Voorbeeld thema MARITIEM 2013

Thema:
Accounting for thickness or width effects in steel fracture through multi-axiality
Contactpersoon:
Dr. Carey Walters, TNO Maritime & Offshore, carey.walters@tno.nl, tel: +31 (0)888662832
Innovatie themas:
Kennisgebied:
Kennis sub-gebied:
Slimme schepen
Fracture of steel
Sterkteleer
Winnen op zee
Maritieme constructies en
Materiaalkunde
materialen
Mechanica
Maritieme operaties
Inspectie, detectie en
Maritieme systemen en
monitoring
processen
Monitoring en control
Maritieme ontwerp
Arctic Engineering
en bouwtechnologie

Achtergrond (relatie met Innovatiethemas):

There is currently a large difference between how fracture testing specimens are loaded and how
real maritime and offshore structures are loaded. While this difference is conservative, the added
costs of the conservatism is becoming increasingly important for low temperature operations
(Arctic), high-strength steels, and thick steels.
The difference between testing and actual loading essentially depends on how multi-axially the
material is loaded at the tip of a hypothetical crack. Because of this difference, maritime and
offshore designers are forced to conduct very expensive tests (order: >10,000) to verify their
materials and welds. While the fundamental differences between the test specimen and the real
structure may be impossible to change, there is considerable hope that new insight will allow for
current fracture mechanics test results to be analytically interpreted in a way that is more
representative of real structures. At a minimum, better insight will allow for a more quantitative
description of the differences between fracture testing and structural implementation.
It is currently possible to use standard methods to relate less expensive tests (e.g. SENB) to more
expensive standard fracture tests (e.g. SENT) based on constraint (multi-axiality) levels. For example,
FITNET provides standard solutions for T-stresses (expressed in FITNET in its normalized form ), and
FITNET also provides methods of determining empirical parameters for relating the fracture at one
constraint level to another. T-stress is associated with purely elastic behavior, and Q-parameter does
a similar service for plastic fracture. A number of researchers have calculated both T-stress and Qparameter and shown that there is a one-to-one relationship between these two parameters, even
into the plasticity range. However, most published T-stress and Q-parameter solutions assume a
state of plane strain. The handbook solutions for T-stress are often calculated with plane strain finite
element models, and Q-parameter are often calculated according to Eq (1):

Q=

yy yy

T =0

(traditional definition of Q)

(1)

0
where 0 is the flow stress, yy is the stress perpendicular to the crack flank in front of the crack tip,
and T=0 indicates that it is evaluated where the T-stress is zero. Because T-stress and Q-parameter
solutions often depend on the assumption of plane strain, their direct applicability to real
structures remains questionable. This comes from the two-sided problem that the test specimens
are often not in a state of plane strain when tested, and the structures themselves arent
necessarily in a state of plane strain in normal loading.
Constraint or stress in the direction of the crack tip is often called out of plane constraint, where
the plane that is referred to is the one perpendicular to the crack tip, thus the plane of classical
analysis. Current norms and standards often assume that the highest amount of out-of-plane
constraint possible in a structure is associated with the thickness of the material. However, this is
not true when one considers the possibility that a surface crack can have a length in the direction of
the crack tip that is much longer than the thickness and thus have much more constraint in that
direction. The constraint can further be increased, decreased, or even reversed, when one considers
the possibility of a normal stress acting in the direction of the crack tip itself.
Wide plate testing attempts to assure that the test specimen is in a state of plane strain, but it is
expensive, and it can never assure that the real structure is also in a state of plane strain. Therefore,
the only way to be sure that one achieves the same level of constraint as in the structure is to have a
fracture toughness method that accounts for constraint, including the constraint in the direction of
the crack tip.
Various methods of representing the out-of-plane constraint have been proposed. The simplest is
simply to include this portion of the stress tensor into the calculation of Q-parameter, and thus
remove the plane strain assumption. In that way, the definition of Q-parameter would become Qh,
as shown in Eq. (2):

Qh =

m m T =0

(multiaxial definition of Q)

(2)

where m is the mean stress (one third the trace of the principle stress matrix).
Others have suggested that a third parameter (called in this proposal and elsewhere Tz) should be
introduced. Tz should scale with the normal stress in the direction of the crack front. Its technical
definition is given in Eq. (3):

Tz =

zz
xx + yy

(3)

where zz is the stress along the crack tip (out-of-plane), xx is the stress parallel to the crack flank,
and yy is the stress perpendicular to the crack flank.
The fracture locus would then be represented in 3-D J-Q-Tz space instead of just J-Q or K-T, which
have already become accepted. There is already a considerable amount of theoretical and numerical
work done on the 3-D constraint. However, experiments in this field are lacking. For example, a very
fundamental question within this field remains: Can the in-plane and out-of-plane constraint both be
represented in a single parameter, e.g. Qh, or is a second constraint parameter necessary?

Another project has tried to answer the above questions is the project VOCALIST. They tested a
number of specimens of different sizes, shapes, and loading modes for the nuclear industry. Of
particular interest is a large, unique experiment in which they tested a cracked cruciform specimen
under biaxial loading as a model for a real nuclear pressure vessel. They quantified their constraint
purely in 2-D terms (plane strain) for both T-stress and Q-parameter. Two of their figures are
reproduced below, for two different materials. The main outcome of these figures is that the
standard specimens (SENT, SENB, CT, etc.) defined a consistent trend, and the large-scale test which
was believed to represent the real structure fell completely outside of this trend. In fact, the largescale test had no portion of its error bar in the trend. The VOCALIST researchers attributed this to
the presence of out-of-plane (3D) strain and suggested that a 3D-based definition of Q would
address the discrepancy. Said another way, the VOCALIST research indicated that the definition of Qparameter should change from Q of Eq. (1) to Qh of Eq. (2). However, we are not aware that this
theory has ever been tested.

Figure 1: Change in transition temperature due to constraint for two materials from VOCALIST
Potentially interested industrial partners would be:
-Huisman Equipment b.v. , Allseas Engineering, Heerema, Damen Shipyards, IHC, SBM offshore,
Gusto, Lloyds Register, ABS, SSAB, ArcelorMittal, Nippon Steel, DMO, NLDA, Shell, Statoil
Relevante business cases, JIPs, EU projecten en overheidprogrammas:
Project naam
Onderwerp
Aantal NL
Private Cash
(type)
deelnemers bijdrage NL
Arctic materials
Materials in the Arctic environment
t.b.d.
t.b.d.
CMS
Micromechanical modeling of cleavage fracture
2
AFSuM
Reduction in cost of testing fracture in the
8
K 215
transition
+ K265
FaiMoS 2012 (TNO)
Simulation of fracture of ductile materials with
1
shell elements
FaiMoS 2011 (TNO)
Generation of a replacement element to model
1
welded joints in large structures
KIP 2010 (TNO)
Simulation of ductile fracture of steel
1
Onderzoek: wetenschappelijke vraagstelling en doelstelling
While working with offshore partners on projects related to high strength steels, TNO encountered a
number of questions that could not be answered with current standards or literature. Some of these
key questions are:
Current rules require CTOD tests (e.g. SENB) with specific characteristics (e.g. half-width crack
depth). Is this too conservative? Can other tests be done with adequate reliability?
Wide plate testing is considered to be very similar to testing a real structure. Does this test
adequately represent a shallow crack in a structure? Can a much less expensive SENT or SENB
test adequately represent a shallow crack in a non-homogeneous plate?
Can sub sized specimen adequately represent the fracture strength of full thickness plates?
While these questions all relate to the safety of offshore devices and the cost of fracture testing,

they spring directly from more fundamental technical issues, which are:
Considerable work has been done on evaluating the dependence of fracture on triaxiality (a
normalized form of hydrostatic tension). Can these different forms of constraint be directly
related to triaxiality?
Can constraint-based fracture mechanics be related to dependence of fracture on multi-axiality?
What is the effect of multi-axiality on material-scale testing?
How does the 2-D constraint in a wide plate compare with that of a shallow SENT specimen, and
how does that impact the observed fracture toughness?
How do the toughness properties change throughout the plate in the thickness and in weld
zones, and how can we deal with that/ utilize that in engineering practice and strength
substantiation?
Beschikbaar validatiemateriaal:
CMS
AFSuM

FaiMoS 2012

Micromechanical modeling of
cleavage fracture
Value k 750
FaiMoS 2011

Reduction in cost of testing

fracture in the transition
Value k 964
KIP 2010 (knowledge investment)

Simulation of fracture of ductile

materials with shell elements
Value k 710
Arctic Materials

Generation of a replacement
element to model welded joints
in large structures
Value k790

Simulation of ductile fracture of

steel

Materials in the Arctic

environment

Value k 300

Value t.b.d.