Advertisement

Strength of Materials

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 116–124 | Cite as

Prediction of fracture toughness for heat-resistant steels considering specimen dimensions. Report 3. Brittle fracture

  • V. T. Troshchenko
  • V. V. Pokrovsky
  • V. G. Kaplunenko
Scientific and Technical Section
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

A model has been developed for predicting fracture toughness characteristics on the lower shelf of the fracture toughness temperature dependence considering the influence of specimen dimensions. The model is based on the physicomechanical model of brittle fracture governed by microcleavage critical stress which in its turn depends on plastic prestraining. This model is also based on the assumption that the change in the body dimensions influences fracture toughness as much as the change in the stress state caused by it, which is evaluated by the introduced parameter χ, and affects plastic deformation preceding brittle fracture by cleavage. According to the given model, in some cases an increase in specimen thickness can lead only to a shift of the brittle-to-ductile transition temperature, and in other cases to both a shift of the brittle-to-ductile transition temperature and a decrease in the critical SIF value at which this transition occurs. The paper also presents further elaboration of the probabilistic approach to the prediction of size effect for the cases of brittle fracture based on Weibull's three-parametric distribution. A distinctive feature of this approach is the determination of one of the parameters of the cumulative distribution function, namely, the parameter of location Kc min , directly in the experiment and not by conventional statistical methods. This reduces appreciably the requirements for the size of the sample and simplifies the body of mathematics. In this case, the parameter of location Kc min corresponds to the critical SIF value during the first unstable jump of a fatigue crack K fc (1) which, according to a large number of experimental data, is minimal and the most invariant among all other critical SIF values obtained experimentally.

Keywords

Fracture Toughness Fatigue Crack Brittle Fracture Crack Front Cleavage Fracture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. T. Troshchenko, V. V. Pokrovsky, and V. G. Kaplunenko, “Prediction of fracture toughness for heat-resistant steels considering the effect of specimen dimensions. Report 2. Ductile failure,”Probl. Prochn., No. 2, 5–16 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. S. Pisarenko and A. J. Krasowsky, “Analysis of kinetics of quasibrittle fracture of crystalline materials,” Mech. Behaviour of Materials. Proc. Int. Conf. Mech. Behav. Mater. (Kyoto, 1971), Kyoto (1972), Vol. 1, pp. 421–432.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. O. Ritchie, J. F. Knott, and J. R. Rice, “On the relation between critical tensile stress and fracture toughness,”J. Mech. Phys. Solids,21, No. 6, 393–410 (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. T. Troshchenko, V. V. Pokrovsky, and V. G. Kaplunenko, “Prediction of fracture toughness for heat-resistant steels considering the effect of specimen dimensions. Report 1. The results of the experimental investigations,”Probl. Prochn., No. 1, 5–25 (1997).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Weibull, “A statistical theory of the strength of materials,” Proc. Royal Swedish Inst. Eng. Res., Stockholm, No. 151, 5–45 (1939).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Weibull, “The Phenomenon of rupture in solids,” Proc. Royal Swedish Inst. Res., Stockholm, No. 153 (1939).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W. Weibull, “A Statistical distribution function of wide applicability,”J. Appl. Mech., 293–297 (1951).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Yamamoto, Y. Sumi, and T. Shimoyama, “On thumb-nail pattern of fatigue crack front observed in standard compact tension specimen,”Int. J. Fract.,334, No. 2, 149–157 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. N. Fenner and M. J. Abdul Mihsein, “Crack front elastic stress state for three-dimensional crack problems,”ibid.,,25, No. 2, 121–131 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Kikuchi, K. Machida, and H. Miyamoto, “On the three-dimensional J-integral evaluation in the inelastic and transient stress fields,” in:Modelling Problems in Crack Tip Mechanics, CFC10, Waterloo, Canada (1983), pp. 259–269.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Kikuchi, H. Miyamoto, and S. Hiraoka, “Three-dimensional crack growth analysis by the T.N.P. method,”Bull. JSME,29, No. 257, 3679–3684 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Kikuchi, H. Miyamoto, and M. Tanaka, “J-integral evaluation of CT specimen in elastic-plastic state,”ibid.,,27, No. 233, 2365–2371 (1984).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Kuna, “Three-dimensional elastic analysis of CT specimen with straight and curved crack fronts,”Int. J Fract,19, No. 3, R63-R67 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. C. Burton, G. B. Sinclair, J. S. Solecki, and J. L. Swedlow, “On the implications for LEFM of three-dimensional aspects in some crack/surface intersection problems,”ibid.,,25, No. 1, 3–32 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Ehl, D. Munz, and A. Bruckner, “Scatter of fracture toughness in the ductile-brittle transition region,” in: Proc. of the Eur. Conf. on Fract. Control of Eng. Struct., ECF6 (1986), pp. 577–589.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Bruckner-Foit, W. Ehl, D. Munz, and B. Trolldenier, “The Size effect of microstructural implications of the weakest link model,”Fatig. Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct.,13, No. 3, 185–200 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. T. Shih, “An evaluation of the probabilistic approach to brittle design,”Eng. Fract. Mech.,13, 257–271 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Wallin, “The effect of ligament size on cleavage fracture toughness,”ibid.,,32, No. 3, 449–457 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. Wallin and K. Torronen, “Mechanisms based on statistical requirements for fracture toughness testing,” in: Proc. of the Eur. Conf. on Fract. Control of Eng. Struct., ECF6 (1986), pp. 563–575.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    K. Wallin, “The effect of ductile tearing on cleavage fracture probability in fracture toughness testing,”Eng. Fract. Mech.,32, No. 4, 523–531 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. J. Krasowsky and G. Pluvinage, “Structure parameters governing fracture toughness of engineering materials,”Phys. Chem. Mech. Mater.,29, No. 3, 113–123 (1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. T. Troshchenko
    • 1
  • V. V. Pokrovsky
    • 1
  • V. G. Kaplunenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Problems of StrengthNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKievUkraine

Personalised recommendations