Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Janssen Cap 7

    Uploaded by

    Téfo Oliveira
    6 views24 pages
    Janssen Cap 7

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Janssen Cap 7

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views24 pages

    Janssen Cap 7

    Uploaded by

    Téfo Oliveira
    Janssen Cap 7

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 24
    VS SD 155 7 EPFM Testing 7.1 Introduction In chapter 6 the two most widely known concepts of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Me- chanics, the Jf integral and Crack Opening Displacement (COD) approaches, were dis- cussed in general terms. This chapter will deal with test methods for obtaining values of J and CTOD, in- cluding critical values Jj. and 6,,,,. The chapter may be considered the EPFM counter- part of chapter 5, which discussed LEFM test methods. The greater complexity of the J integral concept as compared to the COD concept is, clearly demonstrated by the derivations in chapter 6. This difference in complexity 1s also found in the test methods. Therefore the discussion of integral testing is subvli- vided into three sections 1) The original J, test method, section 7.2. 2) Alternative methods and expressions for J, section 7.3. 3) The standard Ji test, section 7.4 The original Jie test method requires a large amount of data analysis. This problem led to the development of certain types of test specimen for which simple expressions for J could be derived, and ultimately to the standard Jj. test Although it is not within the framework of EPFM testing, the Kj, specimen size re- quirement (see section 5.2) is further discussed in section 7.5. The reason is that the J integral concept enables this criterion to be viewed from a different perspective The COD concept is much more straightforward than the J integral, at least trom the experimental point of view. Thus only the standard Gi, (st itself will be deseribed, namely in section 7.6 With respect to standard test methods, it has already been remarked in seetions 6.4 and 6.8 that the J integral concept was developed mainly in the USA and the COD con- cept in the UK. Consequently it is logical that the original standard for Jie was Ameri- can (American Society for Testing and Materials) while the original COD test was the suibject of an official British Standard (British Standards Institution, BSI), see references, 1 and 2 of the bibliography to this chapter. At present both organizations have incorpo- rated the J integral concept as well as the COD concept into their test standards 7.2. The Original vic Test Method The first experimental method for determining J (more specitfcatty J/g, the critical VS SD 156 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics g 3 : i z = e 35 “os sPLaccuenr cack LENGTH @ 2 DISPLACEMENT,» Figure 7.1. The graphical procedure involved in Jj esting according to Begley and Landes. mode I value at the onset of crack extension) was published by Begley and Landes in 1971, reference 3 of the bibliography. The method is based on the definition of J as -dUpig, and requires graphical assessment of dUp/gg, The method will be illustrated with the help of figure 7.1, which schematically gives the graphical procedure for ob- taining J The procedure is as follows: 1) Load-displacement diagrams are obtained for a number of specimens precracked to different crack lengths (ay, a2, as in figure 7.1.4). Areas under the 1oad-displacement ceurves represent the energy per unit thickness, Ui, delivered to the specimens. Thus the shaded area in figure 7.1. is equal to the energy term Uj for a specimen with crack length a5 loaded to a displacement 1 2) Us plotted as a function of crack length for several constant values of displace- iment, figure 7.1.0. 3) The negative slopes of the Cj~a curves, te. ~(CUi/eq)s, are ploted against dis- placement for any desired crack length between the shortest and longest used in testing, figure 7..c. Since the elastic strain energy contents of a specimen is equal to the energy delivered to that specimen, it fotfows that -(CUi/eq),. is equat 10 ~(2Uwiaq),. In section 6.3 the energy definition of J was given as. VS SD 7. EPFM Testing 197 1) Since for crack extension under fixed grip conditions no work is performed by the loading system, it follows that (al) __(2U.) —_{llo) __{EUe ale) Hence figure 7.1.¢ in fact gives J-v curves for particular erack lengths 4) Knowledge of the displacement v at the onset of crack extension enables Jie t0 be found from the J-v curve for each initial crack length. In figure 7.1.¢ the value of Jie is schematically shown to be constant as, ideally, it should be if J is an appropriate criterion for the onset of crack extension. oy) Knowledge ofthe critical displacement y isa weak step in the procedure, Bezley and Landes used materials where the maximum in the loadsplacement curve characterized the onst of erack growth For other materials a crack extension measurement device (e.g. a potential drop measurement apparatus) is necessary, The methad of Begley and Landes has the potential to find the applied for an unknown ge metry The graphical procedure described involves a large amount of data manipulation and replotting in order to obtain J-v calibration curves and hence Jj. There are thus many possibilities for errors, and so easier methods have been looked for, as will be discussed in section 7.3, However, the elegance of this originaf test method, in making direct use of the energy definition of J, remains and itis still used as a reference to check more re- cent developments 7.3. Alternative Methods and Expressions for J ‘The main contribution to seeking alternatives for the Begley and Landes method was, made by Rice et al. reference 4 of the bibliography. Their analysis leads to simple ex- pressions for J for certain types of specimen. However, before these expressions can be discussed itis necessary to consider alternative definitions of J Recall the expressions for Us and J given in equations (4.2) and (6.1) respectively Up=Uy+ Uy-F (42) a We will now consider the value of J for two extreme cases, namely for crack extension under constant displacement v and crack extension under constant foad per unit thick- ness P. It follows that in both cases the change in potential energy due to a crack exten- sion Aa is 72) 158 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Loa DISPLACEMENT DISPLACEMENT Figure 7.2. Crack extension in a nonlinear elastic body under (a) fxed grip and (b) constant (oad conditions. For the case ofa fixed grip condition, see figure 7.2.a, we may write 0 0 yeaa fe os Nove that AP is negative and that Ati is equat to minus the shaded area between the curves for crack lengths a and a+Aa in figure 7.2.a, From equation (6.1) it follows that ay AU, IP) Jha im en os) ° The case of a constant load condition, figure 7.2.b, slightly more complicated, 2 A ¢ This leads to VS SD VS SD 7. EPEM Testing 199 a 0 J which, when regarded more closely, is equal to the shaded area in figure 7.2.b. There- fore we may rewrite AUp as rs) Note that Avis positive now. Thus p au, a ff) Wy gy SUD See tim S| (2) ap 19 da ~~ Na fey 79) 0 ‘The same results can also be found purely algebraically, For crack extension under fixed grip condi- GA) -6 ‘Thus the alternative definitions of J, for crack extension under fixed grip or constant load conditions are (7.10) Note the different sign for fixed grip and constant foad conditions. This is analogous to the formulae for G, equations (4.23). Using equation (7.10), Rice et al. showed in 1973 that itis possible to determine Ji. trom a single test of certain types of specimen. As an example, J for a deeply cracked bar in bending was derived as VS SD 160 Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics : where B is the thickness of the bar, 6 is the size of the uneracked figament ahead of the crack, M is the bending moment and 0, is the part of the total bending angle 0 due to introduction of the crack. More recently, see reference 5 of the bibliography to this chapter, it was found that J is evaluated more accurately by simply using the total bending angle 0 instead of 8, i. 6 2 I= Bp | too (7.12) 0 Equation (7.12) is important, since it applies to basic cracked configuration. Therefore a derivation is given in some detail here withthe help of figure 7.3. For this deeply cracked bar loaded in bending the ligament size, 6, is chosen small compared to the width of the bar, V, so that it may be safely assumed that all plastic deformation is confined to this ligament. Mis the bending moment per unit thickness, ie. A’ = Mig. We will use the definition of J for fixed stip conditions, ic. the first form of equation (7.10). P and v are converted to Mf and @ by assuming the ‘moment is applied through three-point bending. The load per unit thickness, P, ean be written as 3M, where L is the span of the bend specimen. Furthermore, since plasticity is confined to the ligament, the sides of the beam will remain stright and y is equal wo OL. Finally, since & = 1 —a it follows that Cag Cap. The frst form of equation (7.10) ean now be writen as {@- Since this expression cannot be evaluated experimentally, an analytical relation must be found be- tween 8, b and IM. Rice eral. argued that a dimensional analysis can be used to obtain this relation, How= ver, ere an alternative reasoning will be used, 13) Figure 7.3. A deeply cracked bar loaded in bending. VS SD 7. EPEM Testing 16° — Figure 7.4, Stress distribution in the critical igament Elastic perfetly plastic material behaviour is assumed, leading 1 a distribution in the Ii the stress component parallel tothe neutral line, a, a8 follows (see figure 7.4) 0) a) [Fe fry} <4e Lay for'se

    You might also like