] Bogy. Shape design concept to decrease the Weibull stress field would be effective to improve the LSI devices reliability. Hattori and Dr. The stress environment near the threedimensional comer is more severe than near the twodimensional edge. The critical WeibuU stresses at delamination occurrence are almost the same in all models with different package geometry. However. Figure 13 shows the delaminafion strength evaluated by .the Weibull stress. Both the local stresses and singularity parameters depend strongly on the package shape. Some uncertainty might remain regarding the mvalue since the experimental sample is limited.. Ltd.130 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING From the experimental delamination data of Figure 2." International Journal of Fracture. The actual threedimensional analysis is very important to investigate the delamination criteria. m = 7 and o~ = 39MPa were obtained. Conclusions Interface fracture strength of plastic encapsulated LSI devices is analyzed by the Weibull stress criterion. E. This means that the delamination strength of dissimilar material joint by the Weibull stress is a material property independent of the geometrical condition of the specimen. B. 2000. "Two EdgeBonded Elastic Wedges of Different Materials and Wedge Angles Under Surface Tractions. we confirmed that the critical Weibull stresses are independent of the specimen geometry in package under each mvalue. F. This is the elastic analysis and a linear dependence is observed in this figure. 20. and Ashkenazi. Assuming other mvalues such as m=5. Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. 1971. Vol. The geometry pattern where the FeNi alloy sheet extends outside seems to be most severe. Thermal stress of epoxy base regin and FeNi alloy sheets are calculated by threedimensional FEanalysis. 2000." ASMEJournal of Applied Mechanics. 10. it would be effective to avoid the geometry pattern of Model 2 in LSI devices design if the plastic material region would be a fracture origin. pp.. L. 105." International Journal of Fracture. 177188. Iwasa of Hitachi. 377386. the Weibull stress criterion is almost independent of package geometry. shape design concept to decrease the Weibull stress field would be effective to improve the LSI devices reliability. 125. [3] Penado. Vol. D. [2] BanksSills. pp. 103. absolute WeibulI stresses change.. Because the Weibull stress is largest. D. "A Note on Fracture Criteria for Interface Fracture. Vol. 38. Model 2 seems to be most severe. pp.
pp.. 6772. 2001. W. Sakata. 122. T. pp. and Cotterell. L. pp. Vol." Nuclear Engineering and Design. M. S. B. 2000. G. [18] Beremin.. T. Y. H.. [1 I] Nishimura. Vol.. [14] Hui. pp.." ASME Advances in Adhesively Bonded Joints . S. Hirose. Vol. "On the Design of DebondResistant Bimaterials Part II: A Comparison of FreeEdge and Interface Crack Approach. ON INTERFACE STRENGTH EVALUATION 131 [4] Glushkov... M." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Q. 321339.. 4350.. 143A. F. 1983. pp.. Y. C. Y." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. A. and Beuth. 106. 114. Y. pp. 123...MDVol.. "Analytical Solution for Bonded Wedges under Thermal Stresses. [15] Xu. 301305. 1987. 2000. Y. T. T. Munz. 93110. "interracial Thermal Stress Analysis of Anisotoropic MultiLayered Electronic Packaging Structures. 122. Vol." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. V. Hattori. "A Reexamination of Residual Stresses in Thin Films and of the Validity of Stoney's Estimate. C. Nakamura.. S.. 1989. pp." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. 111. Nishimura." Engineering Fracture Mechanics." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. I." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. 105. [7] Li. Y. L L.. K. W.. pp. A. [12] Xie." Materials Science and Engineering. "Specimen Design for Mixed Mode Interracial Fracture Properties Measurement in Electronic. and Yang. and Watanabe. 122. [19] Mudry. [5] Klingbeil. 66." Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 2000.. Y. 2000. H. N. and Nied. D.. 122. 335340. 243248. 6. J... V. and Murakami. L. [10] Kawai." International Journal of Fracture. 295301. 6166. S. pp. and Yuen. VoI. "Accelerated Thermal Cycling and Failure Mechanisms for BGA and CSP Assemblies. C. . G00485. Vol.. N.. W. Vol. Hu. 122. Kitano. and Beuth. Book No. 111128... T. pp... "A New Method for Measuring Adhesion Strength of IC Molding Compounds. "A Stress Singularity Parameter Approach for Evaluating the Interfacial Reliability of Plastic Encapsulated LSI Devices. T." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. D.. E.. pp. [6] Klingbeil.. 66. F.. [9] Hattori. T. 66. Y. N.. Vol... and Sitaraman. "Stresses Around the Bond Edges of Axisymmetric Deformation Joints. Vol.. Vol. 1988. F. F. "A Stress Singularity Parameter Approach for Evaluating Adhesive and Fretting Strength." Metallurgical Transactions A.. 1991. S. pp. Glushkova. 2000. T. 1992." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. pp. S. 153170. Vol.. pp122772287. A. 2000. M. 2000. M. Y. Vol.. 407412. Y. 2000. R. and Lin. pp. 247256. Vol. "Finite Element Analysis of Stress Singularities in Attached Flip Chip Packages. 6576. Vol. W.. 2000.. pp. "Reliability Evaluation of Electronic Devices. Vol." ASME Journal of Electronic Packaging. and Tanaka. "A Local Criterion for Cleavage Fracture of a Nuclear Pressure Vessel Steel. Lain. 267273. 14A.. D. [17] Gu. N. [13] Yeung. D. [16] Ghaffarian. Sakata. and Shirnizu. "On the Design of DebondResistant Bimaterials Part I: FreeEdge Singularity Approach. "Interracial Delamination Near Solder Bumps and UBM in FlipChip Packages. "A Local Approach to Cleavage Fracture.MINAMI ET AL. [8] Hattori.. Chen. and Yang. Conway.
Lisbon. Vol. .. B. D. "Evaluation of Adhesive Strength ofTNotched Plasma Sprayed Coating by the Local Approach. Book No. Minami. F. "Evaluation of Interface Strength of Plasma Sprayed Coating by the Local Approach. Torino. pp." Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE). "Numerical Procedure for Determining Weibull Parameters Based on The Local Approach. and Trolldenier. Tsukamoto. Vol. [21] Minami. and Toyoda." Proceedings of the 8th Biennial European Conference on Fracture. pp. S.132 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING [20] Minami... OMAE982183. Vol. [22] Satoh. F. 1990. M.. Minami. A.. 1998. and Toyoda.. Bl~cknerFoit. "Estimation Procedure for the Weibull Parameters Used in the Local Approach. and Trolldenier.." Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE). 197210. t57164. F. M. 18.. 1996. [23] Satoh. 7681.. S.... M. 1. M. BriicknerFoit. 54. A. pp." International Journal of Fracture. G00987. pp... Florence. 3. F.. ECF8. Munz. 1992. Tsukamoto. B.
Computational Techniques .
.Andrew B. hundreds of points are required at different 3D strain states to define a full yield surface to the resolution required for constitutive model implementation. and Dyka. 20375. 2Mechanical Engineer. and Branch Head. 135 Copyright9 2004 by ASTM International www. damage surfaces and fracture limit surfaces. C.org . Dyka2 Computational Estimation of Multiaxial Yield Surface Using Microyield Percolation Analysis Reference: Geltmacher. but it need not occur simultaneously. M.. Section Head.. B. Made. P. MD. Code 6350.1 Richard K. DC. K. percolation analysis tMaterials Scientist. The aim of this approach is to accelerate the process of building 3D multiaxial yield surfaces from microstructures and to gain insight into the material microstructure performance. This information is then used to estimate the 3D multiaxial yield surface of the material in strain space for the imaged microstructures. Interval halving is used to solve for the scaling parameter. 3D nonlinear problems. Full nonlinear analysis of a specific microstructure for such a large set of points is also prohibitive. respectively. such as yield surfaces.astm. PA. Percolation can occur across one or more of the three directions defined by the mode/.. Experimental determination of the effects generated by a specific microstructure on a multiaxial yield surface is hindered by the inability to produce multiple specimens with the exact same microstrucmre or the inability to subject the same specimen to multiple stress or strain states without changing its response. Abstract: Measurements ofmultiaxial properties of materials. Geltmacher. For threedimensional (3D) multiaxial yield of a complex microstructure. Washington. Computational Methods and Empirically Observed Behavior. 4555 Overlook Ave. due to the time constraints of solving large. imagebased modeling. O. West Conshohocken. T. Fort Washington. 1 Peter Mati@ and Carl T. Everett. A. material properties. ASTM International. Keywords: Multiaxial yield surfaces. are a time and resource intensive problem. A technique has been developed that uses high resolution 3D tomographic images and finite element simulations to track the development of microplastic connectivity for actual material microstructures in an 1100 aluminmn/TiB2 particle composite. MultiftmctiormlMaterials Branch. Erickson Natishan. A small selected set of nonlinear analyses is used as calibration for the estimated yield surface. Everett. Inc. 2003. "Computational Estimation of Multiaxial Yield Surface Using Microyield Percolation Analysis. T. iterating to the value at which plastic flow percolation occurs and defining a point on the yield surface. R. Box 441340.. The multiaxial yield surface is estimated using linear superposition and load scaling of three orthogonal displacement basis loads. Xray computed microtomography.. Eds. ASTM STP 1429." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. Macroscopic yielding is defined as the percolation of microplastic elements across the model. 20749. P. GEOCenters. Kirk and M. SW. Naval Research Laboratory.
5]. as applied to a three dimensional imagebased model. link up. these regions ofmicroplasticity grow. This illustrates a notional twophase material (e. Yield surface estimates are ebtained from linear superposition and load scaling of three orthogonal displacement basis loads. These studies generally underestimate the role of second phase distributions by ignoring particle shape and clustering. Upon further loading. A rapid estimation technique for multiaxial material yield properties would allow costeffective sensitivity analyses of structures and provide a new tool with which to examine microstrucmral performance. for example see References [13]. As the specimen is loaded. Brockenbrough and coauthors examined the efl'eet of actual microstructures in 2D by using Voronoi tessellations of aluminum/silicon alloy [6]. we report on efforts to develop a procedure to translate 3D microstruetural information into practical nonlinear material response predictions suitable for use by designers and analysts. and fracture limit surfaces. and percolate across the specimen to produce macroscopic yielding. Some of this work has been expanded into 3D by producing periodic arrays unit cell models [4. damage. Previous researchers has examined the role of microstructure on the effective elastoplastic response ofmaterials. the measurements are affected by and vary with the mierostructure of the material. Current measurement techniques involve specialized and timeconsuming experiments. Figure 1 . In this paper. such as yield. are examples of important multiaxial data required for structural analyses. A schematic example of a 2D percolation process is shown in Figure 1.g. A number of these studies were performed on twodimensional (2D) periodic and random arrays of particles. especially fiber and particle reinforced composites.Schematic illustration ofplasticity percolation in composite material . They examined the development of local stress and strain states due to particle clustering. Furthermore.136 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Introduction Materials properties. small regions of microplastieity are formed around particles (or voids). The estimation technique uses percolation analysis to generate the material yield surface. a particulate reinforced composite) being loaded to yielding.
model generation. This processing produced the microstructure shown in Figure 2. Material The aluminum/TiB2 composite material selected for this study is an excellent model system. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 137 The procedure will be described in four steps: Xray computed microtomography (XCMT). In addition. comparisons to full nonlinear analyses and statistical results from the percolation analysis will be reported.Micrographs of hot extruded 11 O0 aluminum/TiB2 composite material in (a) longitudinal section and (b) transverse section.4 ~tm. Figure 2 . The composite offers high particlematrix contrast for Xray computed microtomography (XCMT). finite element modeling. The median TiB2 particle size was measured to be 10. . The nominally 20 volume percent composite was manufactured using standard powder metallurgical techniques (cold isostatic pressing followed by hot extrusion).GELTMACHERET AL. and percolation analysis.
This xray beam can be either a "white" beamor monochromatic with the energies ranging from 6 to 36 keV. Individual slices of the tomograms were normalized to allow for the selection of a single intensity value to delineate between the aluminum and the TiB2 particles using a Fourier transform slice normalization procedure. Essentially. Figure 3 . This is performed under computer control of the rotary stage and camera. A voxel is the 3D volumetric equivalent to a 2D image pixel.6/am. The radiographs are then converted to 3D images with specialized reconstruction software that uses a Fast Filtered Fourier Back Transformation algorithm.14]. thermal cycling and deformation [712] as well as secor/d phase distributions and defects in A1/SiC composites [13. Previous tomography work has examined defects from material processing. The voxel size is 3.6 ~tm resolutions. An example of the tomograms is shown in Figure 3. High resolution XCMT data was obtained at the National Synchrotron Light Source (NSLS). The Xrays pass through the sample to be converted to visible light through a scintillator crystal composed of either yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) or cesium iodide (CsI). This procedure reduces ring artifacts in the voxel intensities by removing the low frequency portion of the reconstructed data. In order to generate a tomogram. The specialized hardware and software required for XCMT has been developed in previous research [15].5 ~tm and 3. The images produced from the composite were collected with both 4.138 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING XRay ComputedMierotomography(XCMT) Xray computed microtomography is a nondestructive 3D characterization technique used to examine second phase and defect distributions with a micron level resolution. the tomograms are 3D maps of the xray attenuation exhibited by the sample. A folding mirror and objective lens are used to focus the ra~ograph on a chargecoupled device (CCD) camera. A specimen is placed on a rotational stage where it is exposed to a high intensity Xray beam produced by the synchrotron.Example of tomography image of 11 O0 aluminum/TiB2 composite material The volume is 180/an on a side. The current instrument is capable of producing 3D voxel data of 1 to 2 ~tm resolution over a 2 to 3 mm field of view. . a series of radiographs are needed at specific angular orientations determined by the size and resolution of the tomogram.
1100 aluminum or TiB2 particles.6 ktm on a side and (b) 50xSOxSO element model volume 180 con on a side. subsections of the XCMT data were transposed onto a regttlar finite element mesh with each element the size of an individual tomogram voxel. These imagebased models represent the actual spatial and size distributions of the TiBz composites measured by XCMT. Two different sizes of solid models were generated.GELTMACHER ET AL. The threshold was selected to produce approximately 19 volume percent of the TiB2 particles.was determined by binarizing the XCMT data into two different material types.5 or 3. where only the TiB2 elements are distinctly represented to show the particle distributions. Thus the 50x50x50 model examines a volume eight times greater than the 20x20x20 model Both models are shown in Figure 4.Imagebased finite element models of aluminum/TiB2 composite with (a) 20x20x20 element model volume 90. plasticity cluster statistics. Element sets were created to translate the voxel data material types to different material properties in the finite element model Figure 4 . The larger 50x50x50 element model was more representative of a . The material identification for each element. and yield surface estimation.5 micron data and a 50x50x50 element model (125000 elements total) from the 3. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 139 ThreeDimensional ImageBased Models of the Composite Mierostrueture Model Generation The XCMT data was used to generate realistic finite element models of the composite microstructures.6 micron data. a 20x20x20 element model (8000 elements total) from the 4. The smaller 20x20x20 element model was used to facilitate postprocessing software development of percolation evaluation algorithms. Thus each element was either a 4. consistent with experimental measurements.6 gm cube depending on the resolution of the tomogram. Due to the size of the tomograms.
33 In the simulations where nonlinear properties are used. The impact of the value of Poisson ratio is relatively inconsequential at these moduli reductions. elements marked as 1100 aluminum matrix were given material properties of 1100 aluminum.33 0. This can produce a complex state of affairs. The effects of voids were implemented in a simple manner by replacing the particle finite elements with very low stiffness properties. forcing them to behave essentially like voids. In the case of void microstructure.140 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING statistically relevant model size. Two limiting cases exist: perfectly bonded and fracture resistant particles. The effects of perfectly bonded particles were modeled by giving the particles TiB2 properties. The elastic material properties for the three element types are shown in Table 1. an ilacremental elasticplastic constitutive model was used for the 1100 aluminum matrix with a nonlinear uniaxial stressstrain curve previously developed [16].12 0. as shown in Figure 5. Material 1100 Aluminum TiB2 Void Young's Modulus (GPa) 69 529 0. The physical nonlinear response of particulate composites generally involves a combination of matrix plasticity.Elastic materialproperties. particl~ debonding. using the same value of Poisson ratio. In both cases. Both the TiB2 particles and voids remained modeled as elastic materials. the particle elements were assigned void properties using a significantly reduced elastic modulus value of 0. and it was used to examine the cluster statistics during the yield surface estimation.069 Poisson Ratio 0. and/or particle fracture. The models were run with the elastic properties for the given element type. For the purposes of this study. This modulus was used instead of an effective zero modulus to . Table 1 . both limiting cases have been examined. Particle debonding and particle fracture are void initiating mechanisms.facilitate model convergence and eliminate the potential for overlapping deformation of elements in the model. given the particle size and volume fraction of the composite. The reduction of elastic modulus effectively carries through to the shear modulus.001 times the modulus of the aluminum. . due to the statistical nature of these mechanisms. which produce no voids. and weakly bonded particles which immediately debond to produce voids upon loading.
l'llll' 9 9 9 Q 9 90 ~ 9 W .. e. For each of the three basis loading cases.02 0.1 0. as shown in Figure 6.Nonlinear input stress/strain response for 11 O0 aluminum. .06 0. Figure 6 .08 0. Boundary Conditions The 20x20x20 and 50x50x50 3D finite element models were subjected to three displacement basis loading eases for both elastic analyses.l. uniform normal displacements were applied to the appropriate opposing sides of the model. These displacements were selected to produce an average strain of 0.l. as shown in Figure 6. These deformation states are equivalent to applying onedimensional principle stretches on the axes of the model and they are appropriate for the subsequent linear superposition to construct arbitrary combined deformation states.liJSl... The loading cases represented the three orthogonal tensile deformation basis loads in the x. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 141 1100 Aluminum 100 o. . respectively. Zero normal displacement boundary conditions were applied to the remaining four sides of the model.002 across the model in the direction of loading.Schematic of tensile deformation basis loading cases used in this study.04 0.GELTMACHERETAL. which in turn are needed to construct the yield surface estimates..IJ 80 70 in o 60 9 Tree Stress MPa I "1 9 = L 50 40 _'2 I 30 0 0.. y and z directions.12 Plastic Strain Figure 5 .
Von Mises stresses generated by elastic analyses using onedimensional tensile basis load deformation for (a) aluminum/TiB2 composite model and (b) aluminum~void model. These nonlinear analyses are also used to evaluate how calibration factors could reconcile the linear estimations with the predicted nonlinear responses and to determine the time and resource savings using the linear estimates. and 15. nonlinear finite element analyses of selected deformation states were also performed to compare to the percolationbased estimates. This figure shows the von Mises stresses for the nonlinear 50x50x50 cases tested in the same basis loading direction.7 hours for the 20x20x20 element models. while the model with the voids exhibits greater matrix stress nonuniformity (stress localization). Typical finite element results are shown in Figure 7.0 hours for the 50x50x50 element models. These solutions are used in the subsequent analysis as the input for the database for percolation.81 on a Sun HPC GlobalWorks computer. The elastic basis loading case run times were on the order of 4. using ABAQUS/Standard. Nonlinear elasticplastic run times were on the order of 9. Figure 7 . Finite Element Results All finite element analyses were performed using ABAQUS 5. using ABAQUS/Explicit.2 hours for the 50x50x50 element models using ABAQUS/Standard. . Three nonlinear analyses were performed using the basis loading cases for each model to directly determine yield by loaddisplacement response.2 minutes for the 20x20x20 element models and 4.142 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Since the percolationbased methodology produces only an estimate of the microstructurallydependent yield surface. It shows that the model with the TiB2 particles exhibits higher average matrix stresses.
The relevant "phases" for this investigation are elastic material and plastic material cells. where there is still a continuity of elastic cells along the reference direction. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 143 Yield Surface Estimation Using Percolation Analysis The "classical" definition of percolation of one phase in a twophase medium is a change in cluster length from finite to infmite length scales. This is similar to the experimental yield definition of the proportional limit stress. This is similar to elastic limit stress. i. classical percolation is the "spanning" of the plastic phase across the domain. . The second definition is first plastic percolation (L pl perc min). the classical definition is sufficient. It follows that the relevant test for plastic flow in 3D is the loss of classical elastic material percolation in the direction in which macroscopic plastic flow will take place. A third percolation point can be defined as the last elastic percolation (~. plastic percolation across the model is associated with the "division" of the remaining elastic domain into two (or more) separate and smaller regions. where eurvilinear continuity of charge conduction paths across the domain is sufficient to make the transition from an insulator to a conductor. curvilinear spanning of a 3D domain by plasticity is not a sufficient condition for macroscopic plastic flow to occur across the volume. as illustrated in Figure 1. For phenomena such as dielectric breakdown. In 2D models. the void elements are defined as part of the plastic phase since they offer no appreciable resistance to deformation. such as are considered here. occurs when there is no longer continuity of the elastic cells along the reference direction. The plastic phase can span the finite domain in the x direction. where a plastic cluster percolates across the volume. The criterion used for material yield (~ yield). was used to scale the basis loading cases while the yield surface is located along each radial loading path. the elastic region must be divided into two or more regions by the plastic region for macroscopic plastic flow to occur. The plastic phase elements have yon Mises equivalent stresses greater than or equal to the yield stress value. The elastic phase elements have avon Mises equivalent stress less than the yield stress value. The yon Mises stresses are calculated for each element from the basis loading cases and superposition defined from a given loading direction. y direction or both x and y directions. The deformation state is described by angle 0 in the xy deformation plane (as measured from the xaxis). which occurs when the first element reaches the yield criterion.GEL'I'MACHER ETAL. The first yield definition is initial microscopic yield (L init). and is associated with macroscopic plastic flow normal to these directions. The more stringent criterion of volume "division" must be imposed in the spirit of the practical implications of 2D percolation. The multiaxial deformation state and the points on the yield surface estimate are constructed in 3D strain space using spherical coordinates. however.. In the case of voided material. angle d~ as measured from the zaxis. which is the greatest stress a material can see without any permanent deformation. A load factor ~. The fmal yield definition is plastic saturation (~ sat) that occurs when the entire model is plastic. In 3D domains. el pete max).e. Figure 8 illustrates the different yield definitions that can be calculated using the percolation analysis. In the ease of plasticity.
interval halving was used to solve for the ~. in principle reduces the number of unique strain states by a factor of two. but it has not been included at this time. For each value of 0 and 4.e. Specifically. scaling parameter. i. The X scaling parameter needs to be determined that produces percolation for macroscopic yielding (Figure 8). were used to construct the yield surface.t ~'~ Szz Macroscopic . i.e. so that yield surface points in tensioncompression inverted strain states may be different. For the 20x20x20 element model a total of 482 multiaxial strain states. The TiB2/aluminum microstructure morphology under study may lend itself to microbuckling type phenomena in the void model. These effects could be included in the linear estimates.144 PREDICTIVE MATERIALMODELING Y Plastic ~.~. These ass~tmptions were used to calculate the complete set of values in order to demonstrate its general implementation. a number of elastic phase elements are changed to plastic phase. 40 values of angle 0 and 20 values of angle ~b(minus redundant values at the poles). Tensioncompression inversion of strain states. this microstructure could respond to shear loading conditions differently than the calculations generated from the superposition of the three basis loading conditions.e~a Last elastic ~el pete max~ First plastic % plperc min~ ~. were used to construct the yield surface.init Initial microscopic Figure 8 . iterating to the X value at which plastic flow percolation occurs and defines a point on the yield .. as the 7~parameter is increased.Schematic illustration of different yieM conditions for a given 3D loading path. For the 50x50x50 element model a total of 722 multiaxial strain states. This process can be repeated until the definition of percolation is met. represented by mapping 0 into 0 + 180 ~ and ~ into ~ + 180 o to account for symmetry about the origin. 32 values of angle 0 and 17 values of angle ff (minus redundant values at the poles on the zaxis). Likewise. In general. linear superposition is used to calculate the local yon Mises stress state in each element of the model.y.
e. where nonlinear analyses may be run for a more detailed examination. or to generate a database for a multifaceted yield surface implemented with user subroutines. Each point required approximately 35 seconds and the 722point yield surface required 7.GELTMACHER ET AL.2% yield definition) are 0. y or z) defined by the model. The nonlinear runs can be used for the basis for practical calibration factors for the linear estimates. Within these bounds.0 hours to construct. Initial results show that the ratios of linear estimated yield strains to the nonlinear predicted yield points (based on a 0. In comparison. The development of .0 hours to generate the set of 482 points defining the yield surface. This produced a relative accuracy on the order of 106 times the range defined by typical values of highest and lowest . Both surfaces show anticipated general effects of hydrostatic stress in the triaxial tensile and compressive oetants. For the 50x50x50 element model. The values of the ratios are consistent with the engineering definition of the nonlinear predictedyield. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 145 surface. of course. Interval halving solutions for 2~at each set of 0 and ~ was typically performed in 20 iterations per point on the yield surface. and a total time of 8. not a major fea~re in the TiB2 aluminum material considered here. The ratio of)~ values associated with the first element to yield (i. x. y and z basis loading deformations. first microyield) and the last eligible element to yield was typically on the order of 10"5. Both programs assessed percolation and constructed the yield surface estimates in an equivalent manner. The data could be used to establish parameters for an analytical model of the yield surface. Percolation could occur across one or more of the three directions (i.con Mises stress values. but it need not occur simultaneously in all directions. The linear estimated yield points on the three basis loading axes fall between the proportional limit and the 0. respectively. Microstructural anisotropy. the analysis was developed using Fortran 90 and executed on a Cray T90. Each point on the yield surface required approximately 60 seconds of calculation time. reflecting the different responses of the microstructure to the applied multiaxial deformation state. They also highlight regions of interest.e. and the point at which to start testing for the yield as the absence of classical elastic percolation perpendicular to the direction of plastic flow. Initial values for the interval halving were calculated from the linear superposition database and X values corresponding to the highest and lowest "con Mises stress values in the model. assuming the time taken in the nonlinear basis loading cases. will strongly favor asynchronous plastic percolation. different for each strain loading path. it would take 194 days and 451 days to calculate the equivalent yield surfaces for the 20x20x20 and 50x50x50 models. respeetively. Percolation will generally occur in more than one direction. 0.3 (1998) and executed on a Pentium 350 MHz personal computer.422 for the x.2% yield definitions of the equivalent nonlinear simulations. The X values for first and last yield were.319 and 0. Representative yield surfaces for the smaller and larger models with void properties are shown in Figures 9a and 9b. the onset of classical plastic percolation served as a refined lower bound threshold for yield. For the 20x20x20 element models. the analysis was performed using MATLAB Version 5.318. Comparison of the two figures shows that the 50x50x50 model is more spherical than the 20x20x20 model and thus the effect of the voids are more homogenized over the volume of material.
These are measured in an attempt to assess the efficiency of the architecture (i. Cluster Statistics Analysis Reinforcement microstructure is known to affect the mechanical behavior of discontinuous composite materials.. Yet these metrics cannot capture the true complexity of the microyield percolation process.e. In the past. Initially. this issue was addressed with average values ofmicrostructural variables such as global versus local volume fraction or mean nearestneighbor distance.146 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING experimental techniques for calibration would also be appropriate. grow and coalesce. Developing and tracking metrics for these microplastic clusters allows a direct measure of the architectttre's interplay between local and global length scales. We have tracked the development of these two parameters as a function of)~ loading and load direction. .Threedimensional yield surface estimate in strain space for (a) 20x20x20 model and (b) 50xSOxSO model. perhaps looking at XCMT data before and after deformation. how much of the microstructure is participating in the mesoscale yield process) and the size of a dominant microstructural feature. we have focused on two easily accessed metrics of the microplastic clusters: the number of clusters and the maximum cluster size. microplastic clusters nucleate. From the occurrence of first cell yielding to the final global percolation of yield (mesoscale yield). Figure 9 . which might define some "natural" length scale.
which varies with loading case. imaged based finite element models and percolation analysis has been used to demonstrate how 3D multiaxial yield surfaces can be estimated from microstructure morphology. At the same time. . a dominant cluster still forms. it is difficult to predict precisely which arrangements are beneficial. This truncated nucleation phase most likely occurs due to the lack of load shedding to the reinforcement and the stress concentration factors at the void. The broader implications of this effort are to construct techniques that evaluate complex microstructural performance and identify classes ofmicrostructural features and deformation patterns that merit further detailed study. without more detailed simulations. the number of clusters initially increases extremely fast and then decreases with scaling. the differences would likely be more pronounced. Linear superposition of three elastic basis deformation loading cases was used to construct arbitrary strain states. However. aligned short fiber reinforcements or pores). from which plastic flow percolation was identified and associated with the onset of yield.. Finally. Initially. indicating relatively uniform growth of smaller clusters. the maximum cluster size does not initially change with scaling during the growth phase. it should be pointed out tliat these microplastic cluster metrics could be used for architecture optimization. Interestingly. the maximum cluster size at percolation was larger for the triaxial case. Two orders of magnitude reductions in the time to construct the yield surface are seen using selected simulations and percolation based estimation versus direct simulation of the microstructure. The development of the metrics for the TiB2 particle model is similar for different multiaxial loading directions. at some point.g. This scenario changes somewhat when we consider the void model. a single dominant cluster is formed and it grows until percolation is achieved. The primary difference being the maximum number of microplastic clusters was greater for triaxial than tmiaxial loading. As with the composite. indicating the net coalescence of clusters. One supposes that increased cluster nucleation coupled with a delay of cluster coalescence (and percolation) would maximize the energy absorption. However. Summary A combination of micrometer resolution tomography. the number of clusters is large and continuously decreases with loading. shown in Figure 10b. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 147' Figure 10a shows that. This combination ofsereening and focus activities can relate this information to practical engineering properties needed for component performance simulation and process development. The maximum cluster size at percolation was also slightly lower for the triaxial case. in the void model. However. if the microstructure were more anisotropie (e. This methodology was demonstrated using a TiB2 particle reinforced 1100 aluminum composite with the limiting cases of perfectly bonded and perfectly debonded particles. The maximum and final number ofmicroplastic clusters were similar in each loading case for the void model. for the model with TiBz properties.GELTMACHERET AL.
.000 g r ~r e~ r" '~ 0 ..001) *' ' ' 1 '' I' I '' ~ L .ooo ..' " ' " .r" ~.+ "1 80.. .0 Z 2011 40.000 O o_ e.i .~ 100..' ~ ~ "+ + ~ 200 0 o 20 40 60 80 100 Percentage of Lambda at RVE Plastic Flow Percolation 120. ~ Uniaxial Deformation: 0=0" and 4=0 * ~ Triaxial Deformation: 1000 ..i ~ 4oo . 9 Uniaxial Deformation: O=0* and 4=0 * . i~ i ' ". .~"~o Tdaxial Deformation: 0=~5 ~ and 4=45 ~ ~ .000 "] :3 f:/ \ \ ' "" i 1 ....000 Z t . 0=45 ~ and 4=45 ~ 1 I 120.4o. .148 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING 1200 ~ ' 't ' ' ' = ' ' ' ~ .o. .000 m s 0 T T T I T I I T I I ~ ] T T ~ 0 20 40 6O 8O 100 Percentage of Lambda at RVE Plastic Flow Percolation Figure 10  Cluster evolution graphs for (a) aluminum/TiB2 composite model and (b) aluminum/void model..= 0 300 \ \ t i ~ ~ X + .~ 4O0 ~.ooo ~'~. . ill 60.000 o 20.
" Journal of Applied Mechanics . Y. 27. A. J. Liu. F. R. Werwer." International Journal of Solids and Structures. No.. Tanaka. 1997. Breunig." Scripta Metallurgica et Materialia. M... Anderson. 136140. 3. and Davis. B. K. H. G. No. pp. "A MicroMacro Correlation Analysis for Metal Matrix Composites Undergoing Multiaxial Damage. No. Vol. G. No. P.. No. 381386. J. "Defects in SqueezeCast A1203/A1 Alloy Composites and Their Effects on Mechanical Properties. pp. H. 9.H. and OstojaStarzewski.. 45. 78. C. R. "Apparent Elastic and Elastoplastic Behavior of Periodic Composites. R. Vol. B." Journal of the Mechanics andPhysies of Solids. 19771987. 5. C." Materials Evaluation.. pp. No.. No. Brockenbrough.. 637649. Castelli. 1995. 1995. "HighResolution Xray Computed Tomography of Composite Materials. and Schwalbe. T.. No. H.. Y. I. T... 1995.Transactions of the ASME. P. 2. Vol. M. 35. A. R. C. M. Vol. J.. pp. and Smith. "Spatial Distribution of Voids in HY100 Steel by Xray Tomography.. A. "ScaleDependent Bounds on Effective Elastoplastic Response of Random Composites.. Ramakrishna. No. Li. and Rauser. "Damage in AlignedFibre SiC/A1 Quantified using a Laboratory Xray Tomographie Microscope.. 1. 39. ON MICROYIELDPERCOLATION 149 References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Jiang. No. Guvenilir.. R.. and Stock. I.. 46. Guvenilir. and Ellyin. 1998. 10. and Romanko. Vol. 5. Eckel. Hunt. Jiang. J." Scripta Materialia. Comec.. Everett." Composites Science and Technology. S. Jasiuk." ComputationalMaterials Science. 209213.... Yancey." Materials Evaluation. A. Wienecke. J. and Bathias.. M. 49. 165169. and Richmond. Brockenbrough. pp. Baaklini. Vot. 2001. R. No. Stock. Vol. and Geltmacher. K. .." Composites. No. 1993." International Journal of Solids and Structures. R.. "A ThreeDimensional Unit Cell Model with Application toward Particulate Composites. B. 10401044. "Local Strain Fields and Global Plastic Response of Continuous Fiber Reinforced MetalMatrix Composites under Transverse Loading. E. 3. 1990. A. Simmonds. K. M. Vol. 1993. 1. 53. Hirano. C. 604608. "Direct Observation of Crack Opening as a Function of Applied Load in the Interior of a Notched Tensile Sample ofAlLi 2090. London. 2. pp. G. pp. No. Jr." Journal of Materials Research. Vol. 1998. 245252. Elliott. pp. 44. 24... J." Acta Materialia.. 2001. pp. D. 3. 48. and Masuda. Vol. "In Situ Xray CT under Tensile Loading using Synchrotron Radiation. X. Usami. 655673. and Jasiuk.. K.. pp. "A Reinforced Material Model using Actual Microstructural Geometry. M. A. "Xray Microtomography of Ceramic and Metal Matrix Composites. Vol.. O. 12. R. W. 199212. Engler. T. 124136. 2002. Breunig. M. pp. Vol. 1992. pp. T. A.GELTMACHERET AL. M. 385390..62. OstojaStarzewski. Kinney. Vol. 1. A. 4. S. N. pp. W.
The International Society for Optical Engineering. R.Developments in Xray Tomography II. K. "Characterization of Intemal Damage in a MMCp using Xray Synchrotron Phase Contrast Microtomography. pp." Ph. 16131625..Y. "Developments in Synchrotron Xray Computed Microtomography at the National Synchrotron Light Source".. Proceedings of the SPIE Volume 3772. 5. A. 84104. P.. 1999. G. G. Axe. V. L. H. Maim.. D. Lormand. Dissertation. U. pp. and Siddons. Bonse.. J. and Fougeres. Mart.. Bellingham. Nagarkar. B. 224236. V. 1999. WA. Vol. R. University of Maryland... "Mesoscale Effects on Strengthening Mechanisms in Particulate / Aluminum Metal Matrix Composites.. R. 47. Cloetens. E. P." Acta Materialia.. Tipnis. [ 16] Everett. S. [15] Dowd.. pp. . No. V. 1996. B. Ed.D.. Campbell.150 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING [14] Buffiem..
O.. A. However. T.DC. or models that are derived using averaging methods such as the MoriTanaka method or the selfconsistent method. "ImageBased Characterization and Finite Element Analysis of Porous SMA Behavior. Essential to the use of these materials is an understanding of the structural and shock absorbing response of the material. and Everett.. high level of energy absorption through phase transformation and possible increased energy absorption through wave scattering due to porosity.4555 OverlookAvenue. DeGiorgi. 2 SectionHead. In this study. 20375. ASTM International. Xray computed tomography. DeGiorgi. Because the resultant models have large degrees of freedom they cannot be employed to analyze largescale structural problems.org . an attempt is made to analyze numerically porous SMA behavior under dynamic conditions based on the representative mesostructural features. Preliminary results are obtained for selected pore volume fractions and distinct trends in material behavior are observed. M. Qidwai.Inc. Erickson Natishan. PA. West Conshohocken. respectively... R.MultifunctionalMaterialsBranch.Muhammad A. computational modeling.NavalResearch Laboratory. pseudoelasticity Introduction Most of the current shape memory alloy (SMA) applications utilize the shape memory and pseudoelastic effects in the quasistatic regime . 1 Virginia G.MD. Abstract: Porous shape memory alloys (SMAs) are a relatively new group of materials that are of interest because of their potential use in the design of damping and shock mitigation systems. smart material. i. 2003. 2 and Rick K..GeoCenters. Everettz ImageBased Characterization and Finite Element Analysis of Porous SMA Behavior Reference: Qidwai. size. Code 6353 and 6352.W. Keywords: porous shape memory alloy.e. The first step in the process involves the detailed characterization of the relevant mesostructure. Box 441340. ASTM STP 1429.. Eds. M. FortWashington. WashingtonOperations.. volume fraction and distribution. G." Predictive Material Modeling: Combining Fundamental Physics Understanding. Computational Methods. This representative characterization can be used to produce realistic imagebased finite element models. and Empirically Observed Behavior.Washington.S.P. simply designed boundary value problems such as the dynamic uniaxial compressive loading of a bar can be used as benchmarks for the verification of phenomenological macroconstitutive models. The emphasis of this research is to develop a computational methodology that will bridge the mesostructural and macrostructural features of porous SMAs. 20749. 151 Copyright 92004by ASTMInternational www. Constitutive models that accurately represent these characteristics are necessary. K. dynamic constitutive behavior.. V.astm. Kirk and M.(very low strain rates of I Scientist. information about pore shape. Benefits of the material include reduced weight.
105/s to 101/s).152 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Figure 1 .44A14. The advantages of pores in an otherwise dense SMA include reduced weight and the possibility for mechanical impedance matching through the ability to customize the porosity level. Abeyaratne and Knowles [4] have determined the values of phase boundary velocity and driving force according to their onedimensional constitutive model [5]. Similarly. Quasistatic constitutive modeling of porous SMA based on averaging techniques taking into account both periodic pore distribution (using unit cell FEM) and random pore distribution (using MoriTanaka averaging method) have been presented in [6. The results predicted that 90% of the input impact energy would be absorbed during the first few hundred microseconds through phase transformation. Chert and Lagoudas [2] have provided a closedform solution of the coupled thermomechanical onedimensional phase propagation problem in a semiinfinite dense SMA bar by using the theory ofRiemann invariants and characteristic curves. selfhealing structural materials and vibration control. JimenezVictory conducted numerical simulations of stress pulse impact on onedimensional semiinfinite dense SMA bar using a rateindependent constitutive model.Conceptual hybrid porous SMA composite wheelchain skirtfor protection. SMAs may be a valuable material in shock and impact damage mitigation. Potential application areas for porous SMA can be protective armor for both structures and personnel. Escobar and Clifton [3] have carried out pressureshear plate impact experiments on Cu. 8]. which is based on a Helmholtz flee energy function. In addition to the work by JimenezVictory there are a few studies on the constitutive modeling of the dynamic SMA behavior. Figure 1 shows one conceptual schematic of protective structural armor in the form of a hybrid porous SMA composite wheelchain skirt.14. a kinetic relation and a nucleation criterion.19Ni single crystals to study the kinetics of stressinduced phase transformation. These advantages are in addition to the energy absorption capability. A recent study by JimenezVictory [ 1] suggests that SMAs possess significant energy absorption and damping characteristics at higher strainrates (>> 101 /s). As mentioned earlier. dense SMA may have important shock mitigation features. 7. However. the effects of pore distribution on the material behavior at the mesoscale have . When the advantages of a porous material are added to SMA these features may become of even greater interest for the design of new shock and impact resistance systems.
volume fractions and distributions of the pores can be obtained. ON IMAGEBASEDCHARACTERIZATION 153 been investigated [9]. shape and distribution to represent the actual material morphology accurately. These analyses indicate that the closer the analytical model is to the actual porous material microstructure. and finally conclusions on the simulations performed are presented. a brief overview of the compressive splitHopkinson bar test. the notion of assumed pore distribution is abandoned by representing as accurately as possible the actual mesostructure in the finite element models of the material specimen. It exhibits a porous . the digital data from the images is directly converted into finite element models. Figure 2 shows examples of porous SMA created by three different fabrication techniques that use elemental powders. Standard image analysis programs are used to determine these characteristics. numerical modeling details. There are two conventional methods to convert the information obtained using XCMT techniques into realistic finite element models. The work presented here includes preliminary information on XCMT based material modeling. This effect is apparent in quasistatic analysis performed. In the case of porous SMA neither conventional approach resulted in FE models that were suitable for analysis. useful graphical as well as statistical information on the shapes. In the other method. the more accurate the computational material performance predictions. It is considered that it will be even more critical in dynamic analysis. And in some cases neither method may be appropriate or feasible. it may not be practical to retrieve useful statistical variables such as variation of size. It is assumed that porous SMA is a twophase material consisting of pores and dense SMA material. In the first method. On the other hand. the statistical parameters that are retrieved from the imagery are employed with the help of distribution algorithms to generate nearrealistic finite element models. The drawback of the direct conversion method is the computational cost due to the large number of finite elements that may be required to attain true resolution. computational cost involved and simplicity of obtaining related statistical information. The material characteristics and method used to create the FE models used are described here. distribution and volume fraction is obtained ~om Xray computed microtomography (XCMT) images. In this study.QIDWAI ET AL. The mesostructural information such as pore shape. was seen as critical to the overall bulk material response. sizes. it is possible to obtain threedimensional digital images of material specimen [ 12]. especially in the case of nontmiform pore distributions. The dynamic constitutive behavior of porous SMA is obtained by simulating the compressive splitHopkinson bar test. Accelerated phase transformation was observed based on pore spacing as well as pore orientation. The choice of the method by a user may depend upon the material at hand. The size of the material specimen that can be analyzed by this technique is limited by the size and the intensity of the Xray beam used for probing. size. The dense SMA behavior is described by an existing rateindependent thermomechanical constitutive model [10. Material and Experimental Model Material Description of Porous SMA Based on XRay ComputedMicroTomography (XCMT) With the advent of Xray computed microtomography (XCMT). Once the images are obtained. 11]. In all cases the spatial relationships between pores.
In fact. It is found out from the analysis of the images that the average smallest pores. approximately 200 ~m characteristic inplane length. It is further deduced from image analysis that the average characteristic inplane length of the pores in sintering specimen is 200 gm with a standard deviation of .154 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Figure 2 .Porous SMA bar made by hightemperature synthesis. size and distribution. respectively. the following material characterization strategy for numerical modeling has been adopted in this study. HIPing and sintering. are produced in SHS. Detailed description and relevant literature review of these methods can be found in [7] and [13]. Xray computed mierotomography images of three different specimens made using hightemperature synthesis (SHS). size and distribution pattern are independent of pore volume fraction. approximately 2000 grn characteristic inplane length. whereas the average largest pores. SMA bar produced by selfpropagating hightemperature synthesis (SHS) and XCMT images of specimens made by SHS. The specimens made by SHS and HIPing are ignored because their respective characteristic pore lengths are of the same order of magnitude as a splitHopkinson bar specimen that may result in structural response rather than constitutive response under dynamic loading. which is in between 5060% for all the specimens shown in Figure 2. It is assumed that the pore related parameters in the sintering specimen shown in Figure 3 such as shape. Therefore. are produced in conventional sintering. Porous SMA specimen made by sintering is chosen because of its reasonable pore size. the only definite information easily available is the pore volume fraction. This arrangement is not conducive to generating reasonably sized directcorrespondence finite element meshes and also does not allow for obtaining "unique" statistical information on the threedimensional pore shape. Further study of the microtomographs shown in Figure 2 reveals that all specimens possess anJntricate network of open pores with dendritic features. hot isostatie pressing (HIPing) and conventional sintering.
. Consequently. Compressive SplitHopkinson Bar Test The compressional splitHopkinson bar test is a commonly used experimental method to determine onedimensional material behavior at intermediate strain rates (10z104/s). This simple algorithmic arrangement results in effective firfite element meshes. 30%. which bear a close morphological arrangement to the specimen. thereby imparting in it a square pulse with a length that is large with respect to the specimen length. large convoluted and randomly shaped pores may possibly form even if the average pore characteristic inplane length is chosen to be 200 ~tm. an algorithm is used to place the pores randomly within the finite element mesh. ON IMAGEBASEDCHARACTERIZATION 155 Figure 3 . A striker bar impacts the incident bar.QIDWAI ET AL.Finite element meshes for specimens containing different pore volume fractions. 200 Ixm. Afterwards. A schematic of a typical test setup is shown in Figure 4. to ensure onedimensional equilibrium conditions in the specimen. 40% and 50% developed by this methodology are shown in Figure 3. L. Normal Gaussian distribution is employed to generate pores based on this information for a given pore volume fraction and constraints of specimen geometry. The algorithm does not allow the pores to intersect but they can sit adjacent to each other. pores are obtained based on average size and standard deviation and are distributed randomly in the specimen domain. respectively. One isometric view and three planar views of meshes for pore volume fractions of 20%.
.. respectively. The following relations are then obtained for average stress.(t)..p. Eo Figure 4 . respectively.. a square axial velocity pulse of amplitude 5 m/s and time span of 100 ~ts is applied as a boundary condition at the left end of the incident bar. Lo Strain //Gauge >[ t I Striker Bar t / Incident 1 Ao.(t)=_2Co tf8 L Jo . average strain rate.. where Eo. Oo. The amplitude of the pulse is such that inelastic deformation is imparted to the specimen and the pulse proceeds through the transmitted bar.156 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING V ~ 1 [< Strain Gauge~o .Schematic of a eompressional splithopMnson bar test. s(t)=9 (1) (2) (3) 2Co L s. in the specimen in terms of the reflected and transmitted strain pulses as a function of time [14] cr(t)=Eo~Sr(t ). reflected pulse and transmitted pulse are made at strain gauges positioned at midpoints of the bars away from the interface to reduce noise as shown in Figure 4. ~.. Eo. Ao and Co are the Young's modulus. respectively. Recordings of the incident pulse. . po..(t)dt... of the bars are 210 GPa and 7900 Kg/m 3. the incident and transmitted bars are both assumed to be maraging steel of square (12. The material of the incident bar is chosen so that an elastic wave travels through it and reaches the specimen. A and L are the crosssectional area and length of the specimen. These material properties are sufficient to maintain an elastic response in the incident and transmitted bars for medium strainrate tests.5 x 12. The amplitude of the velocity pulse is chosen to ensure an effective stress in the specimen sufficient for full phase transformation. and density. or. k. and e R(t) and e z (t) are the strains as a function of time at midpoints of the bars due to reflected and transmitted pulses. which is sandwiched between the incident and transmitted bar. The striker bar is not modeledinstead. and average strain. Oo.5 mm 2) crosssection and 1 m in length. z. I Ao.Eo Bar Por~ms SMA Specimen . The Young's modulus. Numerical Modeling For the simulations. crosssectional area and elastic wave speed of the incident and transmitted bars.~ Midpoint A..E L > . \ Transmitted Bar .
QIDWAI ETAL. ON IMAGEBASEDCHARACTERIZATION
157
The specimen has a square crosssection of 5 x 5 mm 2 and length o f 5 mm. Five specimens with pore volume fractions o f 0%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%, respectively, are analyzed. The pore volume fraction o f 0% implies fully dense SMA specimen. It is analyzed for verification and comparison purposes. As mentioned earlier, porous SMA is modeled as a twophase material composed of pores and dense SMA. Ir/itially, the dense SMA material in all specimens is in the austenitic state at the austenitic finish temperature, A~ = 315 K. For simplicity, the temperature is assumed constant. Transformation to martensite is stressinduced. A rateindependent constitutive model [10, 11] is used to describe the dense SMA material behavior. Material parameters and their values required by the model are given in Table 1 and are taken from the aforementioned references. Table 1  M a t e r i a l p a r a m e t e r s f o r dense SMA constitutive model 3. Material Parameters EA EM aA aM v A= v M pAc H
tob A pb M
Values 70.0 x 109 Pa 30.0 x 109 Pa 22.0 x 106 1 K 10.0 x 106 1 K 0.33 J 0.0ms K 0.05 140 x 106 Pa
H
H
H
A of
7.0 x 106 Pa K 315.0K 295.0 K 291.0K 271.0K
AO~
M os M of
3 See [I0, 11].
158
PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING
Figure 5  Evolution of strain rate in specimens carrying pore volumefractions of O%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%. Note the change in strain rate at 100 ps. The commercial finite element software ABAQUS Explicit [ 15] is employed in simulating the dynamic problem, The SMA constitutive model is numerically implemented using the return mapping algorithm [11] in a user subroutine facility VUMAT available in ABAQUS Explicit. The bars and the specimen are all modeled using reduced integration 8node brick elements. The automatic time incrementation option is used. The interfaces between the bars and the specimen are modeled using a contact surface option, where both the bars and the specimen are given equal weight in determining the master surfaceslave surface relationship. The two layers of elements in each porous SMA specimen at the interface are kept poreless to avoid nonuniqueness of the normal (vector) on the contact surfaces (see Figure 4). Overalltime of each analysis is fixed to be 450 ~s, sufficient for the pulse to reach the end of transmitted bar. Results The interpretation of results from splitHopkinson bar test of porous SMA at temperatures greater than austenitic start temperature is more complicated due to recoverability than that of nontransforming metals that undergo dislocation plasticity. That is, at the end of the input pulse, there is an unloading in the porous SMA specimen resulting in reverse phase transformation from martensite to austenite. This can be observed in the evolutionary plot of strain rate for different pore volume fractions in Figure 5 obtained by using Equation (2). The time shown in the figure is calibrated to the start of loading on the specimen. The compressive strain rate in each specimen is in the order of 103/s. The strain rate rises in the beginning as compressive and by the end of 100 ~ts changes into tensile due to recovery. Even though the applied loading pulse is
QIDWAIETAL.ONIMAGEBASED CHARACTERIZATION
159

Incident Beg ] Incident EndSMA Beg [ SMA EndTransmitted Beg t Transmitted End j
/
/
/ /
Z J
..
. . . . . .
t
I
~ ~ S
,"
i i ]
j
i
150
200
Time
250
(ILLS)
300
350
400
450
Figure 6  Displacement profile offour locations in the simulation for a given pore
volumefraction with respect to time indicating the passage of applied pulse.
square in shape, there is a rise time in the beginning due to contact conditions. Similarly, at the end of the loading at 100 ~ts, the unloading rate decreases in amplitude unevenly due to complex multiple interactions at the interface. A clear picture of the passage of applied pulse with time can be observed in Figure 6, where displacement at four different locations is plotted as function of time for a given pore volume fraction. The locations are the beginning of the incident bar, the incident barporous SMA specimen interface, the porous SMA specimentransmitted bar interface, and the end of transmitted bar. The evolution of total axial strain at midpoints of the incident bar and transmitted bar, away from the interface is plotted in Figure 7 for all specimens. The recording in the incident bar provide evolutionary information of both incident and reflected pulses. The pulse reaches midpoint of the incident bar in each case at about 97 Ixs consistent with the elastic wave speed of ~ = 5156 m/s. As expected, it lasts until around 197 [xs. By the end of 194 ~ts, the pulse reaches the interface between the incident bar and the SMA specimen. A reflected pulse of opposite sign and a transmitted pulse of the same sign are generated at that point in time. The reflected pulse reaches the midpoint of the incident bar at 291/xs, and almost at the same time the midpoint of the transmitted bar experiences the originally transmitted pulse. Both reflected and the transmitted pulses are actually a combination of various interactions at the leading and ending interfaces, and therefore, are different in shape from the incident pulse, which is almost constant in amplitude (see Figure 7). Note that
.15 ....05 5O 0....... the amplitude of the reflected pulse and corresponding area increases with increasing pore volume fraction during loading signifying larger total strain for large pore volume fractions.. 20%.. On the other hand..........50 ~ E " E .............~ .15 0......... I .......... ...... the reflected pulse changes sign at around 391 ~ts and the transmitted pulse also reaches a peak from which it gradually decreases.............. The point on the incident bar provides information on both the incident and reflected pulse..........................~............ o.......... the peak and the area of the reflected pulse should be greater than the calculated value in eachcase after 391 Ixs (when the sign changes) as they directly relate to total axial strain experienced by the porous SMA specimen [see Equation (3)]..................... In fact.......... /..... 1 IncidentReflected A i = 000" ~ 5o .. ...........................160 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING o...05 ~ o0..Evolution of axial strain at midpoints in the incident bar and transmitted bar with time for pore volume fractions of O%.... I J Time {pS) Time(~s~ Time (p.i 3 ~.............15 .........15 VVV~" ......lO t 0..................15 ~ Time ( ~ s ) "" " ? ~176 0.....................15 .10 0.....i ~ 0............05 t ....... Despite the abovementioned discrepancy................. T i m e (~t$) / I/ 0....... 40% and 50%..............................00 ~ 50 0 250 300 3~ ...................1o 0..05 ... ..........................................05 0 150 250 3O0"~ 3 5 0 0.......o..... 30%. For the total strain to be zero at the end of the analysis.. the magnitude of the transmitted pulse should be equal to zero at the end of the analysis....... in each case...............................15 "" ................... This is attributed to the unloading of the specimen that should result in recovery... Similarly........... The consequence of this discrepancy will be seen in the stressstrain behavior later................... First of all..v  " w '.O....... ..............05 0.............10 0.. total area under the reflected strain pulse must be equal to zero..s) Figure 7 ........... i 0.....5o 1~.... .....% 0. certain valuable trends can be obtained from the series of results shown in Figure 7.............
20~ 30%.. Also. respectively. The discrepancy mentioned in the discussion of Figure 7 is again noted in evaluation of results shown in Figure 8. . f I/ / . That is.. The transmitted pulse is directly related to average stress in the specimen [see Equation (1)]..__. and the same applied load results in larger average total strain but lesser average stress." ~ . Currently this is under investigation with plans for subsequent improvements in the algorithms used. During loading. I /I . .: i =. both the amplitude and the area after the change in sign decrease signifying lesser recovery with increasing pore volume fraction. specifically incorrect numerical interface conditions.. decrease with increasing pore volume fraction.l. there is distinct softening in the material with an increased number of pores../'.. the absolute values of average stress and average strain in each specimen is plotted in Figure 8. The curves confirm the observations described above based on results shown in Figure 7. 40% and 50%.{j. The maximum value at the end of loading (391 ~ts) of this pulse decreases with increasing pore volume fraction.:.'. The problem may be a result of FE techniques used in this analysis.ONIMAGEBASED CHARACTERIZATION 161 1200 ] i ooo I o~ ] /~ /t "~ 800 t I I.. phase transformation and then elastic loading ofmartensite..Average stressstrain behavior of porous sma specimen for pore volume fractions of O%. The loading part of the simulations is verified by noting that the critical stresses for beginning and ending the phase transformation in dense SMA (0%) are correct. 1" . the magnitude of average applied critical stresses needed to initiate phase transformation from austenite to martensite and full transformation. / / i ..'. Using Equations (1) and (3)." . there are distinct phases of elastic loading of austenite.~o~1 /*" /.. = 600 400 I I 0 I I l. Elastic unloading does not follow the path of loading and the typical pseudoelastic stressstrain response is not obtained. indicating decreasing average stress in the specimen. ( k 0 k '':~ 4 8 12 16 20 Axial Strain (%) Figure 8 ..QIDWAI ETAL.
DeGiorgi and M. It seemed probable that discrepancies in modeling due to assumptions of uniform or purely random pore orientation would be of greater importance in the evaluation of dynamic material response. there is a distinct increase in softening in the material due to increase in pore volume fraction.. 1999. Also. The procedure is successfully carried out for pore volume fractions of 0%. Typical pseudoelastic stressstrain response is not obtained for any specimen and this discrepancy is currently attributed to incorrect implementation of interface conditions in the simulations.B. College Station. Further investigations are being carried out in this regard. 40% and 50%. A. The meso and macromechanical scales are attempted to be bridged by the use of Xray computed microtomography (XCMT) to define characteristics at the mesoscale. Therefore. DC. Texas A&M University. Geltmacher in the rendering of finite element meshes that appear in this work is also greatly appreciated. These finite element models are then used to investigate the dynamic behavior of porous SMA. Numerical simulations of the splitHopkinson bar test are employed to produce onedimensional average dynamic porous SMA stressstrain response. An alternative approach is presented for creating usable finite element models that provide a good estimate of the actual mesostructure. Qidwai are supported in part by a grant of HPC time from the DoD HPC Center at the Naval Research Laboratory. Once confidence is gained in the numerical simulations and processes. It is observed that required magnitudes of applied stress to initiate and complete phase transformation decrease with increasing pore volume fraction.162 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING Conclusion The importance of spatial relationships between pores had been determined in previous work on quasistatic response of porous SMA material. References [1] JimenezVictory. Acknowledgment The computations preformed by V. J.A. 30%. pores and dense SMA material.C. The contribution of Dr. . Probabilistic algorithms are used to develop realistic finite element meshes to reduce the approximations usually incorporated in assuming periodic arrangement of pores or adopting micromechanical averaging techniques. calculated results will be compared with experimental results. TX 778433141." Master's Thesis. "Dynamic Analysis of Impact Induced Phase Transformation in Shape Memory Alloys Using Numerical Techniques. an approach to modeling in which the actual porous material mesostructure is represented in the finite element models used is adopted. Washington.G. Conventional methods for converting information from the data analysis of XCMT images to finite element models resulted in models that were unwieldy and of no practical use. The constitutive behavior of porous SMA is obtained by assuming the material to be composed of two phases. Experimental work is also currently being conducted at other institutions investigating porous SMA response. 20%.
and Lagoudas. "Numerical Implementation of a Shape Memory Alloy Thermomechanical Constitutive Model using Return Mapping Algorithms. 2000. Main.G. D. 3992.. 45..B.B. B." Mechanics of Composite Materials and Structures.B.44A14. . V. and Clifton. M. Transformations in Cu.QIDWAI ET AL. "A Continuum Model of a Thermoelastic Solid [6] Lagoudas.A. [7] [8] Qidwai. Entchev.. L. J. Ed. pp. Vol.C. [5] Abeyaratne. "Micromechanics of Porous Shape Memory Alloys. P. Vol. 41. Qidwai. and Lagoudas. M. Entchev. SPIE. "Developments in Synchrotron XRay Computed Microtomography at the National Synchrotron Light Source. M. 275300. and J. 2000.C. D. "Impact Induced Phase Transformation in Shape Memory Alloys. pp. Marr." Proceedings of Adaptive Structures and Material Systems.. Vol.P. ON IMAGEBASEDCHARACTERIZATION 163 [2] Chen. P. V. Vol.B.V. M." Journal of Material Science and Engineering.A.. Redmond. and DeGiorgi. and Siddons.. and Qidwai. pp..C. Y. 16711683... Lynch. M. R.K.. and J. 4050. "On the Kinetics of an Austenite ~ Martensite Phase Transformation Induced by Impact in a CuA1Ni ShapeMemory Alloy.. and Knowles.C. Porous Shape Memory Alloy Material Behavior. V. Vol. V. 2000. [11] Qidwai.. R. "Modeling of Thermomechanical Response of Porous Shape Memory Alloys.C.. ASME. D.." International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering. 1993. 125142. Vol. Vol. pp. Lagoudas. 47. pp.. Entchev.19Ni Single Crystals. V.L. AD60. AD60... pp.A.C. Lagoudas. 1993.. Campbell. 3339.14. pp. Main. 2.G. J." Archives of Mechanics.. Vol. Axe. ASME.. Redmond. Bo.. "PressureShear Impact Induced Phase [4] Abeyaratne. [lO] Lagoudas.. D.. 48. 541571.C.S. 496508.. A170. 1996. P.K. "Mesoscale Analysis of Porous Shape Memory Alloys"... 3. and DeGiorgi. pp." Journal for the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. Z. "Estimate of [9] DeGiorgi.C.J. pp. SPIE." Proceedings of Developments in XRay TomographyII. Eds.G. Qidwai.. Vandygriff. Vol. [3] Escobar. Nagarkar..." Proceedings of Active Materials: Behavior and Mechanics. and Knowles.A. pp.A. Vol. G. R. Capable of Undergoing Phase Transitions. E. "A Unified Thermodynamic Constitutive Model for SMA and Finite Element Analysis of Active Metal Matrix Composite. R. Proceedings of Adaptive Structures and Material Systems... D. D. 38. ar/d DeGiorgi. 86538671.A. 11231168. 2000.H. [12] Dowd.. 153179. Vol. J... S. D. C.. 1997.. J.. 2000." International Journal of Solids and Structures. 3772. 2001. No.. Eds. M." Journalfor the Mechanics and Physics of Solids.A. Tipnis. J. and Qidwai.
Inc. "Porous Shape Memory Alloys..C.. 1998.. Hibbit.. Part I: Fabrication and characterization. Thangaraj.. ABAQUS/Explieit User's Manual.. TX.C. John Wiley & Sons. 1994. . Lagoudas. K.. Inc. D. M. Karlsson & Sorensen. E. [15] HKS. [14] Meyers. College Station. Dynamic Behavior of Materials. 2000.C.164 PREDICTIVE MATERIAL MODELING [13] Vandygriff. Chen." Proceedings of ASC 15thAnnual Technical Conference. Y.A.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.