Advertisement

Effect of Loading Rate and Constraint on Dynamic Ductile Fracture Toughness of P91 Steel

  • S. Sathyanarayanan
  • Jashveer Singh
  • A. Moitra
  • G. Sasikala
  • S. K. Albert
  • A. K. Bhaduri
Conference paper
  • 905 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

The dynamic ductile fracture toughness (J 0.2d and J d -R curve) of P91 steel is an important parameter for design against failure of fast reactor sub-assembly wrappers under accidental loading conditions. Instrumented impact testing of pre-cracked Charpy specimens is well suited for this purpose due to their small size and resultant material economy for service-exposed materials. While the effect of impact loading rates on plastic deformation properties is well known, their effect on dynamic ductile fracture toughness is relatively less studied. Also, change in in-plane constraint is known to affect ductile fracture toughness under quasi-static loading conditions. Hence, a study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of loading rate and in-plane constraint on the dynamic J-R curves. The main challenge in this is determination of current crack length (a), which is required to evaluate J-integral. Though a few methodologies have been proposed in the literature for this purpose, there is no standard method as yet. The lowest impact loading rate has been chosen so as to ensure ‘low-blow’ conditions where the specimen is not fully broken. This enabled the usage of ‘normalization’ method of ASTM E 1820 standard to determine ‘a’ for this loading rate. Further for the higher loading rate full-blow tests, the data from low-blow test specimens have been used as reference in the ‘Compliance Ratio’ key curve method to determine ‘a.’ The dynamic J-R curves have been obtained from the ASTM E 1820 formulation of J-integral using as input the determined ‘a’ and load–displacement data. Dynamic J-R curves are found to be independent of loading rate in the range between 2.15 to 5 m/s and 1.5 to 5 m/s for short cracks (a/W ≈ 0.3) and long cracks (a/W ≈ 0.5), respectively. Short cracks (a/W ≈ 0.3) display higher J-R curves than those for long cracks (a/W ≈ 0.5) beyond a crack extension of 0.3 mm. The validity of the dynamic J-R curves obtained has also been explained.

Keywords

Dynamic J-R curves P91 steel Smoothening Normalization method ‘Compliance ratio’ key curve method 

References

  1. 1.
    Choudhary BK, Bhanu Sankara Rao K, Mannan SL (1994) Effects of strain rate and temperature on tensile deformation and fracture behavior of thick section 9Cr-1Mo steel forging. Int J Press Vessels Pip 58:151–160Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sathyanarayanan S, Moitra A, Sasikala G, Samuel KG, Ray SK, Singh V (2008) Mater Sci Eng A 488:519–528Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sathyanarayanan S, Moitra A, Sasikala G, Dasgupta A, Saroja S, Bhaduri AK, Raj B, Singh V (2011) J Test Eval 39(3):448–455Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sathyanarayanan S, Basu J, Moitra A, Sasikala G, Singh V (2013) Metall Mater Trans A 44(5):2141–2155Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kobayashi T, Yamamoto I, Niinomi M (1987) Eng Fract Mech 26(1):83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi T, Niinomi M (1989) Nucl Eng Des 111:27–33Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sreenivasan PR, Mannan SL (1999) Dynamic J-R curves and tension impact properties of AISI 308 stainless steel weld. Int J Fract 101:229–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baer Wolfram, Bösel Dieter, Eberle Arno, Klingbeil Dietmar (2010) Eng Fract Mech 77:374–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ASTM E 1820–09e1, Standard test method for measurement of fracture toughnessGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobayashi T (1984) Eng Fract Mech 19:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tronskar JP, Mannan MA, Lai MO (2002) Eng Fract Mech 69:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hu JM, Albrecht P, Joyce JA. Fracture mechanics: 22nd symposium. ASTM STP 1131, pp 880–903Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sathyanarayanan S, Sasikala G, Ray SK (2004) Int J Press Vessels Pip 81:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhen Z., Lee K., Herrera R. and Landes J.D., Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User’s Experience. ASTM STP 1114, pp 42–56Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhu XK, Joyce JA (2007) Eng Fract Mech 74:2263–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen X, Albrecht P, Wright W, Joyce JA (1995) In: Ruschau JJ, Donald JK (eds) Improved load ratio method for predicting crack length, special applications and advanced techniques for crack size determination. ASTM STP 1251. American Society for Testing and Materials, pp 83–103Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Candra H, Wright WJ, Albrecht P (2002) Experimentally determined key curves for fracture specimens. Int J Fract 117:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ireland DR (1997) Proceedings of international conference on dynamic fracture toughness. The Welding Institute, Cambridge, UK, p 45Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobayashi T, Yamamoto I, Niinomi M (1987) Eng Fract Mech 26(1):83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Sathyanarayanan
    • 1
  • Jashveer Singh
    • 2
  • A. Moitra
    • 1
  • G. Sasikala
    • 1
  • S. K. Albert
    • 1
  • A. K. Bhaduri
    • 1
  1. 1.Metallurgy and Materials GroupIndira Gandhi Centre for Atomic ResearchKalpakkamIndia
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of Technology, SrinagarSrinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations