You are on page 1of 193

FRACTURE MECHANICS AND INSTRUMENTED

IMPACT TEST
An Informal Introduction with Worked Examples
i
CONTENTS
Page No.
- FRACTURE MECHANICS - An Informal Introduction with Worked Examples 0
- CONTENTS i-iii
- PREFACE iv
- IMPORTANT NOTE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES v
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 1-Introduction to fracture Mechanics 1
- ............................................................................................................................................. G
eneral 1
- 1.2 Historic Failures/Developments that Spurred the Emergence of Fracture Mechanics 2
1.3 Some aspects of fracture in tension/impact/fatigue tests 3
1.3.1 Ductile vs Brittle - behaviour under the conventional, slow tensile test. 3
1.3.2. Microscopic Aspects of Ductile and Brittle fractures in Steel 4
1.3.3. Fatigue of Ductile materials 4
1.3.4 IMPACT TOUGHNESS and IMPACT TESTS 4
Impact tests 5
- Pendulm Impact Test Details 6
- Charpy Data 6
- Ductile- Brittle Transition Temperature (DBTT) 7
- 1.4 Conventional versus Fracture Mechanics based Design 7
- 1.5 A Note on Crack Plane Orientation (CPO) in Fracture Test Specimens 8
- 1.6 Different Regimes of Fracture Mechanics 8
- Example 1.1. DBTT Example: TI TANI C failure 9
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 2-Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) 10
2.1 GRIFFITH THEORY OF BRITTLE FRACTURE 10
2.1.1 Background 10
- 2.1.2. Expression for the Critical Fracture Stress of a Brittle Solid 11
- Example 2.1.1: Glass Fracture and Griffith Theory 13
- 2.2 IRWINS STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE AND STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR 13
2.3 COMPLAIANCE AND STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE 16
- PREFACE TO GRIFFITH EQUATION PROBLEMS AND PROBLEMS 18
2.4 MODES OF LOADING, SIF AND LEFM 21
2.4.1 Three Modes of Loading based on crack surface displacements 21
2.4.2 The stress intensity factor (SIF) and stress distribution 22
- Salient points of the stress distributions 24
- Stress Triaxiality, Plane Strain and Plane Stress 25
2.5 CRACK TIP PLASTICITY 26
2.6. LEFM FRACTURE TOUGHNESS (K
IC
) TESTING 28
- Relevant features of the ASTM E 399 Standard 30
- 2.7. TRIANGLE OF INTEGRITY 32
- ............................................................................................................................................. S
pecimen SIFs and Typical Fracture Toughness Values 33
- ................................................................................................................................................................ 2
.8. LEAK BEFORE BREAK (LBB) CONCEPT 34
ii
- WORKED EXAMPLES/PROBLEMS IN LEFM 35
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 3 - APPLICATIONS OF LEFM 53
- ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
.1. FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (FCG) 53
3.1.1. Introduction 53
3.1.2. Three Stages of Fatigue Crack Growth (FCG) 55
3.1.3. Stage II FCG: PARIS LAW 56
3.1.4. FCG Testing 59
Paris Constants for Some Common Steels 62
- WORKED EXAMPLES IN FCG 63
- 3.2. STRESS CORROSION CRACKING (SCC) 73
3.2.1. General 73
3.2.2. Treatment of Crack Growth Rate 74
- WORKED EXAMPLES IN SCC 77
3.3. ASME CODE APPROACH FOR DESIGN AGAINST BRITTLE FRACTURE:
RT
NDT
-K
IR
CURVE APPROACH 84
- 3.3.1. Ductile-Brittle Transition Temperature: Different Approaches 84
- 3.3.2K
IR
curve determination for a 9Cr-1Mo steel Illustration 85
3.3.2.1. Specimen Fabrication 85
3.3.2.2. Drop-Weight specimen fabrication and Drop-Weight Test (DWT) 86
3.3.2.3. Charpy specimen 89
3.3.3. Determination of RT
NDT
and ASME K
IR
curve for 9Cr-1Mo Base Material 90
3.3.3.1. Results from Drop-Weight Test 90
3.3.3.2. Results From Charpy Test 91
3.3.3.3. RT
NDT
and K
IR
Curve 92
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 4 - Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics-EPFM 94
- ............................................................................................................................................. 4
.1. Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) and J-Integral Approach 94
- 4.2. EPFM in Practical Terms 96
- 4.3. J-Measurement 97
4.4. Begley-Landes Multi-Specimen J
IC
method 100
- 4.5. Standard Method for crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) Determination 101
- EPFM PROBLEMS 105
- Appendix - Chapter 4: A Note on CREEP CRACK GROWTH (CCG) 125
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 5 - An EPFM Application: ASTM E 1921 Master Curve (MC) 132
5.1. Reference Temperature (T
0
) and Master Curve Approach 132
5.2. Statistical basis of the Master Curve 133
5.3. Validity limits 135
iii
5.4. Multi temperature equation for T
0
136
5.5. Master Curve equations 137
5.6. DETERMINATION OF T
0
AND MC FOR A 9Cr-1Mo STEEL EXAMPLE 137
5.6.1. T
0
dy
from Pre-Cracked Charpy Test (PCVN) 137
- Typical Calculation of K
Jd
for Specimen No. 19 Tested at -50 C (Fig. 5.3) 143
5.7. APPLICATION OF THE ASME CODE CASES N-629 AND N-631 144
5.8. A NEW UPPER-SHELF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MASTER CURVE
(USFTMC or USMC) FOR FERRITIC STEELS 145
- UPPER-SHELF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MASTER CURVE (USFTMC or USMC)
CALCULATION PROCEDURE 146
5.9. Effect of strain rate or stress intensity factor rate (SIF) rate on T
0
146
- ............................................................................................................................................. C
hapter 6 Instrumented Charpy Impact Test, Charpy-Fracture Toughness Correlations
and Reference Temperature Prediction 148
6.1. Instrumented Charpy Impact Test 148
6.1.1. Introduction 148
- Additional strength and toughness values from IIT 152
- A NOTE ON T
D
(brittleness transition temperature) 152
6.1.2. Calculation Procedures in Instrumented Charpy Impact Test 153
Load-time data processing 153
- Loading or Strain Rates in Some Fracture Tests 154
K
Id
and J
Id
/K
Jd
estimation by conventional methods 154
K
Jd
and J
1d
estimation by the Modified Schindler Procedure 157
6.2. Fracture Toughness Correlations with Charpy Energy and other Parameters 160
6.2.1. Direct Charpy energy (C
V
) temperature - T
0
Correlations 160
6.2.2. Older CVN energy (C
V
) - K
IC
Correlations and T
0
estimates 160
Rolfe, Novak and Barsom (RNB correlation 160
Sailors and Corten (SC correlation 161
Roberts lower-bound correlation (RLB correlation 161
- Barsom and Rolfes K
d
-K
c
(dynamic to static fracture toughness) temperature shift
(Barsom-Rolfe Shift - BRS) procedure 161
Marandez-Sanz Procedure 161
Another lower bound correlation for the lower-shelf and lower transition region 162
6.2.3. New Reference Temperature Correlations 162
- Schindler-Sreenivasan Procedure (SSP)
162
RNB, SC and BLB estimates 163
- Note on Size Correction 163
PRS-Parameter Correlations 163
Mean-8 Procedure (M8P) 164
6.2.4. FATT-Master Curve (FATT-MC) approach for lower-bound fracture toughness 164
6.2.5. Lower-bound estimate for upper-shelf fracture toughness 166
6.3. Dynamic Fracture Toughness from Instrumented Drop-Weight Test 168
- Illustrative Example 6.1:Complete IIT data for a service exposed 2.25Cr-1Mo Steel 169
- Illustrative Example 6.2: Comparison of actual fracture toughness data for
a modified 403SS 176
- Illustrative Example 6.3: Comparison of K
Id
from IIT and Drop-Weight NDT
with RT
NDT
based K
IR
Curve for a 403 SS martensitic Stainless Steel 403SS-IGC 177
Test Standards and Hand Books (Reference T) 178
Bibliography and Additional References (Reference B) 179
iv
PREFACE
When it was suggested that a book introducing Fracture Mechanics in an informal way with emphasis on
worked examples should be prepared, the first thought that came to the mind of the authors was that when so
many scholarly treatises are available, why one more? To our knowledge, the first authoritative book
exclusively on Fracture Mechanics was by Prof. J. F. Knott - "Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics" (1973). But
it is a scholarly textbook most suited to academic pursuit and, because of the time of its publication, it restricts
itself to mainly Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM). Prof. Knott followed with a sequel, perhaps the first
book of its kind, Worked Examples in Fracture mechanics; it also restricts itself to mainly LEFM and it contains
only worked examples. Subsequently, as listed in the Bibliography, many treatises have been published, the
latest being the ones by Perez (2004), Ramesh (1999) and Saxena (1998), the latter covering non-linear fracture
mechanics and creep crack growth problems. Most of the listed references, which include some freely available
web-resources, contain numerous solved and unsolved problems and seem to be rather heavy on theory or more
detailed in treatment. So, we felt that a book introducing Fracture Mechanics in an informal way, with emphasis
on worked examples, will not be out of place. Hence this venture. Accordingly, this volume has been titled as
Fracture Mechanics - An Informal Introduction with Worked Examples. Its preliminary model is Prof.
Knotts book, but it covers more topics starting from Griffiths Theory to Non-Linear Fracture Mechanics and
some Applications in ASME Codes. It also introduces the ASTM E 1921 Reference Temperature Approach. No
attempt has been made to derive the relations from first principles, nor a micro-mechanistic nor a metallurgical
view-point adopted. An informal Strength of Materials textbook approach with ample explanation of the
necessary terms involved has been the line adopted during the writing of this monograph. Any engineering
student who has completed a Strength of Materials course would benefit in following this book. Of course, it
can be used as a companion or prescribed book, for an introductory course in Engineering Fracture Mechanics.
On completion of this book, one will be in a position to appreciate the relative importance of Fracture
Mechanics in safety analysis and assurance of structural integrity. Most of the Fracture testing Techniques have
been covered with a coverage deep enough to impart an overview of the test. But no attempt has been made to
cover the mechanical or instrumentation aspects. Hence, after mastering this book, one is not expected to walk
into a Test Lab equipped with the wherewithals to perform a test; however, with help from the appended
references and standards, one would well be on the way to equip oneself for such a task; in short, this book is
not a manual on test techniques.
No originality is claimed for the material presented in this book (see Note and Acknowledgement in the next
page). About 50 worked examples have been provided. Many problems whose answers are only available, have
been worked out. The material on K
IR
and Reference Temperature determination has been provided based on the
test results from our laboratory at Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research. Many glaring omissions may be
there: like, Stress Intensity Factor Measurement or Computational Techniques, many Advanced Defect
Tolerance Procedures, Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth, Variable Amplitude Fatigue Crack Growth, Overload
Effects on Fatigue, etc. They are intentional as they are perceived to be outside the ambit and aim of the present
book. Hence this book is neither comprehensive nor exhaustive, but sufficiently introductory and informative.
Unusual for a Fracture Mechanics Book, a chapter (Chapter 6 the final Chapter) on Instrumented Impact
v
Testing, Charpy correlations and Prediction of Reference Temperature has been added, mostly based on work at
IGCAR, since it has practical implications in many Engineering Applications such as Quality Control, Test
Temperature Decisions and Preliminary Design, especially with availability of some new correlations. Thus we
hope the material we have provided will serve not only as an appetizer but also as an enhancer and nourisher of
knowledge of Fracture Mechanics, strictly within the Strength of Materials viewpoint (hence no Mathematics
beyond a knowledge of Preliminary Calculus is assumed). In short, this book will prepare the reader for a
pleasant first encounter with the subject of Fracture Mechanics and the cited Standards and References will give
directions for further progress. If that is the result, then the aim of this book would have been more than served.
IMPORTANT NOTE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES
Two sets of references are appended at the end: (i) Test Standards and Hand Books and
(ii) Bibliography and Additional References. Item (i) pertains to test standards like those
of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), British Standards (BS), ASME
Code, ASM Metals Handbook, IAEA Technical Report etc. Item (ii) pertains to general
bibliographical references, monographs and journal articles etc. relating to Fracture
Mechanics. In the text, references to material under Item (i) are preceded by Letter T: for
example Ref. 1 under Item (i) is referred as T1 in the text. Similarly, references to material
under Item (ii) are preceded by letter B: for example Ref. 1 under Item (ii) is referred as B1 in
the text. Most of the problems and material have been adapted from References B1, B3,
B6, B7, B9, B10, B12, B13, B19, B20, B21, B23, B24, B26, B27, B28, B30, B31, B32, B36,
B41, B43, B44, B45, B48 to B55, B56, B59, B60 to B62 and B65 (Item (ii)), where the
bold underlined references indicate the source of problems or worked examples.
Sources for figures, tables etc. are cited (following the above notation) at the
appropriate places in the text.
1
Chapter 1-Introduction to fracture Mechanics
1.1. General
Fracture involves breaking up of a body into two or more parts with the creation of new
surfaces. Thus it is destructive and, often, as shown in Fig. 1, catastrophic, resulting in loss
of men, materials and money.
Hence Understanding how things break can avoid having to explain why they broke
later on! [B24] That is the realm of Fracture Mechanics: understanding fracture of
materials and structures and, thereby, predict, prevent and mitigate fracture failures.
(a) Boeing 737-200, Aloha Flight243, 1988
T2 Tanker, The Schenectady, 1941
Fig. 1.1. Catastrophic fracture failures [B10]
OUTLINE
What is fracture? Historical introduction. How fracture was
assessed qualitatively in pre-fracture mechanics days, using
tension and impact tests, fracture appearance, ductile-brittle
transition temperature (DBTT) etc. Need and usefulness of
fracture mechanics. Different Fracture mechanics Regimes.
Fracture Specimen Orientation in Steel Plates and an example of
DBTT limited failure.
1.2 Historic Failures/Developments that Spurred the Emergence of Fracture Mechanics
- Enormous increase in the use of metals (mainly irons and steels) for structural applications in
the late 19
th
and early 20
th
centuries and later led to many accidents, with loss of life and
wealth, owing to failure of these structures. In particular, there were numerous accidents
involving steam boiler explosions and railway equipment. Some of these accidents were due
to poor design, but it was also discovered that material deficiencies in the form of pre-existing
flaws could initiate cracking and fracture.
- A new era of accident-prone structures was ushered in by the advent of all-welded designs,
notably the Liberty ships and T-2 tankers of World War II. Out of more than 2500 Liberty
ships built during the war, 145 broke in two and almost 700 experienced serious failures. The
failures often occurred under very low stresses, for example even when a ship was docked,
and this anomaly led to extensive investigations which revealed that the fractures were brittle
and that flaws and stress concentrations were responsible. It was also discovered that brittle
fracture in the types of steel used was promoted by low temperatures. As clarified in the last
decade, the failure of the TITANIC (a completely riveted structure unlike the all-welded
structures of World War-II) in 1912 resulted from the use of poor steel at low temperature.
- Indian Connection to Failure and Fracture: On 2 May 1953 exactly one year to the day
after their introduction, a Comet aircraft (the de Havilland Comet was the first jet-propelled
airliner) broke up in flight near Calcutta. In all, 20 Comets crashed between 1952 and 1971
taking the lives of almost 500 people. It was eventually discovered that their fuselages had
exploded whilst climbing up to cruising height, weakened by the fatigue of repeated
pressurization and depressurization. The aircraft whose wreckage was discovered had begun
to crack at the corner of one of the automatic direction finder (ADF) aerial cut-outs, and
another tested on the ground burst open at the corner of a window. Hatch corners and window
corners had to be modified to reduce the stress concentration.
- In modern times, the emergence of aerospace technology (with use of high-strength structural
materials at high stresses for weight reduction) and nuclear power and the attendant concern
about the structural integrity of aero-space structures and nuclear reactors has greatly
contributed to the development of Fracture Mechanics.
To summarise, in the above cases, failures could be attributed to:
- the all-welded construction which eliminated crack-arresting plate boundaries present in
riveted joints
- the presence of crack-like flaws/metallurgical defects in welded joints - like inclusions, lack
of fusion, weld cracks etc.
- the use of materials whose low resistance to crack advance (toughness) was further reduced by
low temperatures for example, Titanic.
- Poor design - window hatch corners in Comet resulted in stress concentration and fatigue
cracks.
3
1.3 Some aspects of fracture in tension/impact/fatigue tests [B65]
1.3.1 Ductile vs Brittle - behaviour under the conventional, slow tensile test.
ductile
Fig. 1.2
Slow controlled extension; final instability
due to gross area reduction. Cup-and-cone
failure surface characterised by 45
o
shear
lip.
brittle
Fig. 1.3
Fast catastrophic failure with no warning.
Transverse granular cleavage surface in
ferritic steels - no shear lip.
Fig. 1.4 Fig. 1.5
Relatively high energy absorption capacity
(stress-strain area) - "tough". Localised
yielding at high stress concentrations
redistributes stresses advantageously. Shear
stresses cause failure, triaxiality effect is
relatively benign.
No significant yielding, so no reduction of
high stresses. Low energy absorption
capacity. Triaxial stresses cause failure.
4
1.3.2. Microscopic Aspects of Ductile and Brittle fractures in Steel
(a) Transgranular
Cleavage
(b) Intergranular
Fracture
Fig. 1.6 [B26]
(c)
(d)
1.3.3. Fatigue of Ductile materials [B65]: Fatigue is recognised as a mechanism of crack growth
terminated by catastrophic fracture - the S-N diagram, shown in Fig. 1.7, may be used to predict
failure. S-N diagram approach is mostly empirical. Hence a more basic approach involving an
understanding of the fundamental fracture mechanisms, processes and factors involved can help
predict and assess fracture failure more confidently. Fracture Mechanics provides one such
approach.
Fig. 1.7a Fig. 1.7b
1.3.4 IMPACT TOUGHNESS and IMPACT TESTS
Toughness
Measure of the amount of energy a material can absorb before fracture
Low loading rates as in normal tension tests
Area under the stress-strain curve up to fracture
Dynamic loading
Impact energy
5
Impact tests:
Charpy (simple three-point bend:TPB) and
Izod (cantilever bend and done only at room temperature) Tests
Fig. 1.8. Pendulum Impact Testing [B26]
6
Pendulm Impact Test Details
Toughness quantified in terms of the amount of energy required to fracture a notched specimen of the
material struck by a hammer or pendulum. Notch introduces three factors: (a) Stress concentration;
(b) Triaxial stresses which reduce shear stresses favouring brittle fracture; and (c) increased strain
rate.
The hammer has potential energy due to its initial height, h
1
When the hammer is released the potential energy -> kinetic energy
At the bottom of the stroke, the hammer impacts on the test specimen
Kinetic energy is used to break or fracture the specimen
The remaining kinetic energy is not enough to raise the pendulum to its initial height at the end of the
stroke : h
2
< h
1
The impact (fracture) energy is the difference in potential energy: AU (h
1
- h
2
)
Charpy Data
Fig. 1.9a. Charpy impact energy (toughness) vs. Fig. 1.9b. Charpy impact energy (C
V
) vs
Test temperature curve for a typical ferritic steel. test temperature (T) for various alloys
the almost constant low energy region at low temperatures is called the lower-shelf while the
almost constant high energy region at high temperatures is called the upper-shelf.
Quantitative results are not directly used in design calculations
These results give a qualitative comparison of the toughness:
for different materials at the same test temperature
at different test temperatures for the same material
for the same material subjected to different heat treatments
7
Ductile- Brittle Transition Temperature (DBTT)
- The ductile-brittle transition is exhibited by BCC metals (see Fig. 1.9), such as low carbon
steel; they become brittle at low temperature or at very high strain rates. FCC metals (Al
alloys upper-shelf energy ~ 30 J; austenitic stainless steels upper-shelf energy ~ 150 to 350
J see, Fig. 1.9b)), however, generally remain ductile at low temperatures without any
transition.
- Low temperatures, low energy absorption indicates brittle behaviour.
- As temperature increases, the energy absorbed increases dramatically, indicating a change of
failure mode from brittle to ductile (for ferritic steels).
- The effect of a change of loading rate is to move bodily the toughness curve parallel to the
temperature axis. This, together with the shape of the curve, means that a higher rate or lower
temperature will decrease toughness.
- Usually, DBTT is defined as the temperature corresponding to a Charpy (C
V
) value of 28, 30,
41 or 68 J, depending on the design codes and types of steels.
1.4 Conventional versus Fracture Mechanics based Design
The traditional design is based on preventing yielding or allowing only local yielding by restricting
design stress to a fraction of the yield or ultimate tensile stress (YS or UTS) using a factor of safety
(FOS), that is,
Design Stress = (YS or UTS)/FOS
FOS varies from 2 to 4 and 10 for a lift wire rope [B23, B24]. This approach proved inadequate to
address issues like those described in Section 1.2 or situations involving DBT.
Fracture Mechanics presupposes the existence of cracks/crack-like flaws in the material, which may
be microscopic (for example, grain size, inclusions etc.), or large (for example, casting or weld
defects), due to manufacture, to corrosion, fatigue,
Fracture Mechanics correlates three parameters quantitatively . . .
(i) - load the background stress, ;
(ii) - geometry - the crack size, a (and to a lesser extent, crack shape); and
(ii) - material - its resistance to cracking, i.e., its fracture toughness, measured by special tests
and predicts, amongst other things,
- degree of safety, or imminence of catastrophic (brittle) fracture
- crack growth rate whilst advancing in a controlled manner
- remaining component life.
FRACTURE MECHANICS HAS BEEN CALLED
THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING OF LIVING WITH DEFECTS.
8
1.5 A Note on Crack Plane Orientation (CPO) in Fracture Test Specimens [B7]
- The major CPOs in a rolled plate are indicated in the above figure. L, T and ST or S are the
three principal working directions in the rolled plate, namely, Longitudinal (Principal
Rolling Direction-usually the longest dimension or length), Transverse (Next Longest
Dimension or Width) and Short Transverse (usually the shortest or thickness direction).
- Specimen-1 has its long axis in the T-direction and crack propagates in the T-direction;
hence, its CPO is designated as T-L and is referred to as T-L specimen. Similarly for others.
- Because of mechanical fibering, inclusion banding etc., ductility and toughness depends
strongly on the specimen orientation (see Example 1.1 on Titanic steel in the next Box).
Usually, the L-T specimen (3 in the above figure) shows the highest and S-T (5) shows the
lowest impact property.
1.6 Different Regimes of Fracture Mechanics
1. Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM): Here the body/structure as a whole is in the
elastic and plasticity is confined to very small region at the defect/crack tip and failure occurs
after very little plastic deformation. The relevant fracture mechanics parameter is linear elastic
fracture toughness critical stress-intensity factor (SIF) - K
IC.
2. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM): Here, significant/extensive plasticity occurs at
the crack tip and fracture is preceded by significant plastic deformation. The relevant fracture
mechanics parameter is elastic-plastic fracture toughness: critical J-integral J
IC
or critical
crack tip opening displacement (CTOD),
IC.
3. Fatigue Fracture Mechanics: Fatigue crack growth (FCG) is related to (SIF range) K or (J-
integral range) J.
4. Creep Fracture Mechanics: Fracture mechanics applied to creep crack growth (CCG): the
relevant fracture mechanics parameter is C
*
- a time dependent J-integral rate parameter and
its variants.
9
Example 1.1. DBTT Example: TITANIC failure
Metallurgical Cause for the RMS Titanic Failure (on 12 April 1912)
A metallurgical analysis of steel taken from the hull of the wreckage of the 46,000 tons ship
Titanic reveals that it had a high DBTT, making it unsuitable for service at low temperatures;
at the time of the collision (with an iceberg that was three to six times larger than its own
mass), the temperature of the sea water was -2C. The analysis also shows, however, that the
steel used was probably the best plain carbon ship plate available at the time of the ship's
construction (1912). Presence of massive MnS inclusions and banding resulted in very poor
transverse impact properties. (Adapted from: The Royal Mail Ship Titanic: Did a
Metallurgical Failure Cause a Night to Remember? Katherine Felkins, H. P. Leighly, Jr., and
A. Jankovic. J . of Materials, 50(1) (1998) pp.12-18.)
Fig. 1.10
10
Chapter 2-Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM)
2.1 GRIFFITH THEORY OF BRITTLE FRACTURE
2.1.1 Background
- Fracture strength of a solid material function of the cohesive forces between atoms.
- Theoretical cohesive strength of brittle elastic solids ~ E/10, where E is the Youngs
modulus of elasticity.
- Experimentally observed fracture strengths for most engineering materials ~ E/100 to
E/1000,
- In the 1920s, A. A.Griffith ascribed the above discrepancy to the presence of very small,
microscopic flaws or cracks at the surface and within the interior of a body of material.
- Flaws detrimental to the fracture strength because an applied stress gets amplified or
concentrated at the tip, with the magnitude of amplification depending on crack
orientation and geometry.
OUTLINE
Fracture stress of brittle solids and Griffith Theory; Examples of application of Griffith Theory;
Stress Intensity Factor (SIF - K), Irwins Critical Strain Energy Release Rate (G
C
) and Linear
Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM); Significance of LEFM Fracture Toughness, critical, K
K
IC
; Compliance and Strain Energy Release Rate; Different Modes of Fracture; SIF and crack
tip stress distribution; Crack Tip Plasticity; Stress Triaxiality, Plane Strain and Plain Stress;
Linear Elastic Fracture Toughness (K
IC
), Different Specimens and Testing; Fracture Toughness
and its Relation to Structural Geometry and Quality Factors; Leak Before Break; Worked
Examples in LEFM.
11
2.1.2. Expression for the Critical Fracture Stress of a Brittle Solid
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.1. (a) Body with central crack, remote stress, ; (b) Body with edge crack [B7]
Fig. 2.2 Energy balance during crack growth in a brittle solid [B26]
Cond. In next BOX
12
2.1.2. Expression for the Critical Fracture Stress of a Brittle Solid (cond.)
Considering an infinite plate with a through-the-thickness elliptical crack of length, 2a (Fig. 2.1a), or an edge-
crack of length, a (Fig. 2.1b) and remote stress, , Griffith, based on energy balance considerations, obtained an
expression for the fracture stress,
F
, of a brittle material-glass. Basic premise of Griffith (1920) was that the
crack will grow if the energy available for growth equals or exceeds that required for growth and thereby
the total energy of the system is lowered.
Energy available for growth: An elastically strained (stressed) material contains strain energy. As
the crack propagates inwards from the surface of a stressed material, the area of material in which
strain energy is relaxed corresponds to the two shaded triangles shown in Fig. 2.1a. The area of these
triangles is approximately a
2
and, hence, the relaxation of elastic strain energy is proportional to
the square of a. This is confirmed by calculation.
Energy required for growth: As the crack grows, surface energy needed to form the new surfaces,
and this equals 2a (for unit thickness of the plate), where is the surface energy per unit area of the
material. The value of this term increases as the first power of the depth of the crack.
There is therefore an energy balance between the formation of new surfaces and the relaxation
of strain energy in the material.
From the above, it can be seen that shallow cracks consume more energy as surface energy than
released as relaxed strain energy. Therefore conditions are energetically unfavourable for crack
propagation. As the crack increases in length the conditions are reversed and more strain energy is
released than is needed to form the surfaces of the growing crack. This occurs beyond the 'critical
Griffith crack length', a
g
(or a
c
). Under these conditions the crack is able to grow at an ever
increasing rate. This is shown in Fig. 2.2.
Griffith demonstrated that the critical stress o
c
(equivalently represented byo
f
) required for crack
propagation in a brittle material is described by
1
2
2
s
c
E
a

o
t
| |
=
|
\ .
(2.1.1)
where E is the Youngs modulus,
s
is the specific surface energy and a is one-half the length of an
internal crack.
In practice, the energy required to produce the two new fracture surfaces is significantly greater than

s
. The surface energy,
s
, is that required to break all the chemical bonds at the fracture surface.
During fracture the molecular structure of the material around the crack is also disturbed, to a depth
which is sometimes very considerable. The total energy is known as the work of fracture, W.
Therefore,
1
2
2
c
EW
a
o
t
| |
=
|
\ .
(2.1.2)
13
2.2 IRWINS STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE AND STRESS INTENSITY FACTOR
Most metals and many polymers do experience some plastic deformation during fracture; thus,
crack extension involves more than producing just an increase in the surface energy. This
complication may be accommodated by replacing
s
in Eq. 2.1.1 by
s
+
p
, where
p
represents a
plastic deformation energy associated with crack extension. Thus,
1
2
2 ( )
s p
c
E
a

o
t
+ | |
=
|
\ .
(2.2.1)
For highly ductile materials, it may be the case that by
p
>>
s
, such that
1
2
2
p
c
E
a

o
t
| |
=
|
\ .
(2.2.2)
Example 2.1.1. Take a glass with E = 69 GPa and W = 0.3 Jm
-2
. Draw the graph showing the
dependence of fracture stress on crack length.
For various assumed a values of 10, 20, 30, ..,100 m, plugging in the above values of E
and W in Eq. (2.1.1), the corresponding critical fracture stress values are obtained and are
plotted in the Figure below.
As the crack increases from 10 m to 100 m, the fracture stress decreases from 36 MPa
to 11 MPa. The point to be noted is that
1
f
a
o .
14
In the 1950s, G.R.Irwin chose to incorporate both by
s
and
p
into a single term, G
C
, as
2( )
c s p
G = + (2.2.3)
G
C
is known as the critical strain energy release rate.
After incorporating the new term and rearranging, Griffith cracking criterion becomes
2
c
a
G
E
to
= (2.2.4)
Thus crack extension occurs when to
2
a/E exceeds the value of G
C
for the particular material
under consideration. Therefore,
2
c
a EG o t = (2.2.5)
OR
c
a EG o t = (2.2.6)
This equation says:
LHS (Some configuration stuff you can calculate) = RHS (Some material property stuff you
can measure)
LHS = a o t
Stuff you can calculate from the cracked structure configuration
Loading,
crack length, a
This term is referred to as the Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) and given the symbol K
K a o t = (2.2.7)
K has unusual units: Stress x \length = Pa\m or MPa\m
K (quantifies the stress-strain distribution ahead of the crack) is fundamentally
different from the concept of Stress Concentration Factor (SCF); SCF describes how much
the stress has been elevated at a point (crack or notch tip) compared to the remote stress.
15
RHS = Fracture Toughness =
c
EG
The right hand side of the critical equation is a combination of material properties
Youngs modulus
Toughness
It is a measured material property called the critical fracture toughness of the material, K
c
.
c c
K EG = (2.2.8)
Critical Condition
The fracture toughness, K
c
, is a constant for a given material and independent of the structural
configuration
The critical condition for fast fracture can be written:
K = K
c
(2.2.9)
When the K reaches the critical value K
c
, the crack propagates without limit:
Fracture occurs, as a consequence of:
- Increase in crack length
- Increase in load K a o t =
- The tensile strength of a brittle material is determined by the length of the largest
crack existing prior to loading
SIFs for Cracked Bodies
The SIF defined here is strictly speaking valid only for thin, semi-infinite plates, such that,
thickness, t << a << W (and length)
SIFs have been obtained for a variety of cracked body configurations and have the general form:
K Y a o t = (2.2.10)
Y is a dimensionless function incorporating finite geometry and crack shape correction factors,
that is, a parameter dependent on the
size and shape of both the crack and body
location of the crack
form or mode of loading (described later in Section 2.4.1)
16
2.3 COMPLAIANCE AND STRAIN ENERGY RELEASE RATE
Fig. 2.3(a) Fig. 2.3(b)
Fig. 2.3. Applied load = P; Crack length = a; Displacement = [B7]
In this section, we examine the significance of the strain-energy release rate in a notched/cracked
body subjected to elastic loading and its relation to G in greater detail. Figure 2.3(a) shows how G
can be measured. A single-edge notch specimen is loaded axially through pins. The sharpest
possible notch is produced by introducing a fatigue crack at the root of the machined notch. The
displacement of this crack as a function of the axial force is measured with a strain-gage clip
gage attached at the entrance to the notch. Load vs. displacement curves are determined for
different length notches, where P = Md (or , as indicated in Fig. 2.3(b)). M is the stiffness of a
specimen with a crack of length a and reciprocal of stiffness, i. e., (1/M) is called the
compliance, C; therefore, d = CP. The elastic strain energy is given by the area under the curve
to a particular value of P and d.
The concepts of strain energy release rate and SIF were developed by G. R. Irwin in the
1950s. Thus he can be considered as the father of Modern Fracture Mechanics, while
Griffith can be considered as the father of brittle fracture theory.
17
2
1 1 1
= = =
2 2 2
U Pd PCP P C (2.3.1)
Consider the case shown in Fig. 2.3 where the specimen is rigidly gripped so that an increment of
crack growth da results in a drop in load from P
x
to P
2
.
1 2 1 1 2 2
= = d d C P C P =
Since CP is constant,
C
+ = 0
P
C P
a a
c c
c c
C
= -
P P
a C a
c c
c c
(2.3.2)
But the crack extension force, G, is defined as
2
1
= = 2 +
2
d
U P C
G CP P
a a a
c c c | | (
|
(
c c c
\ .
(2.3.3)
Putting Eq. (2.3.2) in Eq. (2.3.3),
2
1
= -
2
C
G P
a
c
c
(2.3.4)
Thus G can be evaluated by determining C as a function of crack length. In the above, the load P
was considered for unit specimen thickness (i. e., P/B). For the fixed grip case, no work is done
on the system by the external forces P dd, while for the fixed load case, external work equal to
P dd is fed into the system.
18
PREFACE TO GRIFFITH EQUATION PROBLEMS
Based on more sophisticated analysis, Eq. 2.2.4 can be rewritten as below:
1
2
'
C
f
E G
a
o
t
| |
=
|
\ .
where
2
'
(1 )
E
E
u
=

.
Therefore,
2
1
2
(1 )
C
f
EG
a
o
u t
| |
=
|

\ .
OR
2 2
(1 )
C
c
f
EG
a
u to
=

Hence, for the common value of = 0.3 for metals, the effect of considering or not considering the
value of , will change the result by about 10%.
Example 2.2.1: MARAGING STEEL FRACTURE
If the fracture stress of a large sheet of maraging steel , which contains a central crack of
length 40 mm, is 480 MPa, calculate the fracture stress of a similar sheet containing a crack of
length 100 mm.
1
2
6
40
480 10
0.02
C C
f
EG EG
a
o
t t
| | | |
= = =
| |

\ . \ .
;
1
2
100
0.05
C C
f
EG EG
a
o
t t
| | | |
= =
| |

\ . \ .
Taking the ratios of
f
,
0.5
100 100
40
0.02
480 0.05
f f
f
o o
o
| |
= =
|
\ .
; therefore, to
f100
= 303.4 MPa.
Comments: Maraging steel, unlike glass, is both tough and strong; hence, an increase in the
flaw-length by 2.5 times resulted in a reduction of the critical fracture stress by about 37%.
19
Example 2.2.2: GLASS SHEET FRACTURE
A sheet of glass measuring 2 m by 200 mm by 2 mm contains a central slit parallel to the 200 mm
side. The sheet is restrained at one end and loaded in tension with a mass of 500 kg.
What is the maximum allowable length of slit before fracture occurs?
Assume the following material property values: E = 60 GPa, surface energy ~ 0.5 J/m
2
, Poisson's ratio
= 0.25 and the fracture stress of sound glass = 170 MPa.
Note on Units: When the critical strain energy release rate is in N/m (=J/m
2
), E in N/m
2
, and a in m,
the fracture stress is in N/m
2
(Pa), which needs to be divided by 10
6
to convert it to MPa (the standard
SI engineering unit). Mass is multiplied by 9.81 m.s
-2
to get the force in N. Also note that twice the
surface energy gives G
C
(see Eq. (2.2.3)).
Then applied nominal stress, =
500 9.81
0.2 0.002

= 12.26 MPa; the question is, for this to be equal


to
f
, what is the a
c
?
Substitution into the Griffiths equation, i.e.,
2 2
(1 )
C
c
f
EG
a
u to
=

, gives
9
4
2 2 12
60 10 0.5 2
1.355 10
(1 0.25 ) 12.2625 10
c
a m
t


= =

This is a central crack in a plate and the full slit length is then, by definition 2a (see Fig. 2.1a). Thus
the maximum length of slit which can be supported is 0.271 mm.
Comments: As the applied stress is only 12.26 MPa, this indicates how critical even relatively small
defects are in brittle materials, as this value of applied stress is much less than the fracture stress of
sound (uncracked) glass of 170 MPa. This example illustrates that even the apparently superfluous
information helps in finding the right information!
20
Example 2.2.3: FAILURE CRITERIA: YIELD vs. FRACTURE
A cylindrical pressure vessel, with a diameter of 6.1 m and a wall thickness of 25.4 mm,
underwent catastrophic fracture when the internal pressure reached 17.5 MPa. The steel of the
pressure vessel had E = 210 GPa, a yield strength of 2450 MPa a value of G
C
= 131 kJ/m
2
.
a) Show that failure would not have been expected based on von Mises yield criterion,
2 2 2 2
1 2 2 3 3 1
. ., ( ) ( ) ( ) 2
YS
i e o o o o o o o + + s
b) Based on Griffith's analysis determine the size of crack that might have caused this failure,
stating assumptions that you have made.
Assumptions: (i) Fabrication and the orientation of the fatal defect - vessel is made from
welded plates with welds running perpendicular to both hoop and longitudinal stresses. As the
hoop stress is the maximum principal stress, one should assume that the defect is
perpendicular to this stress direction. (ii) 25.4 mm plate is quite thick and hence assume plane
strain, Poisson's ratio ~ 0.3.
Solution:
a) Using thin walled pressure vessel theory we get:
1 2 3
1
; ; 0
2 4 20
pD pD t
if
t t D
o o o = = = s
1 2
17.5 6100 17.5 6100
2101MPa; 1050MPa
2 25.4 4 25.4
o o

= = = =

Substituting these values into the von Mises yield criterion gives:
2 2 2 6 7 2
. ., (2101 1050) (1050 0) (0 2101) 6.62 10 1.2 10 ( 2 )
YS
i e o + + = < =
Thus failure would NOT have been expected on the basis of yield.
b) Substitute into the Griffith formula the relevant values:
3 9
2 2 6 2 2
131 10 210 10
(1 ) (2101 10 ) (1 0.3 )
C
c
f
EG
a
u to t
| |
= =
|

\ .
m
Hence: a
c
= 2.18 mm.
21
2.4 MODES OF LOADING, SIF AND LEFM
2.4.1 Three Modes of Loading based on crack surface displacements
Fig. 2.4. Mode-I (opening or tensile mode),
Mode-II (sliding mode), and Mode-III (tearing mode) [B26].
All other loading situations can be expressed as a combination of these three basic modes.
ONLY MODE-I IS CONSIDERED FURTHER
22
2.4.2 The stress intensity factor (SIF) and stress distribution
The SIF or K characterises the elastic stress field for a stressed element near the tip of a sharp
crack at a distance r and angle from the X-axis (Y is in the normal direction to the crack-
plane and Z is along the thickness (B) direction). The situation is illustrated below (Fig. 2.5).
Fig. 2.5. Stress components ahead of a (Mode-I) crack in a finite body of thickness B showing
lateral contraction in the thickness direction; r is the distance from crack-tip [B59, B48].
Figure 2.5 helps visualise the coordinates for describing the crack-tip stress field for a crack of
depth or length, a, situated in a body with width, W, and thickness, B. The crack-front (the
leading crack-tip, assuming to be straight) lies along the Z-direction (parallel to B) and the crack
propagates in the X-direction (along W); thus, the X-Z plane constitutes the crack plane.
x
,
y
and
z
are the three normal stress components,
z
being the stress component normal to the
crack-plane.
Figure 2.6 gives the analytical expressions describing the normal stress components in terms of
K
I
and distance r and angle . For an infinite body, K
I
is given by Eq. (2.2.7), while Eq. (2.2.10)
describes the K
I
for a finite-sized body.
23
Fig. 2.6. Expressions for stress distribution ahead of a crack in terms of SIF, K
I
,
subscript I denotes Mode-I loading (For Modes II and III, subscripts II
and III will be used respectivey). is the Poissons ratio [B48].
24
Fig. 2.7. Distribution of the three normal stresses (see Figs. 2.5&2.6 also).
In Fig. 2.7b, z = 0 (the mid-thickness position) [B59, B48].
Salient points of the stress distributions (Figs. 2.5 to 2.7) are:
- The expressions in Fig. 2.6 are the first terms of a series and hold good for small r.
- Crack-tip stresses are 1/r

and this causes a stress singularity at the crack tip


(i.e. the stresses go to infinity as r goes to zero). Thus in the near-tip region, which is
where fracture processes occur, the stress field is dominated by the singularity.
- Along the critical plane for cracking ahead of the crack tip (where the angle is zero),
the equations for the principal normal stress, that is the Y-direction stress (this applies
to other stresses also) reduces to the simple form of:
2
y
K
r
o
t
= (2.4.1)
- The numerator, the stress intensity factor, K, in the above essentially gives a
measure of the magnitude, or intensity, of the near-tip elastic stress field for any
combination of remote stress and crack length. Irwin postulated that fracture would
occur at a critical value of K, K
C
, a material property, called fracture toughness. K
C
is dependent on thickness and, at sufficiently high thickness, it attains a thickness
independent constant value called plane strain (described in the next box) fracture
toughness denoted by K
I C
.
25
Stress Triaxiality, Plane Strain and Plane Stress
- In a normal tensile test, a simple bar is pulled along and is subjected to a uniaxial
stress (that is, stressing in a single direction) at least up to necking. When a cracked
body is subjected to a remote tensile stress,
y
, as in Fig. 2.5, stresses develop in the
other two perpendicular directions due to Poisson effect (see Figs. 2.5 to 2.7). As
shown in Fig. 2.7a, the stress in the thickness direction,
z
, reduces to zero at the
surfaces (for the simple reason that free surfaces cannot support normal stresses; for
the same reason, as shown in Fig. 2.7b,
x
= 0 at the crack tip (r =0)) and is a
maximum at the centre (mid-thickness, z = 0). So, as the thickness, B, is reduced, the
central region of the specimen having the maximum stress will be reduced, and
beyond a point, maximum stress itself will reduce, leading to a situation known as
plane stress, where ,
z
is very small or ~0 and only a biaxial stress field will exist. So,
as B increases triaxiality increases, and beyond a certain thickness maximum stress
triaxiality develops.
- Plastic deformation depends on shear stresses ( difference of normal stresses; for
example in a simple uniaxial tensile test, shear stress is
y
; when triaxiality is
present, for the same
y
, shear stresses are (
y
-
z
) or (
y

x
) or (
z

y
)). Thus
high triaxiality leads to a reduction in shear stresses and plasticity is reduced or
constrained. So at the highest triaxiality, we have maximum normal stresses leading
to restricted plasticity. Normal stresses promote brittle fracture. This condition of
maximum triaxiality with restricted plasticity is referred to as plane strain;
hence, thin specimens experience a condition known as plane stress with reduced or
almost nil triaxiality.
- Hence, plane strain fracture toughness, K
IC
, described above, is obtained in
sufficiently thick specimens where maximum stress triaxiality has developed and
larger thicknesses have no further effect on triaxiality. This situation is depicted in Fig.
2.8, where K
C
is plotted as a function of B, the specimen thickness; thinner specimens
below the plane strain limit show higher and, later, lower K
C
because of increased
plasticity and because of the interplay of different extents of plane stress (surface) and
plane strain (central) regions as in Fig. 2,7a.
26
Fig. 2.8. Dependence of fracture toughness on specimen thickness:
plane stress-plane strain transition [B6].
2.5 CRACK TIP PLASTICITY
Fig. 2.9. Development of plastic zone (R or r
p
) at the crack tip [B6].
27
From the foregoing Section, it is obvious that plasticity and its extent and distribution play an
important role in controlling the plane strain and plane stress regimes. From the definition of the
stress intensity, based on the elastic stress field near a crack tip with = 0, i.e.:
2
y
K
r
o
t
= (2.5.1)
we can see that, as r tends towards zero, the crack tip stresses become singular. But this is
physically not possible; hence a yielded region will exist in the material ahead of the crack for all
reasonable stress values. The shape and size of the plastic zone can be determined, to a first
order, from the simple model first proposed by Irwin. Consider a material with a simple elastic-
perfectly plastic response (i.e. no strain hardening occurs). A first estimate of the plastic zone
size ahead of the crack tip (r
y
), along the plane of the crack, can be obtained by substituting the
yield strength into the above equation (see Fig. 2.9). This truncates the elastic stress field in the
near-tip region, where yielding occurs. The plastic zone size is obtained as:
2
1
2
y
YS
K
r
t o
| |
=
|
\ .
(2.5.2)
Irwin observed that the presence of significant crack tip plasticity caused the specimen to behave
as though it contained a crack of greater length than was actually the case. That is, the
compliance (ratio of displacement to load: / P d c c , where P and d are load and load point
displacements respectively) of the specimen became greater as plasticity developed at the crack
tip. This observation led him to propose a 'plastic zone correction' to crack length, based on a
more accurate model of crack tip plastic zone size. A more accurate estimate of plastic zone size
can be obtained by taking the necessary re-distribution of crack tip stresses (which accompanies
yielding) into account. This leads to a larger plastic zone size as indicated in the Fig. 2.9 R or
r
p
. It was shown that,
R = 2r
y
with effective crack length, a
eff
= a + r
y
(2.5.3)
where r
y
represents a plasticity correction to crack length which should be applied when crack tip
plasticity is relatively extensive, e.g. under plane strain conditions. Under such cases the stress
intensity factor is corrected iteratively through taking account of the effective crack length. The
procedure first calculates K using the actual crack length, then finds r
y
using this value of K. a
eff
is then found and the K value recalculated. This iteration can be continued further if necessary.
Plasticity is important in fracture mechanics, as the extent of plasticity, relative to specimen
dimensions and crack size, determines the state of stress (plane strain or plane stress) and
whether LEFM is applicable or not. In turn, stress state affects the direction of planes of
maximum shear stress and hence the fracture plane. Thus fracture proceeds perpendicularly to
the maximum principal stress in plane strain, and at 45

to this direction in plane stress.


As a general rule, the stress state approaches plane strain when the plastic zone is about 1/15 of
the crack length and material thickness. Plane stress occurs when the size of plastic zone tends
towards the material thickness. If the plastic zone is of the same order of size as the crack
28
length, LEFM would not be valid and yielding fracture mechanics (YFM or elastic-plastic
fracture mechanics-EPFM) parameters must be used. A schematic view of the plane strain
and plane stress plastic zones with reference to the cracked body in Fig. 2.5 is given in Fig. 2.10.
Fig. 2.10. Schematic plane strain, plane stress plastic zones (Ref also Fig. 2.5) [B6].
2.6. LEFM FRACTURE TOUGHNESS (K
IC
) TESTING
Standard fracture toughness tests are designed to allow reproducible determination of the
relevant fracture characterising parameter like plane strain fracture toughness, K
1C
, the J-integral
or crack tip opening displacement, CTOD. Hence certain conditions have to be met in the tests
regarding specimen and crack geometry, loading parameters and shape of load-displacement
curve, before a valid result can be reported. Bodies like the British Standards Institution (BSI)
and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) have developed standards for
29
testing of metallic and other materials. ASTM, E 399, Standard test method for plane-strain
fracture toughness of metallic materials, is discussed in the next BOX.
Fig. 2.11. Bend and C(T) Specimens as per ASTM E 399 Standard [B6, B48].
30
Relevant features of the ASTM E 399 Standard [B21]:
- Two of the specimen types: namely, the Three-Point Bend (TPB) Specimen and the Compact Tension
C(T) specimens are depicted in Fig. 2.11 along with the K-calibration expressions.
- Validity of the K
1C
result depends on the shape of the force vs displacement record, specimen size and
crack geometry, and the 0.2% proof strength and toughness of the material at the test temperature. A
valid result requires that:
2
, , ( ) 2.5
IC
YS
K
a B W a
o
| |
>
|
\ .
(2.6.1)
These conditions restrict the plastic zone size to less than 1/15 of the relevant dimension and thereby
ensure that plane strain and LEFM conditions prevail.
- During the fatigue pre-cracking (to ensure that a sharp enough defect similar to natural cracks is present
to give a lower bound value of toughness), there are restrictions on: (i) the fatigue loading during the
final 1.3 mm or 50% of pre-crack extension (whichever is lower); (ii) crack length (0.45 < a/W < 0.55 ),
difference between crack length measurements on the specimen surfaces (when measured to
+/-0.05 mm this shall not exceed 15% of the average of the two measurements). Figure 2.12(i) shows
the appearance of a typical fatigue crack. Crack length is measured at 8 equidistant points (three points
are shown in Fig. 2.12(ii)c along the crack-front on the fracture surface (plus mean of two surface
cracks counted as one measurement to give 9 values), the difference between any two measurements
must be less than 10% of the initial crack length (a
0
= average of 9 values, called 9-point average); and
(iii) the plane of the crack must always be within 10 of the plane of crack extension. A 9-point average
crack length measurement on a C(T) specimen is illustrated in Fig. 5.1 (Section 5).
- During the fracture toughness test, load is applied at a set rate, corresponding to K changing in the range
0.5 MPam

s
-1
to 3.0 MPam

s
-1
, while a trace of load versus displacement () is recorded (see NOTE
*
).
- The appearance of a trace suitable for K
1C
determination will conform to one of three types shown in
Fig. 2.12(ii)a. Fi gur e2. 12( i i ) b shows the construction used to obtain the
fracture load, P
Q
, which on substitution in the appropriate K expression gives
an apparent (tentative) fracture toughness, K
Q
. The purpose of the 5% secant
offset construction and the read-out of the corresponding secant offset load, P
5,
is to ensure that at P
Q
, maximum crack extension (a) is < 2% of the initial crack
length, a
0
. In Type-I (Fig. 2.12(ii)a), all loads prior to the displacement corresponding to P =
P
5
(i. e., =
P=P5
) are less than P
5
and hence P
5
=P
Q
. In Type-II curve, there
is a load maximum prior to P
5
(this called a pop-in: pop-ins giving load changes of <
1% are ignored) which is taken as P
Q
. In Type-III, maximum in the P- plot,
P
max
occurs prior to P
5
and P
max
= P
Q
. Type-III corresponds to brittle fracture
with least macroscopic deformation, and, in such cases, sudden failure often
results before reaching P
5
.
- Final validity condition that the ratio of P
max
/P
Q
< 1.10 ensures too much plasticity is not present prior
to the fracture, especially for Type-I and Type-II cases.
*
NOTE: Unlike in the J-integral or CTOD tests described later, in the K
IC
test, the measured Clip-gauge
displacement serves only to determine the critical fracture load by a suitable geometrical construction as
described above; otherwise, it does not enter any calculations.
31
(i)
(ii)
Fig. 2.12. (i) Typical Fatigue Crack and Load cycle; (ii) Test Traces
and Data Reduction/Validation as per ASTM E399 [B6, B48].
32
2.7. TRIANGLE OF INTEGRITY
A very useful way of visualising the equation (2.2.7):
K a o t = (2.2.7)
is via the concept of a 'triangle of integrity' [B26]. It is clear that the equation relates three
variables, applied stress (calculated assuming no crack is present), stress intensity K and crack
depth a. At the critical condition, the value of stress intensity is equal to the fracture toughness
for the thickness, temperature and strain rate which are relevant to the fracture.
The vertices of the TRIANGLE,
- Material Toughness decided by Material Selection
- Applied Stress decided by Component Design/Sizing
- Crack Size controlled/assessed by Fabrication/Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)) are
related as indicated below:
The above triangle depicts the inter-dependent relationship between three activities in fracture-
safe design. The individual parameters are adjusted to achieve an optimum result. Table 2.1
gives some SIF expressions while Table 2.2 gives typical fracture toughness values for some
common materials.
TRIANGLE OF
INTEGRITY
Material Selection

Material Toughness
Fabrication/NDT

Crack Size
Component
Design/Sizing

Applied Stress
33
Table 2.1.
*
SIF Calibration Factors for Some Common Specimen Geometries
( = a/W), b here is actually B (the specimen thickness) and P is load [B65]
*
NOTE: For actual applications and design, more accurate SIF expressions as given in Test
Standards (as in Fig. 2.11) or other References like that of Murakami [B29] should be used.
Table 2.2. Typical Fracture Toughness Values (Representative, not for design) [B13]
Material Youngs
Modulus,
E/GPa
Yield
Stress,

YS
/MPa
Fracture
Toughness,
K
IC
/MPam
Thickness
2.5(K
IC
/
YS
)
2
in mm
Steels
Medium Carbon
Pressure Vessel (ASTM
A533B Q+T)
High Strength Alloy
Maraging Steel
AFC 77 Stainless
Aluminium Alloys
2024 T8
7075 T6
7178 T6
Titanium Alloys
Ti-6Al-4V
High-Yield
Concrete
WC-Co Composite
PMMC
210
72
108
40
100
3
260
470
1460
1800
1530
420
540
560
1060
1100
80
300
30
54
208
98
76
83
27
30
23
73
38
0.2-1.4
13
1
110
487
11
4.4
7.9
10.4
7.9
4.2
12.6
3.1
4.7
2.8
34
2.8. LEAK BEFORE BREAK (LBB) CONCEPT [B26]
It is often advantageous to design pressure containing plant, such as pipework, tubes, vessels, and boilers, on
the basis of leak-before-break (LBB). This means that partial failures which occur by sub-critical mechanisms
(fatigue crack growth, stress corrosion cracking etc) are detected by loss of pressure in the plant before final
catastrophic fracture occurs. This requires a crack to grow in a stable manner through the wall of the
component and cause a detectable leak and consequent loss of pressure. This indication of a partial failure
allows the plant to be shut down in a controlled manner and repairs/replacement carried out.
If it can be demonstrated that a leak-before-break situation exists, other useful benefits may accrue:
- supplementing the primary structural integrity safety case
- alleviating some of the responsibility of non-destructive testing for ensuring safety
- permitting a reduction in number of restraints engineered into a pipework system to control pipe whip on
failure
The strategy in performing the analysis is as follows, and illustrated by reference to the figures below. A
surface (part-through) crack is assumed to initiate and grow by a sub-critical mechanism. Generally, initiation
will be from the inner surface of the pressurised container, as stresses are usually higher at this point and there
may well be a corrosive environment present (Figure a). However, industrial situations where cracking can
occur from the external surface are relatively common. A typical example might involve intergranular attack of
reactor pipework at elevated temperatures.
1. Calculate the length of through-thickness crack which will cause fracture, l
crit
.
2. Calculate the depth of part-through (or surface) crack which will cause fracture, a
crit
.
3. The value of a
crit
must be > B, the wall thickness. This allows the part-through crack to penetrate the wall
(Figure b).
4. Once wall penetration occurs, the part-through crack very quickly grows through the ligaments to become a
through-thickness crack with a length l
1
= 2c, where 2c is the surface length of the part-through crack at wall
penetration (Figure c). Hence the aspect ratio of the part-through crack is an important parameter in a leak-
before-break analysis. Remember also that the length l of a through-thickness crack is defined as 2a when you
are substituting for a in stress intensity equations.
5. The value of l
crit
must be > l
1.
6. Calculate the time for the crack to grow from l
1
to l
crit
. If the leak rate of fluid is detectable in this time, then a
leak-before-break design case is established.
Figure a Figure b Figure c
35
WORKED EXAMPLES/PROBLEMS IN LEFM
Example 2.1.
Rocket motor casings may be fabricated from either of two steels :
(a) low alloy steel yield 1.2 GPa toughness 70 MPam,
(b) maraging steel yield 1.8 GPa toughness 50 MPam
The relevant Code specifies a design stress of yield/1.5. Calculate the minimum defect size
which will lead to brittle fracture in service for each material, and comment on the result (this
last is important).
Solution: Assume K
I
= a with centre crack 2a. Fracture occurs at the design stress and the
corresponding critical defect size to be determined.
(a) Low alloy steel: Design stress, = (1200 MPa/1.5) = 800 MPa.
Therefore, critical a =
2 2
IC
2 2
70
800
K
o t t
=

= 2.43.10
-3
m = 2.43 mm and 2a = 4.9 mm
(b) Maraging steel: Design stress, = (1800 MPa/1.5) = 1200 MPa.
Therefore, critical a =
2 2
2 2
50
1200
IC
K
o t t
=

= 5.53.10
-4
m = 0.553 mm and 2a = 1.1 mm
Comments: In case (b), the critical defect size of 1.1 mm is dangerously small, may be
even below the level of detectability; hence, use of a higher toughness alloy or reduction
of design stress is suggested.
36
Example 2.2.
The CTS test piece is from a 1.2 GPa (Yield Stress) steel. If the failure load is 10 kN, what fracture
toughness is indicated? Is the result valid? Specimen dimensions in mm.
Note that width and crack size are reckoned from the load's line of action.
Solution: From Table 2.1, the relevant SIF calibration is that for Finite Plate, Edge Crack, Tensile
Force (Case(c)-CTS) as given below:
I
P
K Y a
bW
t
| |
=
|
\ .
with
5.23 (5.16 5.88)
1 1.07
Y
o o
o
+
=

, where = crack aspect ratio = a/W.


Given that, W = 20 mm, b = B = W/2 = 10 mm.
a = (W- 9) = 20 9 = 11 mm and = 11/20 = 0.55, which gives Y = 8.644.
At failure, P = 10 kN and YS = 1200 MPa.
Then,
3
3
3 3
10 10
8.644 11 10
10 10 20 10
IC
P
K Y a
BW
t t


| | | |
= =
| |

\ .
\ .
= 80.3 MPam
Validity condition is given by Eq. (2.5.1) as:
2
, , ( ) 2.5
IC
YS
K
a B W a
o
| |
>
|
\ .
2
80.3
2.5
1200
| |
-
|
\ .
= 0.011 m = 11.1 mm > a (11 mm), (W a) (9 mm) and < B (20 mm).
Comments: As the evaluated SIF value of the test does not satisfy the ASTM E 399
validity condition for a and B, the Plane Stress Fracture Toughness, K
C
= 80.3
MPam is not a valid K
IC
.
This is an instructive problem in the sense that, unlike other mechanical tests, like,
tension, hardness, etc., in a fracture mechanics test, it is not possible a priori to
ensure that the test will result in valid/conclusive results. Based on the result, as in
the present case, we may have to repeat the test using larger specimens and altered
test parameters to obtain a valid result. Hence, a fracture toughness test is costly,
time consuming and sophisticated because of the stringent requirements on test
conditions/specimen dimensions.
37
Example 2.7.4.
The long strip may be made from either of the two materials :
(a) tough, weak yield 700 MPa plane strain toughness 100 MPam
(b) brittle, strong yield 1400 MPa plane strain toughness 50 MPam
A central crack extends through the strip. Plot, as a function of crack length, the failure stress
for each material due to the separate mechanisms of elastic fracture and plastic collapse.
Comment on the trends of these graphs.
Assumptions:
(i) Elastic Fracture: The governing equation is: K
I
= a, fracture occurring at K
I
=
K
IC
and critical fracture stress
c
= K
IC
/a.
(ii) Plastic Collapse: Plastic collapse occurs when the net section stress equals the
yield stress, i. e., for the centre cracked panel considered here,
( 2 )
(1 2 ) (1 2 )
net YS
P P
a a
B W a
BW
W W
o
o o = = = =


OR (1 2 )
YS
a
W
o o =
So we have to plot
c
and
net
as a function of 2a or 2a/W for the two cases given
above.
Solution: The calculated results are plotted for the Cases (a) and (b) in Figs. (a) and (b) below
in the next Box: Example.2.7.4b.
It may be noted that the curve showing the brittle fracture stress is a parabola due its
dependence on a, whereas the plastic collapse stress is a straight line varying from YS at
2a/W = 0 to zero stress at 2a/W = 1.
Example 2.3.
The toughness of a 700 MPa yield structural steel is estimated to be 140 MPam. What size and mass
of SEN bend test specimen is necessary, and what capacity of testing machine would be required ?
Assume an a/W = 0.5 and steel density = 7.9 gm/cc.
Solution: From Table 2.1 (Case (e)), the SIF expression for the SEN Bend geometry is as given
below:
6
I
P
K Y a
bW
t
| |
=
|
\ .
with
1.12 (3.43 1.89)
1 0.55
Y
o o
o
+
=

The relative dimensions of the ASTM E 399 SEN Bend specimen are given in Fig. 2.11; where B
varies from 0.25 to 1W. Usually B = W or W/2. Here it is assumed that B = 0.5W, with a view to
reduce specimen material.
For an a/W = 0.5 = , Y = 1.424. For a K
IC
= 140 MPam, from the ASTM validity Eq. (2.6.1),
2
, , ( ) 2.5
IC
YS
K
a B W a
o
| |
>
|
\ .
,
with
YS
= 700 MPa,
2
2.5
IC
YS
K
o
| |
|
\ .
=
2
140
2.5
700
| |
|
\ .
= 0.1 m = 100 mm
Hence, for a B = 100 mm, W = 200 mm and a = 100 mm and span, S = 4W = 800 mm and specimen
total length, L > 800 mm.
Specimen Mass:
For the above specimen, Volume = 800 x 200 x 100 mm
3
= 16000 cc and this gives
a specimen mass = 16000 x 7.9 x 10
-3
kg = 126.4 kg, conservatively as actual L > 800 mm.
Load and Test Machine Capacity:
For this we must estimate the fracture load. Recasting the SIF expression for the SEN specimen given
above, load, P is given by:
6
IC
K bW
Y a t
| |
|
\ .
=
3 3
3
140 100 10 200 10
6 1.424 100 10 t

| |

|

\ .
= 584685 N ~ 590 kN
So, the minimum load capacity required for the machine is: 590 kN.
For a100mmC(T) specimen(withB =(W/2)), followingtheproportionsof Fig. 2.11, themachine
capacityrequiredis2052kN, thespecimenmassbeing48kg.
Comments: The above is a very illustrative and instructive problem that gives an idea of the specimen dimensions and
masses and machine capacity required to successfully measure a valid fracture toughness. In the present case a medium
strength alloy was used, and for low-strength steels specimens with B = 300 to 400 mm have been tested. One disadvantage
of the bend specimen is that it requires large amount of material, with comparatively lower machine capacity because of large
S/W ratio. C(T) specimen economises on material, hence the name COMPACT.
38
Example 2.4.
The long strip may be made from either of the two materials :
(a) tough, weak yield 700 MPa plane strain toughness 100 MPam
(b) brittle, strong yield 1400 MPa plane strain toughness 50 MPam
A central crack extends through the strip. Plot, as a function of crack length, the failure stress
for each material due to the separate mechanisms of elastic fracture and plastic collapse.
Comment on the trends of these graphs.
Assumptions:
(iii) Elastic Fracture: The governing equation is: K
I
= a, fracture occurring at K
I
=
K
IC
and critical fracture stress
c
= K
IC
/a.
(iv) Plastic Collapse: Plastic collapse occurs when the net section stress equals the
yield stress, i. e., for the centre cracked panel considered here,
( 2 )
(1 2 ) (1 2 )
net YS
P P
a a
B W a
BW
W W
o
o o = = = =


OR (1 2 )
YS
a
W
o o =
So we have to plot
c
and
net
as a function of 2a or 2a/W for the two cases given
above.
Solution: The calculated results are plotted for the Cases (a) and (b) in Figs. (a) and (b) below
in the next Box: Example.2.4a.
It may be noted that the curve showing the brittle fracture stress is a parabola due its
dependence on a, whereas the plastic collapse stress is a straight line varying from YS at
2a/W = 0 to zero stress at 2a/W = 1.
(cond. To 2.4a)
39
Example 2.4a (continuation of Example 2.4)
2a/W
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
e
m
o
t
e
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
700MPa
YS
o =
IC
c
K
a
o
t
=
(1 2 )
YS
a
W
o o =
Fig. a. Plastc Collapse and Elastic Fracture conditions for Case(a)
Tough, Weak Alloy: K
IC
= 100 MPa.m
0.5
Fig. b. Plastc Collapse and Elastic Fracture conditions for Case(b)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
R
e
m
o
t
e
S
t
r
e
s
s
,
o
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
IC
c
K
a
o
t
=
(1 2 )
YS
a
W
o o =
1400MPa
YS
o =
2a/W
Brittle, Strong Alloy; K
IC
= 50 MPa.m
0.5
Comments: In the case of the high toughness alloy, Case(a), as shown in Fig-(a), the plastic
collapse stress is below that for brittle fracture. HenceLEFM toughnesscannot bemeasured.
For the case (b), as shown in Fig. (b), critical fracture conditions prevail in the intermediate 2a/W
regions with plastic collapse at low and high stress (high and low crack lengths respectively)
regions.
40
Example 2.5. HIGH STRENGTH vs FRACTURE TOUGHNESS
A welded structure is to be fabricated from large sheets of 0.45C-Ni-Cr-Mo steel. The detection limit
of available NDT techniques limits the critical defect size to sizes > 3 mm, as cracks smaller than this
are not detectable. A design stress level of half the tensile strength is proposed.
To save weight in the structure it has been suggested that the steel could be heat treated to a higher
tensile strength level. The current grade has a tensile strength of 1520 MPa, and a candidate
replacement grade has a 2070 MPa strength level. Is this change supportable in fracture mechanics
terms?
You may assume plane strain conditions in all computations, and the figure below indicates the
relationship between fracture toughness and tensile strength for this steel.
Compare the allowable stress levels, and hence weights, in both grades of steel for an allowable initial
defect size of approximately 5 mm.
UTS
= where =
2
K a o t o
Solution:
From the data in the figure, K
IC
of the 1520 MPa grade is 66 MPa m

, while K
1C
= 33 MPa m

for the
2070 MPa grade. A through-crack in a large sheet can essentially be treated as one in an infinite plate.
(Cond. To Example 2.5a in the next Box)
41
Example 2.5a (continued from Ex. 2.5)
For the alloy heat treated to 1520 MPa, we get:
c
66MPa m 760MPa
2.4mm total flaw size = 4.8mm
a
a
t =
=
This critical flaw size is larger than the minimum NDT detection limit, and this steel is safe to
use. For the 2070 MPa grade, however, the equation gives:
c
33MPa m 1035MPa
0.33mm total flaw size=0.66 mm
a
a
t =
=
Thus it is not possible to detect critical defects in this grade before fast fracture occurs. To
allow a critical defect size of 4.8 mm, i. e.,2a, in both grades, for the 2070 MPa grade:
3
33MPa m
380MPa
2.4 10 m
o
t

= ~

Hence for a similar flaw tolerance level, the allowable stress in the higher strength alloy is
half that in the 1570 MPa grade - this would imply a two-fold increase in weight of a
component. Hence, the change is unwise.
Comments: This question illustrates the effect on critical crack length of the loss in fracture
toughness that generally accompanies an increase in tensile strength.
42
Example 2.6. QUENCHING and RESIDUAL STRESSES
During water quenching of steel components with a section thickness of 30 mm, heat transfer
calculations indicate that a peak stress of 130 MPa is generated in the section. Prior to heat treatment,
the components were ultrasonically inspected to detect defects. The inspection technique has a
minimum detection size of 0.5 mm.
a) What type of defect will be most critical?
b) Calculate the size of defect which would cause fracture of the component during the quenching
operation, given that the aspect ratio of the crack is 2c/a = 10.
c) Would this inspection procedure guarantee integrity of the component if the quenching stresses
approached the proof stress of the steel?
Note: K
1C
= 30 MPa m

and the proof stress = 620 MPa. The stress intensity calibration for this
component and crack geometry is given in the figure below (where the subscript y indicates proof
stress).
Where, for surface flaws:
1
2
1.1
a
K
Q
t
o
| |
=
|
\ .
and for embedded flaws:
1
2
a
K
Q
t
o
| |
=
|
\ .
Solution Cond. in the Next Box-2.6a
43
Example 2.6a (Continuation of 2.6: QUENCHING and RESIDUAL STRESSES)
Solution:
a) From inspection of the stress intensity solutions for surface and embedded flaws it is
obvious that, because of the factor of 1.1 for surface defects, they will become critical at
smaller values of a than embedded defects.
b) For substitution into the K equation for surface defects, Q must be determined. From the
graph,
For 0.21 and 0.1, 1.1
2
y
a
Q
c
o
o
= = =
2 2
IC
2 2
1.1 1.1 30
= = 15.4 mm
1.21 1.21 130
c
K
a
t o t

=

This flaw is very much bigger than the NDT detection limit and there should be very little risk
of failure during the quenching.
b) If the quenching stresses approached the proof stress of the material, the situation changes
dramatically. Surface defects are still critical, but the value of Q has changed:
For 1 and 0.1, 0.88
2
y
a
Q
c
o
o
= = =
2 2
IC
2 2
0.88 0.88 30
= = 0.54 mm
1.21 1.21 620
c
K
a
t o t

=

As the critical size of defect is around the NDT detection limit, the inspection would not
guarantee integrity. A change to the quenching procedure would have to be implemented, e.g.
using a slower quenchant.
Comments: This problem brings out the importance of heat treatment conditions in
controlling residual stresses and their effect on critical defect size.
44
Example 2.7: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTS
The figure below shows the load line displacement trace recorded from a standard sized
compact tension fracture toughness specimen. Specimen thickness was 25 mm, the crack
length at fracture was 25 mm and the steel alloy had a yield strength of 650 MPa.
a) Calculate P
Q
and hence K
Q
. Apply the required checks on plastic zone size, stress state and
plasticity during the test to determine whether K
Q
is a valid plane strain fracture toughness
value.
b) What is the maximum K
1C
value that can be determined for this steel using 25 mm thick
specimens?
Note: The K equation for C(T) specimen is given in Fig. 2.11 and Table 2.1 (theformer is
moreaccurate).
(Continued to 2.7a)
45
Example 2.7a (Continuation of Example 2.7: FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTS)
a) To find P
Q
, a line is constructed from the origin with a slope 5% less than that of the tangent
to the initial straight line part of the load-displacement record. This line is shown in the figure
above. This line intersects the load-displacement trace at 19 kN, and there is no previous
higher value of load on the trace.
Hence P
Q
= 19 kN.
To find K
Q
the function f(a/W) (which is the finite geometry correction factor) must be
computed. From the standard specimen size (see Fig. 2.8), W = 2B = 50 mm, hence a/W =
25/50 = 0.5:
-3
Q
Q 0.5 0.5
From Fig. 2.8, ( ) = 9.66 and
( )
19 10 9.66
= = 32.8 MPa
0.025 0.05
a
f
W
a
P f
W
K m
BW

Validity Check on K
Q
(i).
2
2
32.8
, , ( ) 2.5 = 2.5 , i. e., 6.4 mm
650
Q
YS
K
a B W a
o
| |
| |
>
| |
\ .
\ .
(ii). Final constraint to ensure absence too much plasticity:
P
max
/P
Q
= 21 kN/19 kN = 1.105 < 1.1
As the conditions are satisfied, K
Q
is K
IC
= 32.8 MPam.
Comments: Essentially, the first check ensures that the crack tip plastic zone is a small enough
percentage of crack length to ensure LEFM, the constraint on B helps to ensure that plane strain
conditions prevail, while the condition on (W - a) ensures that a plastic hinge does not develop ahead
of the crack.
b) The maximum K
1C
value that can be determined from this thickness of specimen in steel of
this grade, called K-capacity of the specimen, is found when B fails to satisfy the Valdity
Check Condition (i) above; i.e., when,
2
Q YS
0.025
2.5 OR K > = 650 65 MPa m
2.5 2.5
Q
YS
K
B
B o
o
| |
< =
|
\ .
Comments: This question illustrates the application of constraints for determining valid K
1C
values
from fracture toughness tests.
46
Example 2.8: PLASTIC ZONE EFEECT
A thin plate of steel contains a central through-thickness flaw of length 16 mm, which is subjected to a stress of
350 MPa applied perpendicularly to the flaw plane. The 0.2% flow stress of the material is 1400 MPa.
Calculate the plastic zone size and the effective stress intensity level at the crack tip, making reasonable
assumptions about the state of stress.
If, after heat treatment, the flow stress of the steel dropped to 385 MPa, what would the plastic zone size be
under the applied stress of 350 MPa, and what conclusions would you draw about the use of LEFM?
Assumptions: (i) The plate is large compared to the size of the crack so that the simple infinite plate formula for
stress intensity factor applies and a = 8 mm (half the central crack length). That is,
=
= 350 0.008 = 55.49 MPa
K a
K m
o t
t
(ii) The steel plate is in a state of plane stress as it is stated to be 'thin'. Plane stress prevails if the ratio of plate
thickness to plastic zone size tends towards 1, while plane strain prevails if it tends towards 15. Plane stress is
also a conservative assumption, in that K values are higher (through Irwin's plastic zone correction) when plastic
zones are bigger.
Solution:
Irwin's plastic zone correction factor to crack length is given by:
2
2
-4
p
1 1 55.49
= = 2.5 10 m (i.e., 0.25 mm)
2 2 1400
YS
K
r
t o t
| |
| |
=
| |
\ .
\ .
This is small compared with the crack length and its effect on K will be correspondingly small:
3
eff p
= ( ) = 350 (8.25 10 ) = 56.35 MPa K a r m o t t

+
This is around a 1.5% change and thus a single iteration of the calculation is sufficient.
However, if the flow stress drops to 385 MPa after heat treatment, the plastic zone size now becomes:
2
-3
p
1 55.49
= = 3.31 10 m = 3.31 mm
2 385
r
t
| |

|
\ .
3
eff p
= ( ) = 350 (11.31 10 ) = 65.97 MPa K a r m o t t

+
This represents a correction of around 18.9% and the use of LEFM becomes dubious. This is confirmed by the
fact that the applied stress (350 MPa) is now some 91% of the flow stress. A yielding fracture mechanics
parameter should be used to characterise the propensity for fracture.
47
Example 2.9. SPECIMEN THICKNESS EFECT
Catastrophic fracture occurred in a thick steel plate during proof testing, at an applied stress of
700 MPa. The initiating defect was an embedded sharp penny-shaped flaw with a radius of
2.5 cm. Calculate the fracture toughness of this steel.
It is desired to check this value by determining the plane strain fracture toughness from
standard tests. The yield strength of the steel is 1100 MPa. A sheet of nominally similar steel,
7.5 mm thick, is available. Is this sufficiently thick to obtain a valid K
1C
value? If not, what
thickness of steel should you order?
Given: The stress intensity solution for an embedded circular crack is:
2
= K a o t
t
Substitution of values into the above formula gives:
2
= 700 0.025 = 124.9 MPa K m t
t

If this is assumed to be a valid plane strain fracture toughness value, then the minimum
specimen thickness required is given by:
2
2
IC
YS
124.9
> 2.5 = 2.5 = 0.0322m = 32.2 mm
1100
K
B
o
| |
| |

| |
\ .
\ .
Comments: This is much larger than the plate thickness of 7.5 mm. Hence the thickness of
steel in stock is insufficient to provide a valid K
1C
value. A thickness > 35 mm is required.
48
Example 2.10. LBB PROBLEM:
a) The stress intensity solution for a semi-elliptic flaw in tension is given below. The K
1C
value for a Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy with a yield strength of 910 MPa, is 115.4 MPam

.
Determine the size of the largest stable surface flaw (a/c = 0.4) in a 40 mm thick plate of this
alloy, for a design stress in the plate of 75% of the yield strength. This requires assuming an
initial value of a/B and iterative calculations of stress intensity, if necessary.
For the semi-elliptic surface flaw, =
Y a
K
o t
u
and the values of Y and are given in
the TABLE below.
b) For the same alloy and design stress, calculate the maximum wall thickness of a pressure
vessel which could be designed on a leak-before-break criterion. You may assume that the
aspect ratio (a/c) of the surface flaw remains constant at 0.4, and that for the through-
thickness crack:
= K a o t
What thickness of plate would you order for the vessel?
(continued to 2.10a)
49
Example 2.10a (continuation of 2.10;LBB PROBLEM)
TABLE
a/c Phi Y
a/B
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.051
0.2
0
o
45
o
90
0.617
0.990
1.173
0.724
1.122
1.359
0.899
1.384
1.642
1.190
1.657
1.851
1.151
0.4
0
o
45
o
90
0.767
0.998
1.138
0.896
1.075
1.225
1.080
1.247
1.370
1.318
1.374
1.447
1.277
0.6
0
o
45
o
90
0.916
1.024
1.110
1.015
1.062
1.145
1.172
1.182
1.230
1.353
1.243
1.264
1.571
1.0
0
o
45
o
90
1.174
1.067
1.049
1.229
1.104
1.062
1.355
1.181
1.107
1.464
1.193
1.112
Solution:
a) From the stress intensity solution, the highest K values relate to the maximum depth position (Phi =
90
o
) and this position is used to find crack depth a. As we do not know the critical crack depth, we will
have to assume a value of a/B to calculate a
crit
using K
1C
, and then check whether this gives a value of
a/B close enough to our initial estimate. If not, then we must iterate through the calculation using a
more refined estimate of a/B.
Consider a first estimate of a/B of 0.2, this gives:
IC
3
c
1.138 0.75 910
= = 115.4 MPa
1.151
a 9.3 10 m = or 9.3 mm
c
a
K m
t


=
From this, we can find a/B = 9.3/40 = 0.233. This is reasonable close to our estimate of 0.2, but we
could improve the prediction by linearly interpolating for the 'correct' value of a/B. This interpolation
gives a/B = 1.138 + [(0.033/0.2) x (1.225 - 1.138)] = 1.152 - a change of only 1.2%. Hence it is
acceptable to leave the critical crack size as 9.3 mm. If one redoes the calculation, however, a
crit
= 9.20
mm.
(continued to 2.10b)
50
Example 2.10b (continuation of 2.10a)
Solution (b):
b) The leak-before-break criterion requires the vessel to be stable (i.e. not to suffer fracture) in
the presence of a surface crack which penetrates the wall (a = B) and very quickly grows to
become a through-thickness crack with a
through-thickness crack
= c
surface crack
. Essentially, this means
that we have to check for stability in the presence of both a surface crack and a through-
thickness crack. As the surface length of the semi-elliptic crack is required in calculating K
for the through-thickness crack, we start with the semi-elliptic crack.
Surface crack: a/c = 0.4 and a/B = 0.8 (highest value given in the table, but the ratio of a/B
should really be 1):
IC
c
1.447 0.75 910
= = 115.4 MPa m
1.151
= 5.76 mm
c
a
K
a
t

The value of cfor this crack is 5.76/0.4 = 14.4 mm


Through-thickness crack:
IC c
= 0.75 910 = 115.4 and a 9.1 mm K a t =
Comments: However, this value of 9.1 mm is less than the value of 14.4 mm found from the
surface crack. Hence the through-thickness defect is critical. The maximum thickness of plate
in which both types of crack would be stable is 9.1 x 0.4 = 3.64 mm. Thus one might specify
that the vessel would be made using plate < 3.5 mm thick, although the safety margin then is
rather low.
Note: This analysis assumes that such a plate thickness would be adequate to carry the
applied load, i.e. that design stresses would have a maximum value 0.75x910 = 682.5 MPa.
This may not be feasible with such a thin wall, or the proposed thickness of 3.5 mm may not
meet other design criteria (corrosion, deflectional stability etc) and the design may have to be
re-assessed. Thus the problem illustrates the possibility of conflict between different design
criteria. Part of the skill of an engineer lies in optimising these types of conflict.
51
Example 2.11. Radial Cracks around Cylinders [B31]
A commonly encountered surface crack configuration under a remote applied tension, torsion or
a combined loading system is that shown the Figure next.
The stress intensity factors for the loading system illustrated in the Figure are:
I III
= f and = g
d d
K a K a
D D
o t t t
| | | |
| |
\ . \ .
For an applied torque T, the torsional shear stress becomes
3
16
=
T
D
t
t
and the correction factors
are:
Cond. In Next Box 2.11(a)
52
Example 2.11a (continuation of Example 2.11)
2 3
1 1 3 5 11
f =
2 2 8 14 15
d D D d d d
D d d D D D
(
| | | | | | | |
+ + +
(
| | | |
\ . \ . \ . \ . (

and
2 2 3
3 1 3 5 35 16
g =
8 2 8 16 128 32
d D D D d d d
D d d d D D D
(
| | | | | | | | | | | |
+ + + +
(
| | | | | |
\ . \ . \ . \ . \ . \ . (

The crack length (size) is estimated as
-
=
2
D d
a .
PROBLEM: Two identical high-strength steel rods are prepared: one for a tension test at 106 MPa and
one for torsion at 69 MPa. Calculate K
I
and and K
III
. The rod dimensions are d = 4 mm and D = 8 mm. If
K
IIIC
= (3/4)*K
IC
, (a) will the rods fracture? Explain; (b) Calculate the theoretical tensile and torsion
fracture stresses, if fracture does not occur in (a). Use K
IC
= 25 MPam.
Solution:
Given: = 106 MPa; = 69 MPa; K
IC
= 25 MPam; a = (D - d)/2 = (8 4)/2 = 2 mm; (d/D) = 0.5 and
(D/d) = 2. Then from the above equations, the correction factors are: f(d/D) = 1.9 and g(d/D) = 2.91.
Hence the applied SIFs and Mode-III fracture toughness values are:
Thus answer to question (a) is that the rods will not fracture as the applied SIFs in tension and
torsion are less than the respective fracture toughness values; K
I
< K
IC
and K
III
< K
IIIC
.
(b) The fracture stresses are:
IC IIIC
25 21.65
= = = 167 MPa and = = = 94 MPa
1.9* *2/1000 2.91 *2/1000
f
f f
K K
d d
a g a
D D
o t
t t
t t
| | | |
| |
\ . \ .
I
III
IIIC IC
= f = 1.9*106* *2/1000 16 MPa m
= g = 2.91*69* *2/1000 = 16 MPa m
3 3
= * = *25 = 21.65 MPa m
4 4
d
K a
D
d
K a
D
K K
o t t
t t t
| |
=
|
\ .
| |
|
\ .
53
Chapter 3 - APPLICATIONS OF LEFM
3.1. FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH (FCG)
3.1.1. Introduction
Steady loads only have been considered so far, for which we have noted the effect of increasing
crack size on failure tendency. We now consider crack growth under alternating loads, ie. the
fatigue process. A typical crack history under a cyclic load of constant amplitude, , is
sketched in Fig. 3.1(a). A crack of size a
i
exists initially, and grows in a stable, controlled
manner until the critical crack size (a
f
) is approached - when crack growth rates increase out of
hand and disaster strikes. Examples of components subjected to fatigue are rotating machinery,
say, automotive transmission rods, steam turbines etc. These are examples of mechanical fatigue.
Nuclear RPVs subjected to heat-up and cool-down or temperature fluctuations undergo what is
called thermal fatigue. Only mechanical fatigue will be considered here.
For a given material, the instantaneous rate of crack growth, the slope da/dN, is found to depend
mainly upon the stress intensity range, K, since,
- It is the near tip field (characterised by K) which affects crack advance, and fatigue is
known to be greatly dependent upon the range of stress and of load (the 'S' of the S-N
diagram) which is proportional to the range of stress intensity factor(Fig. 3.1(d)).
- Growth rate da/dN is affected also by the mean component of intensity - typically
characterised by the load ratio R = K
min
/K
max
- but this is largely a reflection of K
max
approaching the critical K
c
, ie. of impending fracture.
- If and when the load becomes compressive, a phenomenon called Crack Closure occurs,
but such complications are neglected here.
- So, accepting that intensity range is the main contributor to growth rate, the relationship
is found to be as follows - this being a unique sigmoidal curve for each particular
material. There are three stages as shown in Fig. 3.2.
OUTLINE
Definition of Fatigue and Stress Corrosion Crack Growths
(FCG and SCC); LEFM description of FCG and SCC;
Worked Examples; Application of LEFM in the ASME
Code - K
IR
curve; Illustration of K
IR
curve
determination for a 9Cr-1Mo steel
54
(a)
(b) (c) (d)
Fig. 3.1. (a) Typical crack growth history under constant stress range fatigue; (b) Constant stress
range cyclic load history; (c) Increasing stress range and (d) Stresses and Stress Ranges
expressed in terms of SIF range: (
min max min
= , = , = and so on K K K K o o
v . v
) [B65]
55
Fig. 3.2. Fatigue Crack growth Rate depicted by Sigmoidal Curve [B41].
3.1.2. Three Stages of Fatigue Crack Growth (FCG)
- Stage-I: Initiation. Relates to cleavage along grain boundaries or favourably oriented
crystallographic planes at rates of the order of one lattice spacing per cycle
(4x10
-7
mm/cycl); growth requires the stress intensity range to exceed some threshold
value; influenced greatly by environment/microstructure. This stage is bypassed if a crack
exists prior to loading.
- Stage-II: Stable Propagation. This is the most important stage, dealing with identifiable
cracks (say > 0.1 mm) growing in a stable manner. The direction of propagation is less
random than in stage I and the material behaves more homogeneously. The material
characteristic crack growth rate vs intensity range is approximately log-log linear
throughout stage II.
56
- Stage-III: Instability. Although important, this stage exists only for a very small fraction
of the component's life, since the instability is catastrophic. The onset of stage III is
dictated by the critical crack size being approached, that is by K
max
tending to K
c.
3.1.3. Stage II FCG: PARIS LAW
Life prediction for fatigue cracks was made very much easier and far more quantitative in the
1960's when Paris postulated that the range of stress intensity factor might characterise sub-
critical crack growth under fatigue loading in the same way that K characterised critical, or fast
fracture. He examined a number of alloys and realised that plots of crack growth rate against
range of stress intensity factor gave straight lines on log-log scales. This implies that:
log = log( ) + log
da
m K C
dN
| |
A
|
\ .
(3.1.1)
Taking out the log gives,
m
=
da
C K
dN
A
(3.1.2)
Equation (3.1.2) is known as the Paris Law. For the first time, it became possible to make a
quantitative prediction of residual life for a crack of a certain size. This simply required finding
limits on the integration in terms of crack size, which could be done by finding the final size
which caused fast fracture from the relationship between fracture toughness and crack size:
= K Y a o t (3.1.3)
Separation of the variables a and N and substitution for the range of stress intensity by the
equivalent equation in terms of stress and crack size gives
( )
f
0
m
m
0 2
= =
=
( )
f
a
N
m
m m a
da
C K C Y a
dN
da
dN
CY a
o t
o t
A A

A
} }
(3.1.4)
57
It was later realised that this so-called 'law' applied to growth rates in the range of perhaps
10
-3
mm/cycle to 10
-6
mm/cycle, and that the fatigue crack growth rate curve was sigmoidal in
shape when growth lower and higher than this range were included. Typical data for
austempered ductile iron in air, as a function of stress ratio (minimum stress in cycle divided by
maximum stress in cycle - a measure of mean stress in the fatigue cycle) is shown in Fig. 3.3.
Fig. 3.3. FCG curves for austempered ductile iron in air
as a function of Stress Ratio-R [B26].
58
The lower growth rate region is termed the threshold regime, because growth rates drop off
steeply and the crack becomes essentially non-propagating. This represents a change in
mechanism from double shear continuum growth to single shear non-continuum growth. The
higher growth rate regime is where values of maximum stress intensity in the fatigue cycle are
tending towards the fracture toughness and static modes of fracture (cleavage, intergranular) are
adding to the fatigue induced growth rates.
Because it covers the range of growth rates most useful to engineering structures, Paris law
remains a very useful relationship and, moreover, its extrapolation into the threshold regime can
give a conservative estimate for the remaining life. This development was crucial to the adoption
of defect-tolerance concepts and the implementation of a retirement-for-cause philosophy.
Increasing the mean stress in the fatigue cycle (R =
min
/
max
= K
min
/K
max
) has a tendency to
increase the crack growth rate in all regions of the sigmoidal curve as shown in Fig. 3.3. This
R-ratio (stress ratio) effect is generally less in Stage II than in Stages I and III. Modifications of
Eq. (3.1.2), which caters to both stages II and III, are:
m
max
C
d CK
= (3.1.5a)
d
1
a
N
K
K
| |

` |
\ . )
{ }
m
C
d CK
= (3.1.5b)
d (1 ) -
a
N R K K A
With reference to the former, if K
max
<< K
c
, then the RHS denominator 1 corresponding to
stage II; alternatively if K
max
K
c
then da/dN tends to infinity (stage III ). The latter formulation
(i.e., Eq. (3.1.5b), explicitly includes the R-ratio effect and is known as the Forman Equation.
Though fatigue life testing (smooth specimen testing Section 1.3.3) is usually carried out under
fully reversed stress or strain (R = -1), fracture mechanics fatigue crack growth data is usually
determined for conditions of pulsating tension (R = 0). Compression loading cycles are not used
as during compression loading the crack is closed and the SIF is zero. Though compression
loading is generally considered to have little effect on crack propagation, under variable
amplitude loading (see Fig. 3.1c) compression cycles can have an effect.
59
3.1.4. FCG Testing
For conducting FCG tests and generating data there are various standards, the most important
being the ASTM E647-83 and its Revision and BSI (British Standards Institution) Draft
Standard. FCG testing generally involves measurement of growth rates above 10
-8
m/cycle under
constant amplitude loading. The main requirement as per these standards is that the material
remains predominantly elastic and buckling does not occur and pertain to Mode-I loading. C(T)
or Centre Cracked Tension (CCT) or even Single Edge Notched Bend (SENB) specimens are
used. Revision of ASTM E647-83 contains different test procedures and conditions, and covers,
in addition to the Paris regime, measurement of FCG rates from near-threshold to K
max
controlled
instability. A working definition of K
th
is provided. The most important requirement for
ensuring elastic conditions as per the ASTM standard are:
C(T) specimens:
2
max
4
- , derived from plastic zone consideration
YS
K
W a
t o
(
=
(

and
CCT specimen:
max
- 2 1.25 , based on general yielding consideration.
YS
P
W a
Bo
=
Anyone embarking on FCG study and testing should consult, in addition to the relevant ASTM
or BS standards, the following excellent interpretative and comparative review [B1] by R. J.
Allen, G. S. Booth and T. Jutla: A Review of Fatigue Crack Growth Characterisation by Linear
Elastic Fracture mechanics (LEFM). Part I Principles and Methods of Data Generation (pp.45-
69) and Part II Adivisory Documents and Applications within National Standards (pp. 71-108)
in Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, Vol. 11 (No.2), 1988. Because
thinner specimens and smaller loads are used, FCG testing may be accomplished using lower
load-capacity machines as compared to those used for LEFM fracture toughness tests. It will be
beyond the mandate of this introductory book to discuss the various aspects and techniques
involved in FCG testing. Figure 3.4 gives a schematic outline of the steps involved in FCG
testing and application of the results to structural life assessment.
60
Fig. 3.4. Steps in obtaining da/dN vs. K data and using it for an engineering application [B13].
Crack growth during testing is monitored either using a low-power microscope of 20-50X
magnification or using more sophisticated techniques like Potential-Drop, stiffness or
compliance change technique. Sometimes non-destructive test techniques like acoustic emission
can monitor the position of the crack tip. Figure 3.5 shows the typical crack length (a) vs.
number of cycles (N) data obtained for an AISI 4340 low-alloy steel.
61
Fig. 3.5. Crack length vs. cycles data for four different levels of cyclic load
applied to C(T) specimens of an alloy steel [B13].
These data have been converted to da/dN vs. K data in Fig. 3.6 and the least square fitted line is
also shown giving the Paris Law. Even if data from different specimen geometries are included,
the same fit will be obtained so long as the test conditions follow the ASTM E647 guidelines.
Typical values for the Paris constants for the worst case for some common classes of steels are
given in Table 3.1.
62
Fig. 3.6. Derivation of the Paris law from the data in Fig. 3.5 [B13]
Table 3.1. Paris constants for some common classes of steels in the worst case [B13]
Class of Steel Constants for da/dN = C(K)
m
C,
(mm/cycle)/(MPam)
m
m
Ferritic-Pearlitic 6.89x10
-9
3
Martensitic 1.36x10
-7
2.25
Austenitic 5.61x10
-9
3.25
63
WORKED EXAMPLES IN FCG
Example 3.1.1. PRESSURE SURGES in A PIPE
Problem
a) A long pipe has an outer diameter (OD) of 90 mm, an inner diameter (ID) of 70 mm and
works at a pressure (p) of 40 MPa. Valve failure downstream in the pipe caused a pressure
surge which burst the pipe. Examination of the fracture surface revealed a metallurgical
defect at the inner surface of the pipe which was semi-elliptical in shape with a depth of 1.6
mm and a surface length of 4.5 mm. This flaw was orientated perpendicular to the hoop
stress in the pipe.
What pressure would have caused this failure?
Note: The formula for hoop stress from thin walled theory is p(ID)/2t, while from thick
walled theory it is p[(L
2
+ 1)/(L
2
- 1)] where t is the wall thickness of the pipe and L is the
ratio OD/ID. Which formula would you use and why?
Given: The plane strain fracture toughness of the pipe alloy is 25 MPa m

and the geometry


correction factor can be found from the graph below.
= K Y a o t
(continued to 3.1.1a)
64
Example 3.1.1a. (continuation of 3.1.1)
b) A new pipe was manufactured from the same alloy and subjected to NDT prior to
installation. This showed that the pipe contained a similarly orientated flaw, 1.5 mm deep, but
with a semicircular shape.
Assuming normal operating conditions, i.e. no pressure surges and a daily evacuation to zero
pressure, will the pipe last for its desired lifetime of 30 years?
Assume that the geometry correction factor has a constant value of 0.7 in this second part of
the question and note that a fatigue crack growth rate of 6.25x10
-8
mm/cycle corresponds to
an applied delta K value of 10 MPa m. The Paris law exponent m is 4.
Solution:
a) From the OD and ID we can obtain the wall thickness t as 10 mm, i.e. (90 - 70)/2 mm. The
hoop stress from thin walled pressure vessel theory is:
(ID) 40 70
= = = 140 MPa
2 20
Hoop
p
t
o

This formula is strictly valid only for situations where ID > 10t. This is clearly not true in the
present case, and we should really use thick walled pressure vessel theory. In thick walled
pressure vessels, the hoop and radial stresses are not constant through the thickness, and the
greatest absolute values occur at the inner wall of the vessel. Here:
2
Hoop,thick 2
1 OD
= , where =
- 1 ID
L
p L
L
o
| | +
|
\ .
Thin walled theory gives the average value of the hoop stress through the wall thickness, and
it is easy to compare the difference between maximum and average values of hoop stress
through the parameter:
2
2
1
=
- 1
L
S
L
+
The table below shows the difference for values of L from 1.01 to 2.0:
L 1.01 1.05 1.10 1.20 1.50 2.00
S 1.005 1.026 1.052 1.109 1.300 1.667
(continued to 3.1.1b)
65
Example 3.1.1b (continuation of 3.1.1a)
The ratio of L in the present question is 1.29, hence we should use the thick walled theory,
i.e.:
2 2
Hoop,thick 2 2
1 1.29 1
= = 40 = 160.4 MPa or (4.01 )
- 1 1.29 - 1
L
p p
L
o
| | | | + +
| |
\ . \ .
The internal pressure must be added to this value in calculating the stress intensity factor,
because K values will arise from the hoop stress and the internal pressure loading of the
crack faces. Now:
= K Y a o t
As a/c = 1.6/2.25 = 0.71 and a/t = 1.6/10 = 0.16, Y from the graph given in the problem is
approximately 0.78. Thus at fracture:
IC
= 0.78 5.01 0.0016 =
25
= = 90.2 MPa
0.277
K p K
p
t

Thus a pressure surge of 90.2 MPa would cause fracture of the pipe. If thin walled pressure
vessel theory had been used the failure pressure would have been given as 100.5 MPa - a
significant difference of 11.4%.
b) To integrate the Paris law' to obtain the fatigue life, the integration limits must be found
in terms of crack size. The initial flaw size is given as 1.5 mm and the final size causing
fracture can be found by substituting into the K equation, the fracture toughness and applied
stress arising from the applied load range. The applied load range goes from zero to 40 MPa,
i.e. a stress ratio R = 0, hence the peak stress will correspond to the 40 MPa.
The equation above for hoop stress in a thick cylinder indicates that its value at the inner wall
is 4.01p, i.e. 160.4 MPa, and to get the total applied stress intensity factor we need to add in
the internal pressure (which loads the crack surfaces). This gives a total stress of 200.4 MPa at
peak load, hence:
IC
f
= = 0.7 200.4 = = 25 MPa
10.2 mm
f
K Y a a K m
a
o t t -
=
This is, in fact, slightly larger than the wall thickness, so the final length should be limited to
10 mm.
(continued to 3.1.1c)
66
Example 3.1.1c (continuation of 3.1.1b)
The last piece of information needed is the constant C in the Paris law. This can be obtained
from the growth rate information given:
( )
m
m
d
= ( )
d
a
C K C Y a
N
o t A = A
Now separate out the variables in the Paris law and integrate the equation between the crack
growth limits.
( )
( )
f
1
0.010
2
-12 4 4
0 0.0015 2
d da
d = =
6.25 10 0.7 200.4
f
N
a
m
m m
a
a
N
a
CY a
t
o t


A
} } }
{ }
0.010 0.010
f 2
0.0015 0.0015
f
d 1
N = 41.864 = 41.864 = 41.864 -100-(-666.67)
, 23723 cycles
a
a a
Hence N

=
} }
Comments: As 30 years is equivalent to 30 x 365 = 10 950 days (excluding leap years!), the
pipe should last the required lifetime.
As many factors can accelerate growth rates, however, it would be prudent to inspect this
component at regular intervals. These inspection intervals can be set with reference to the life
integration. A curve of a versus N is generated from integration to various lengths. This is an
exponential curve, and converting N to time (which can easily be done seeing the frequency is
1 cycle per day) allows inspection intervals to be chosen such that the crack would not
become critical in the interval between inspections. In the present case, there is also an initial
period of time when inspection is not required.
67
Example 3.1.2.
INCREASING FATIGUE LIFE
A structure contains a critical component made from A514 steel. After fabrication of the
structure, a welding defect 7.6 mm deep is discovered in this steel plate. The flaw is essentially
an edge crack under tension loading, and the required cyclic life of the structure is 100 000
cycles. The component is subject to a fluctuating load which causes a stress variation from
172 MPa to 310 MPa.
Given: Material properties for the A514 steel are: yield stress = 689 MPa, K
1C
= 165 MPa m

geometry correction factor Y = 1.12, and the Paris law is:


10 2.25
d
1.36 10
d
a
K
N

= A
where da/dN is in m/cycle, and:
= K Y a o t
i) Calculate the fatigue life of this component based on attaining a critical defect size for fast
fracture.
ii) Accurately construct the curve showing crack length against number of applied load cycles.
iii) Discuss the various measures that could be adopted to extend the life of the structure to
100 000 cycles.
iv) What is the effect of reducing the initial defect size to 5 mm (by weld repair with better
control of process parameters)? Explain this result in terms of the shape of the curve of crack
length versus cyclic life.
i) In order to calculate the cyclic life, we require the critical crack size causing fast fracture.
This can be obtained by substituting the appropriate data into the K calibration equation:
2
2
-2 IC
c
max
165
= = 7.19 10 m
1.12 1.12 310
K
a
o t t
| |
| |
=
|
|
|

\ .
\ .
i.e. 71.9 mm. Hence the limits on the Paris law integration are 7.6 mm and 71.9 mm, while the
stress range is (310 - 172) MPa = 138 MPa. Separating the variables and rearranging the Paris
law gives:
cond. to next box 3.1.2a
68
3.1.2a (continued from 3.1.2)
( )
f
0
m
m
0 2
= =
=
( )
f
a
N
m
m m
a
da
C K C Y a
dN
da
dN
CY a
o t
o t
A A

A
} }
We can perform the integration symbolically and then substitute the actual values into the
equation to obtain the required life.
1 1
2 2
f i
f
2 2
1
2
- 1 1
= =
1 -
2 1
2
f
i
a
m m
m m
m m m m
a
m
a a
N
m
CY CY
a
m
o t o t

+
(
(
(
(
A A

(
(
(
+
(

0.13 0.13
f 10 2.25 2.25 1.13
1 0.0719 - 0.0076
=
1.36 10 1.12 138 -0.13
N
t

(
(

f
= 87,992 cycles N
ii) To draw the accurate crack length - life curve, all that is required is to calculate N at
various lengths between 7.6 mm and 71.9 mm, i.e. repeating the above calculation with
various a
f
values. The table below gives some typical values, and the curve is drawn in
the figure.
a/ m 0.015 0.025 0.04 0.06
N/ cycles 29421 49850 67486 81857
iii) Fatigue life can be extended by a number of measures, all of which rely on changing
relevant parameters in the Paris law stress range, final crack length and initial crack
length. Stress range can be reduced by decreasing the applied loads, which is usually not
feasible particularly for new structures, or increasing component size (which may be
feasible only at the design stage). When a crack is detected in service, e. g., in a pressure
vessel, it may be possible to reduce applied stresses and continue operation until a
scheduled maintenance period.
Cond.
69
3.1.2b (cond. from 3.1.2a)
Final crack length could be increased if it was possible to increase the toughness locally, e.g. by
using additional material at the crack location, or by replacing the cracked component with one
of a higher toughness (and hence a larger critical defect size for the same value of applied peak
stress. The increase in life would, however, be quite low because of the fast growth rates as the
crack approaches the critical size.
The best solution is to reduce the initial defect size, either by repairing or replacing the
component. If the initial defect size is likely to be an intrinsic problem in the fabrication/repair
process for this component, the fabrication process must be controlled more closely to reduce the
initial crack length.
iv) Reducing the initial defect to 5 mm gives a cyclic life of 107 423 cycles. The figure above
indicates that the crack growth rate curve is exponential and hence a relatively small reduction in
initial crack length yields a large life return.
70
Example 3.1.3. Fatigue Crack Growth and Striation Spacing on the Fracture Surface-A [B31]
Because of the cyclic opening and closing at the crack tip during fatigue, at slow and intermediate growth
rates in the Paris regime, some alloys develop a characteristic rippled appearance and these are referred to
as striations as shown for an Al alloy in the fractograph. Each striation width corresponds to the crack
growth per cycle (typically of the order of 10
-4
mm/cycle or less) and is related to the apparent SIF range
(K) and the empirical relation obtained is:
Striations on the fracture surface of an Al alloy-Magnification 12000X
x
=
6
K E A , where x is the average striation spacing in m, and will be constant during a constant
amplitude FCG test. Striations may not form when large SIF range and large K
max
operate resulting in
very large growth rates. This may help in failure analysis.
PROBLEM: Determine the apparent K for the above Al alloy from the striation spacing. Take E =
72000 MPa. Based on the magnification given, the average striation spacing is:
-3
4 mm 4*10 m
x = 333.33 m
12000 12000
= = ; Hence,
-3
4*10
= 72000 17 MPa m
6*12000
K A =
and the estimated FCG rate is:
d
333.33 m
d
a
N
=
71
Example 3.1.4. Fatigue Crack Growth and Striation Spacing on the Fracture Surface-B [B31]
The fracture surface of a FCG tested 17-4 PH Stainless Steel is shown in the above figure. A
single-edge cracked plate containing a crack of 6 mm length was tested using a constant
amplitude loading with the stress ratio, R = 0. The plate had a thickness of 5 mm and a width of
20 mm and was sufficiently long. Calculate the apparent SIF range and maximum load. The
Paris equation for the material is given by:
( )
3.5
12
d
(10 m/cycle) K
d
a
N

= A
Cond. to next box 3.1.4a
72
3.1.4a (cond. from 3.1.4)
SOLUTION:
Given: a = 6 mm; W = 20 mm; B = 5 mm; b = (W a) = 14 mm.
Then, a/W = 0.3; R = K
min
/K
max
= 0; K
min
= 0. The SIF expression from Table 2.1 (Case-b) is:
I
1.12+ (2.19 - 0.64) 1.12 + 0.3(2.19*0.3 - 0.64)
= a and = 1.65
(1 - 0.93 ) (1 - 0.93*0.3)
K Y Y
o o
o t
o
= =
From the fractograph, striation spacing x = 7.69*10
-8
m. That means crack growth per cycle,
da/dN = 7.69*10
-8
m
-8 -12 3.5
(1/3.5)
-8
-12
d
= 7.69*10 m/cycle = 10 (m/cycle)( )
d
7.69*10
24.89 MPa m
10
=
a
K
N
K
A
| |
=
|
\ .
A
Now, based on the striation equation given in the earlier Example,
-8
x 7.79*10
= = 207000 = 23.43 MPa m
6 6
K E A
About 6% less than the previous result. This is very much OK.
Since, R= 0, this SIF range gives the value of K
max
. For an average, K = 24.17 MPam = K
max
.
3
max max max
3
2
max
max max
= 24.17 = a *1.65* *6*10
24.17
= = 106.7 MPa
1.65 *6*10
N
= * * = 106.7( )*5 (mm)*20 (mm) = 10670 N = 10.67 kN
mm
K Y
B W P
o t o t
t
o
o

73
3.2. STRESS CORROSION CRACKING (SCC)
3.2.1. General
- Stress-corrosion cracking (SCC) is the failure of an alloy from the combined effects of a
corrosive environment and a static tensile stress. The stress may result from applied forces
or "locked-in" residual stress associated with welding or cold working. Only specific
combinations of alloys and chemical environment lead to stress-corrosion cracking. Usually
only a few chemical species in the environment are effective in causing SCC of a
particular alloy and these species need not be present in large quantities or in high
concentrations. Moreover, the chemical environment which causes SCC does not produce
general chemical corrosion of the alloy. With some alloy/chemical species combinations
temperatures substantially above room temperature are required to produce SCC.
- Mechanisms of SCC are complex and result in a nonductile type of failure.
Fractographically they show either intergranular cracking or cleavage and frequently
undergo extensive branching. Classic examples of SCC are brass in an ammonia
containing environment (so-called 'season cracking' which was noted in brass cartridge
cases stored next to stables during the monsoon season in India), chloride-induced SCC
in austenitic stainless steels and aluminium alloys, some ceramics, glasses and polymers
in moist air, and steels in caustic, hydrogen containing or hydrogen sulphide
environments.
- The interest in characterisation of crack growth under SCC conditions by the fracture
mechanics parameter K arose because it was realised that a number of alloy-environment
combinations which appeared immune to SCC when tested as smooth specimens, were
very susceptible to this phenomenon in the presence of a crack or crack-like defect.
Hence fracture mechanics tests are used to characterise crack velocity in SCC and find
the threshold for stress corrosion crack growth, which is termed K
1SCC
.
- Similar specimens with the same initial crack but loaded at different levels
(different initial K-values) show different times to failure as is shown
diagrammatically in Fig. 3.7. The specimen initially loaded to K
lC
fails immediately.
Specimens subjected to K values below a certain threshold level never fail. This
threshold level is denoted as K
ISCC
, SCC standing for stress corrosion cracking or,
more generally, K
IEAC
(EAC stands for environment assisted cracking). During the SCC,
as the load on a specimen is kept constant, as the crack extends, the stress intensity
gradually increases and failure occurs at K
lC
.
- As the applied load is constant in SCC, it is more useful to talk about crack velocity
(da/dt = v) and plot these against applied stress intensity level to give what are termed
v-K curves. A typical v-K curve is shown in Fig. 3.8. As is the case for fatigue crack
74
growth, 3 distinct regions can often be observed which reflect the operation of different
influences in the mechanisms of cracking. In region I the crack growth is a strong
function of K, as the value of K controls the environmental reaction rate at the crack tip.
This plot serves to aid in establishing K
t
but the magnitude of this threshold value may
be very low. In region II crack growth is essentially independent of K, the rate
controlling step being the environmental transport to the crack tip, it is still strongly
affected by temperature and the environment. The plateau growth rate is the maximum that
it is possible to sustain in the alloy environment system by environmental crack growth
alone. These rates are typically 10
-9
to 10
-6
m/s, which are too fast to provide a reasonable
design life. Region III represents a situation where da/dt varies strongly with K. As K
approaches K
IC
the crack growth rate becomes unstable.
Figure 3.7. Schematic time-to-failure curve with K
Iscc
.
3.2.2. Treatment of Crack Growth Rate
The extent of the regions is variable, and region 1 often dominates the life. As the curve in
this region is linear on a log-log plot, it has a simple equation which is easy to integrate to
obtain a life estimate. Actual test data mainly of region-I are plotted in Fig. 3.9. The equation
of a straight line is:
log = log + n K D v
=
n
DK v
75
It is often useful to use the K
1SCC
data and recast the equation as:
threshold ISCC
=
n
K
K
v
v
| |
|
\ .
Separating the variables and integrating this between K limits is straightforward:
= =
da da dK
dt dK dt
v
and
2
2 2
i.e., = =
K
a a
Y
K Y t
o t
o
Figure 3.8. Stress corrosion crack growth rate as a function of K.
2 2
2
=
K dK
Y dt o t
v
| |
|
\ .

76
The lower limit on the integration would be the K value corresponding to the combination of
initial defect size and applied stress, while the upper limit could be either the fracture toughness
K
C
or an upper limit on the extent of region 1. Typically therefore, separating the variables gives:
f
2 2
0
2
= with =
C
i
K t
n
K
KdK
dt DK
Y
v
o tv
} }
and
f
2 2
0
2
=
C
i
K t
n
K
KdK
dt
Y DK o t
} }
Fig. 3.9. A typical v-K curve for the case inorganic glass in a moist air environment
(50% relative humidity and a temperature of 25C) [B26].
2 2
1
f 2 2 2 2
- 2 2
= =
2
C
i
K
n n
n C i
K
K K
t K
Y D Y D n o t o t

(
(

}
Note that if the integrand has n = 2, the expression for t
f
will contain natural log (ln) terms.
77
WORKED EXAMPLES IN SCC
Example 3.2.1. SCC OF GLASS
Note: Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) is another sub-critical crack growth mechanism which is
very suitable for LEFM treatment, because applied stress intensity values are usually low in this
cracking regime. One of the problems with SCC is that crack growth velocities increase very
sharply with increase in K, and the lifetime may be correspondingly short. Hence, if the
combination of likely defect size and applied, or residual, tensile stress cause the threshold for
stress corrosion cracking (K
1SCC
) to be exceeded, it is usually necessary to avoid the possibility
of SCC. This is likely to require either a change in alloy, or surface protection. Nonetheless, it is
useful to illustrate the application of fracture mechanics to SCC lifetime determination.
_______________________________________
A glass shelf in a bookcase can be considered as simply supported beam subject to a uniformly
distributed load. A particular manufacturer produces bookcases with shelves that are 1.5 m in
length (L), have a width (b) of 200 mm and a thickness (t) of 10 mm. The design load on the
shelves is estimated as w = 100 N/m
2
.
The manufacturer knows that handling of the glass shelves during fabrication may cause surface
flaws to be present in them, which can be considered as semi-elliptic in shape with a maximum
depth of 0.1 mm. He is also aware of the fact that a moist air environment may cause stress
corrosion cracking to occur in stressed glass. He has therefore approached you, as a fracture
mechanics/failure consultant to advise him whether he should offer a one year guarantee on these
bookcases.
In your calculation of the lifetime of a typical shelf under these conditions, you may assume no
incubation period is required before the crack extends. You have access to the following
information:
(1) The maximum bending stress in a simply supported beam subject to a distributed load is
given by:
3
2
= , where = second moment of area = and
12
maximum bending moment =
8
Mt bt
I
I
wL
M
o
(2) The shelves are to be made from soda glass with a modulus of elasticity E = 70 GPa and
a work to fracture R = 0.01 kJ/m
2
. A crack velocity (v-K) curve for soda glass in a moist
air environment is given below.
78
(3) The stress intensity factor for a semi-elliptic surface defect can be calculated from:
= 1.1 K a o t
where a is maximum depth of defect.
Solution of this problem requires substitution of the value of the fracture stress (which is equal
to the applied stress) into the stress intensity equation. This will enable us to find the critical
defect size and hence we can calculate the initial and final values of K which provide limits on
the integration of the v-K equation, i.e.:
=
n
DK v
We can then express crack velocity as da/dt = (da/dK).(dK/dt) separate variables and hence
obtain the time to failure from integrating with respect to time t.
The given information includes work to fracture R and the elastic modulus E, which implies that
the Griffith equation should be used to calculate the critical crack size causing fracture. The
applied stress is found by rearranging the bending equation and substituting in for M and I:
79
3
4
200 10
= = 16 667 mm
12
I

2 2
10 0.1 1500
= = 8.43 MPa
16 16 16667
tWL
I
o

=

Rearranging the Griffith equation gives the critical crack size:


( )
9
f 2 2
6
70 10 10
= = = 0.00314 m, i.e., 3.14 mm
8.43 10
ER
a
to
t


Hence we can now calculate values for K
i
and K
f
.
( )
1
-4
2
i
= 1.1 8.43 10 = 0.164 MPa m K t
( )
1
-4
2
f
= 1.1 8.43 3.14 10 = 0.92 MPa m K t
To find the constants in the v-K curve is quite simple, as the plot is linear on a log-log scale, i.e.:
1 2
1 2
log - log
= =
log - log
n
K K K
v v v A
A
Taking two points on the curve, e.g. 10
-2
m/s where K = 0.68 MPa m

, and 10
-8
m/s where
K = 0.29 MPa m

, gives n = 16.21. The constant D can be obtained by substituting into the v-K
equation.
-2 16.21
= , i.e., 10 = 0.68
n
DK D v
= 5.188 D
Checking this value with the other chosen point confirms that it is correct, and the v-K equation
is therefore:
Checking this value with the other chosen point confirms that it is correct, and the v-K equation
is therefore:
It is useful to perform the integration symbolically, as this facilitates finding errors, and
substituting actual values into the final form.
80
It is useful to perform the integration symbolically, as this facilitates finding errors, and
substituting actual values into the final form.
= =
da da dK
dt dK dt
v
and
2
2 2
i.e., = =
K
a a
Y
K Y t
o t
o
2 2
2
=
K dK
Y dt o t
v
| |
|
\ .

Integrating this with respect to t gives:


f f
i
2 2
0
2
=
t K
K
KdK
dt
Y o tv
} }
f f
2 2
0
2
=
i
t K
n
K
KdK
dt
Y DK o t
} }
f
i
2 2
1
f
2 2 2 2
-
2 2
= =
2
K n n
i f n
K
K K
t K
Y D Y D n o t o t

(
(

}
14.21 14.21
f
2 2
2 0.164 - 0.92
= s
8.43 1.1 5.188 14.21
t
t

(
(

7
f
= 1.44 10 s or about 167 days t
As this is less than 6 months, the one year guarantee does not seem like a good option. In reality,
there would be an incubation period before crack growth started and the shelves may well last
the required period of time. Nonetheless, a prudent manufacturer might look to reducing stresses
through, for example, shorter shelves or reducing the initial defect size by polishing the shelves!
It should also be noted that that typical scratches, although around 0.1 mm in depth would not act
like sharp cracks, particularly as high levels of surface compressive residual stress are induced in
81
such shelves through so-called 'tempering' of glass. Hence glass shelves can be routinely found
in bookcases and display cabinets.
Example 3.2.2.
To determine the susceptibility of a material for stress corrosion cracking, 4 specimens with
initial crack lengths of 12.5 mm (specimens with one crack tip) are tested. The times to failure
are found as 1, 10, 500 and 5000 hours, while the final crack sizes are 20, 30, 50 and 51 mm
respectively.
Estimate KIscc of the material as accurate as possible. Given: specimen width W = 100 mm plane
strain fracture toughness KIc = 40 MPa\m geometry factor f(a/W) = 1.12 + (a/W)
2
.
Solution: For each of the above crack lengths, the following Table gives the corresponding
f(a/W) (= Y) obtained from the formula given:
a/W 0.125 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.51
f(a/W) = Y 1.136 1.16 1.21 1.37 1.3801
(MPa) - 137.6 107.7 73.7 72.4
initial K
I
, MPam 31 24.2 16.6 16.3
Failure time, h 1 10 500 5000
IC
I IC
40
At failure, = = or = = , where f ( / )
K
K K Y a Y a W
Y a Y a
o t o
o t t
=
The stress so obtained are given in the third row of the above Table. The stress to which each
specimen is loaded is the same as the stress at failure for each specimen as the applied load is
constant for a specimen.
Hence the initial K
I
values for each specimen is given by,
I
= = 1.136 0.0125 for a constant initial crack length K Y a o t o t
where is the failure stress calculated above. The initial K
I
values so obtained are given in the
fourth row of the above Table and are plotted against log(time to failure) in the Figure below.
82
Log of Time to failure (h)
0 1 2 3 4
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
K
I
,
M
P
a
.
m
0
.
5
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
It can be seen from the figure that at longer times the K
I
is approaching a constant value of 16
MPa\m below which failure is unlikely to occur.
Hence K
ISCC
= 16 MPa\m
Example 3.2.3.
In a very large steel part a crack is found with a length of 2a = 40 mm. The structural part will be
applied under circumstances where stress corrosion plays a role. The incubation time for the
combination of material, thickness and environment can be derived from the plot in figure A.
Information about the stress corrosion crack growth rate is given in figure B. (I n Figs. A andB,
the bold lines are as given in the problemwhile the light (narrow) lines are those drawn
duringsolvingtheproblemfor estimatingtherelevant values)
For the geometry of the part the stress intensity as a function of crack length is given by KI =
o \ta. The part will be subjected to a constant load resulting in a nominal stress equal to 100
MPa. What is the lifetime of the part if possible crack growth is allowed as long as KI < KIC/4?
For the constant stress 100 MPa, and initial a = 20 mm (= 0.02 m),
I
= = 100 0.02 = 25 MPa m K a o t t
83
From Fig. A, for this K
I
, the incubation time (log(s)) is approximately read off as 3.7 which
converts to a time of 5012 s. It may also be noted that in Fig. A the K
I
corresponding to zero
seconds is 150 MPa\m (i. e. K
IC
= 150 MPa\m).
The problem permits crack growth to occur till this K
I
reaches a value of K
IC
/4 = 150 MPa\m/4
= 37.5 MPa\m.
From Fig. B, it is seen that from the initial K
I
= 25 MPa\m to the final K
I
= 37.5 MPa\m, the
crack growth da/dt = 0.001 mm/s.
Since the applied nominal stress is constant (100 MPa), the final crack length at the final
K
I
= 37.5 MPa\m is:
2 2
2 2
37.5
= = = 0.045 m = 45 mm
100
I
K
a
o t t
. Hence the time for the crack to
grow from the initial half-size of 20 mm to the final half size of 45 mm at the rate 0.002 mm/s is
(45-20)/0.001 = 25000 s.
Hence, Total time = Crack Growth Time + Incubation Time = 25000 s + 5012 s = ~ 30000 s.
84
3.3. ASME CODE APPROACH FOR DESIGN AGAINST BRITTLE FRACTURE:
RT
NDT
-K
IR
CURVE APPROACH [B25, B27, B28, B49, B51, B53, B55, B56 and B60]
3.3.1. Ductile-Brittle Transition Temperature: Different Approaches
The ductile to brittle fracture transition behaviour of a ferritic steel can be described by a Charpy
energy (C
V
) vs. temperature plot where the energy absorbed by a Charpy V-notch (CVN)
specimen during fracture by impact decreases from a relatively high value at higher temperature
(upper-shelf) to low values at lower temperatures (lower-shelf) see Fig. 1.9. Therefore to avoid
catastrophic failure, operating temperatures of the components are specified to be higher than the
transition region. A reference transition temperature is generally used to locate the ductile-brittle
transition temperature (DBTT) above which only the component can be subjected to significant
amount of stresses.
The DBTT of ferritic steel depends not only on the material condition but also on the loading
rate and mode of stress distribution ahead of the crack tip. Definition of a meaningful reference
transition temperature for ferritic steels used as structural components therefore requires use of a
test method that considers the combined effects of material, loading rate and notch geometry in
an effort to match the conditions experienced in actual operations. The reference temperature
currently used for reactor pressure vessel steels is RT
NDT
(ASME Code-Section III and
Section XI [T2 and T3]). RT
NDT
is defined as the higher one of the two temperatures, namely,
T
NDT
and (T
CV
33 C), where T
NDT
is the drop-weight nil-ductility temperature (NDTT) and
T
CV
is the temperature at which both a minimum Charpy V-notch energy of 68 J and a lateral
expansion of 35 mils (~ 0.89 mm; 1 mil = 0.001 inch) are obtained. To prevent catastrophic
brittle fracture in the components, it is recommended that the operating temperature should be
33 C or more above the RT
NDT
, depending on component thickness. It is important to emphasise
that the definition of RT
NDT
employs both Charpy V-notch and drop-weight test to determine the
DBTT instead of only Charpy test results.
ASTM E 208 [T15] gives the standard procedure for drop-weight NDTT testing. In the nuclear
power industry, drop-weight testing and Charpy impact testing constitute the two most widely
used tests for assessing the fracture resistance of materials, particularly their propensity for brittle
fracture. The drop-weight test essentially consists of initiating a brittle running crack from a saw
cut in a brittle weld deposit and propagating it across the specimen loaded in three point bend
(3PB) condition under a gravity driven hammer. Drop-weight NDTT, also termed as T
NDT
, is the
highest temperature at which the crack initiated in the weld-bead propagates across the entire
specimen within elastic limit. A deflection stopper is used to ensure only elastic deformation of
the specimen before fracture.
Subsequent development of fracture mechanics methods and test techniques led to incorporation
of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) concepts in Section III and Section XI of the
ASME Code in 1972 for design against brittle fracture. This is based on two reference toughness
curves, namely K
IC
curve and K
IR
curve, indexed to RT
NDT
. While K
IC
curve guides the operating
85
range of toughness in the static/quasi static loading rates, the K
IR
curve provides a lower bound
toughness incorporating the (K
IC
), dynamic (K
Id
) and crack arrest toughness (K
IA
) of the material
in the operating temperature range. It may be noted that the relationship between the reference
toughness curves and RT
NDT
is purely empirical and based on the data obtained mainly from
reactor pressure vessel steels and welds. The ASME code prescribes application of K
IR
curve for
steels with room temperature yield stress level of 345 MPa or less. For steels with higher
strength, the applicability of the K
IR
curve needs verification by K
Id
measurements over the
temperature range of interest [B25, B49, B51].
In an effort to predict conservative fracture toughness in the transition temperature range, ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code [ASME Code-Sections III and XI] has merged both the
transition temperature approach and fracture mechanics approach, to predict a lower bound
fracture toughness transition curve as:
IR NDT
= 29.4 + 13.675exp(0.026( - )) K T RT [3.3.1]
where T is the test temperature and RT
NDT
is as defined in the previous section [B58, B60]. This is
commonly known as ASME K
IR
curve, where K
IR
denotes the lower bound fracture toughness of
static, dynamic and crack arrest tests. The ASME K
IR
curve was developed empirically by
drawing a lower-bound curve by an approximate statistical procedure to a substantial collection
of valid K
IC
, K
Id
and K
IA
data (showing considerable scatter) mainly from pressure vessel steels,
assembled in the early 1970s. Till date, this curve remains the basis for design against brittle
fracture. Similarly, the ASME CODE (Section XI) also gives an expression for the lower-bound
static fracture toughness curve indexed to RT
NDT
as follows [B58, B60]:
IC NDT
= 36.5 + 3.083exp[0.036( - RT +56)] K T [3.3.2]
For both the curves an upper-shelf cut-off of 220 MPam is used for virgin material and a
cut-off of 180 MPam is used for damaged or irradiated material. The K
IR
curve is intended
to describe normal operation conditions and the K
IC
curve emergency and faulted conditions. In
addition to the different reference curves, safety factors are applied. For normal operating
conditions a safety factor of 10 is applied either on the allowable crack size, or a safety factor of
10 upon K
I
or K
Ia
(K
IR
). For emergency or faulted conditions, the corresponding safety factors
are 2 on allowable crack size or 2 on allowable K
I
or K
IC
[B58, B60].
3.3.2. K
IR
curve determination for a 9Cr-1Mo steel Illustration [B28]
3.3.2.1. Specimen Fabrication
A schematic lay out for the drop weight and Charpy specimens from a weld pad is given in
Fig. 3.10 (weld metal is of the material to be tested, say, 9Cr-1Mo weld). In the case of the base
material the specimen configuration is the same except that the specimens are cut entirely from
the base material plate. Drawing for a weld-pad is shown in Fig. 3.10 to illustrate the method
86
used for fabricating specimens for determining DW-NDT of weld metals. IS 2062 mild steel (or
even the base material plate can be used) side plates are used to reduce the amount of weld
material required [B50].
3.3.2.2. Drop-Weight specimen fabrication and Drop-Weight Test (DWT)
Drop-Weight P-2 specimens, as per the dimensions specified in ASTM E 208, were fabricated
for the base material from a 20 mm plate of 9Cr-1Mo base metal plate (Fig. 3.10). The crack
starter weld bead was deposited on the specimen blanks.
To obtain conservative values of T
NDT
with reduced scatter, the following procedures were
followed for weld bead deposition:
1. Use of a short stringer weld bead without oscillation of the electrode especially for P-2 and
P-3 specimens as per the latest version of the ASTM E 208 Standard.
2. Application of proper current (ampere) during weld bead deposition and use of properly
dried electrode without any pre-heating of the specimen.
3. Use of chiller block during weld bead deposition, i.e., the specimen blank is placed on a large
block of steel, say 1 x 1 x 1, during weld-bead deposition, to increase cooling rate and
consequently increasing the hardness of the HAZ.
A hard facing weld (R
C
52) bead is deposited on drop-weight P-2 specimens of the base material
(see Fig. 3.11). The bead is deposited in a single pass, using BOR-C electrodes of 5 mm
diameter, manufactured by M/s D&H Secheron Electrodes Pvt. Ltd, Indore. The chemical
composition of the weld is given in Table 3.2. The acceptability of this particular electrode for
depositing hard facing weld bead on drop-weight specimens had earlier been evaluated as per
ASTM E 208 Standard. For the weld metal drop-weight specimen, the base metal weld forms the
mid-length of the specimen, and the hard-facing weld bead lies at the centre of the base metal
weld with reference to the length and width of the specimen.
Table 3.2.
Chemical composition of the crack starter weld bead [B28].
Element Amount
(wt %)
C 0.23
Mn 1
Cr 2
Mo 0.4
V 0.15
87
Fig. 3.10. Weld detail and specimen lay-out for Drop-weight and Charpy-V notch
specimens of weld material [B51].
The notch on the weld bead is made by a grinding wheel of 1.5 mm width. The notch is placed
at the center position of the specimen, perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the
specimen. The distance from the bottom of the notch in the (hard facing) weld to the specimen
surface is kept 1.8-2 mm and the overall height of the weld-bead (in the form of a well-crowned
bead) from the surface of the specimen is 4-5 mm. Figure 3.11 shows the schematic view of a
finished drop-weight specimen.
The drop weight test (DWT) was developed specifically for the determination of the NDT on
full thickness plates. During the test, the specimen is supported as a simple three-
point bend (3PB) specimen as shown in Fig. 3.12, the notch being in tension. The
brittle weld bead is fractured at near yield-stress levels as a result of dynamic loading
from a falling weight. The anvil stop restricts the deflection of the test specimen.
Since the specimen is a wide beam loaded in 3PB, this restriction limits the stress on the
tension face of the plate to a value that does not exceed the yield stress. If the starter-crack
propagates across the width of the plate on the tension surface to the edges (even one edge is
sufficient), the test temperature is below the NDT. Complete separation on the compression side
of the specimen is not required. The DW-NDT, T
NDT
, is the highest temperature at which a nil
ductility break (B) is produced. Above the NDT temperature the crack does not propagate
completely even to one edge called no-break (NB) condition. The test is quite reproducible and
the NDT can be determined to the nearest 10 F or 5 C. A DWT series for an AISI 403 steel
(13Cr-0.1C martensitic stainless steel) is shown in Fig. 3.13 (taken from the literature), with a
T
NDT
= 25 C, illustrating the Break(B)/No-Break(NB) concepts. At the T
NDT
= 25 C, there are two
Bs in the illustration, one showing breaking to both edges of the specimen while the other showing
88
breaking to one edge only. For confirming this as the T
NDT
, ASTM E 208 Standard requires that
duplicate tests at + 5 C, i. e., at 30 C in the present case, should demonstrate NB as shown in
the illustration.
Fig. 3.11. Schematic view of a drop-weight P-2 specimen with short weld bead (P-3 specimen
has the same dimensions as the P-2, but the thickness is 16 mm) [B28]
Fig. 3.12. Schematic view of a ASTM E 208 drop-weight test [B12]
125 5 mm
50 0.5 mm
20 0.5 mm
25+ 5 mm
Hard-
facing
weld
Bead
Notch
Base Metal
Weld in the
case of weld
metal DW
specimens.
89
Fig. 3.13. Illustration of a typical drop-weight test series [B49].
It should also be noted that in all tests the hard weld bead must crack (a test in which the weld
bead does not crack is known as a No-Test; in fact, the procedure given in ASTM E 208
Standard for certifying the hard facing material as suitable for crack starting purposes in DWTs
requires that the weld bead deposited on P-2 specimens should crack at temperatures at least
50 C above the anticipated DW-NDT temperature). As illustrated in Fig. 3.14, the hard-facing
weld bead plus its cracked heat affected zone presents a sharp thumbnail shaped elliptical crack
(of aspect ratio c/a and depth a; t, thickness = 20 mm for P-2 specimen) to the base material
(base metal or weld as the case may be) on which it has been deposited. In fact, the ASTM E 208
DWT determines the highest temperature at which the material can prevent the propagation of
such a severe crack formed at yield level stresses and dynamic loading.
3.3.2.3. Charpy specimen
Standard Charpy-V notch specimen (CVN) specimens (Fig. 1.8: 55 mm x 10 mm x 10 mm size;
2 mm deep 45 V-notch with notch tip radius 0.25mm) were machined as per ASTM E 23
Srandard. Basic feature of an impact machine and test was depicted in Fig. 1.8.
90

Fig. 3.14. Crack profile on a DW NDTT specimen [B49].
3.3.3. Determination of RT
NDT
and ASME K
IR
curve for 9Cr-1Mo Base Material
3.3.3.1. Results from Drop-Weight Test
The B/NB results obtained in the drop-weight tests, carried out at different temperatures, are
given in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3.The break/no-break results from drop-weight tests of the 9Cr-1Mo steel base
material.
Weld-
Bead Type
Specimen No. Test Temperature
(

C)
Break (B)/No
Break (NB)
Result
Short
Weld-
Bead
1S -20 NB
T
NDT
=
25 C
7S -20 NB
9S -30 B
10S -25 NB
11S -25 B
12S -30 B
91
3.3.3.2. Results From Charpy Test
Figure 3.15 shows the variation of Charpy impact energy with temperature for the 9Cr-1Mo
steel, base material. Figure 3.16 shows the variation of lateral expansion with temperature. Both
the Charpy energy and the lateral expansion exhibit scatter at all the test temperatures,
particularly in the transition region. As per the ASME specification, the points representing the
lowest Charpy energy or lateral expansion over the whole test temperature range, are fitted by a
suitable curve (sigmoidal fit in the present case) as shown in Figs. 3.15 and 3.16. The transition
temperatures corresponding to the Charpy energy of 68 J and a lateral expansion of 35 mils is
determined as 32 C and 31 C, respectively. Thus, following the ASME criterion, the higher
of these two temperatures, i.e. 31 C is taken as the T
CV
. It may be noted that the ASME Code
suggests an alternative procedure also to determine T
CV
. This involves testing triplicate
specimens at successively higher temperatures at 5 C intervals, starting the first test at
T
NDT
+ 33 C; the lowest temperature at which a minimum Charpy energy of 68 J and a
minimum lateral expansion of 35 mils (0.89 mm) are obtained is the temperature T
CV
. However,
the procedure followed here, namely, determining T
CV
from a smooth curve drawn through the
lowest points of all the tests (preferably triplicate tests at a temperature, as in the latter case)
conducted over the transition range is likely to give more conservative, i.e., larger, values of
T
CV
.
Fig. 3.15. Variation of Charpy impact energy with temperature for the 9Cr-1Mo steel,
base material [B28].
-120-110-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Lower Bound Fit
68 J Transition Temperature
(-32
o
C)
9Cr-1Mo Steel
(Base Metal, N&T)
C
h
a
r
p
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
,
J
Temperature,
o
C
92
Fig. 3.16. Variation of the lateral expansion with temperature for the 9Cr-1Mo steel,
base material [B28].
3.3.3.3. RT
NDT
and K
IR
Curve
The nil-ductility transition temperature (T
NDT
) is 25 C and the Charpy results give a T
CV
of
31 C. According to the ASME code, the RT
NDT
of the material is the higher of the two
temperatures, namely, the T
NDT
and (T
CV
33 C). Following this criterion, the RT
NDT
of the
9Cr-1Mo steel base material is determined as follows:
RT
NDT
= 25 C
By plugging in this value in the ASME K
IC
and K
IR
curve equations, the curves for the
9Cr-1Mo base material are obtained and are plotted in Fig. 3.17.
-110-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Lower Bound Fit
35 mils Transition Temperature
(-31
o
C)
9Cr-1Mo Steel
(Base Metal, N&T)
C
h
a
r
p
y
L
a
t
e
r
a
l
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
,
m
i
l
s
(
0
.
0
0
1
i
n
c
h
)
Temperature,
o
C
93
T - RT
NDT
/
0
C
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100
K
I
C
o
r
K
I
R
/
M
P
a
.
m
0
.
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
ASME Lower-Bound K
IC
-curve
ASME K
IR
-curve
Material: 9Cr-1Mo Base Metal; RT
NDT
= -25
0
C
Fig. 3.17. K
IR
vs T-RT
NDT
for 9Cr-1Mo steel, base material - RT
NDT
= 25 C
Applying the above ASME Fracture Toughness Curves, to actual structures, say, nuclear
reactor structures, implies that the stresses, rather the SIF values, at the critical points
(say, nozzle corner welds) during operation (say, cool-down or heat-up) are always below
the Lower-Bound K
IC
curve or the K
IR
curve, depending on static or dynamic loads.
94
Chapter 4 - Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics-EPFM
4.1. Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) and J-Integral Approach
Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics can deal with only limited crack tip plasticity, i.e., the plastic
zone must remain small compared to the crack size and the cracked body as a whole must still
behave in an approximately elastic manner. If this is not the case then the problem has to be
treated elasto-plastically. Due to its complexity the concepts of Elastic-Plastic Fracture
Mechanics (EPFM) are not so well understandable as LEFM theory. In 1961 Wells introduced
the crack opening displacement (COD) approach. This approach focuses on the strains in the
crack tip region instead of the stresses, unlike the stress intensity approach. In the presence of
plasticity a crack tip will blunt when it is loaded in tension. Wells proposed to use the crack flank
displacement at the tip of a blunting crack, the so-called crack tip opening displacement (CTOD)
as a fracture parameter (see Fig. 4.1).
Figure 4.1. Crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) [B21].
OUTLINE
A simplified description of CTOD and J-integral
elastic-plastic concepts; Relationship of J to K;
Outline of J-measurement method; Worked
examples on EPFM. Refs. [B21(Chapter-7), B7]
95
Even for tougher materials exhibiting considerable plasticity critical CTOD values could be
defined corresponding to the onset of fracture. Such critical CTOD value could be used to
qualify the materials concerned for a given application.
In 1968, Rice considered the potential energy changes involved in crack growth in non-linear
elastic material. Such non-linear elastic behaviour is a realistic approximation for plastic
behaviour provided no unloading occurs in any part of the material (in effect, load does not
decrease; see, Fig. 4.6). Rice derived a fracture parameter called J, a contour integral that can be
evaluated along any arbitrary path enclosing the crack tip, as illustrated in Fig. 4.2. He showed J
to be equal to the energy release rate for a crack in non-linear elastic material, analogous to G for
linear elastic material.
Fig. 4.2. J contour integral along arbitrary path enclosing a crack tip in non-linear
elastic material. W is strain energy density along , n is outward-directed unit
vector normal to , T is traction acting on and u is the displacement along
[B21].
For simple geometries and load cases, the J integral can be evaluated analytically. However, in
practice finite element calculations are often required. In spite of this J has found widespread
application as a parameter to predict the onset of crack growth in elastic-plastic problems. Later
it was found that J could also be used to describe a limited amount of stable crack growth. And
now extension of the J-concept is being applied to fatigue (cyclic plasticity) and even creep crack
growth problems. Since J-concept itself is a complex subject within the purview of this
monograph, and hence only the parameters will be described to give an idea of what they
accomplish.
96
4.2. EPFM in Practical Terms [B7]
As described above:
J = non-linear elastic energy release rate, whereas
G
C
= elastic strain energy release rate
In the limit, both are equivalent.
In fact, in the elastic-plastic (el.-pl.) case, like G
IC
in the elastic case,
J
IC
represents the critical condition for crack initiation/growth in Mode-I loading.
Like, K, in the elastic case, J in the el.-pl. case represents
the elastic-plastic crack tip stress-strain distribution. It was shown in Fig. 2.4 that the normal
stress ahead of the crack-tip (
yy
or
y
) varies as (K/(2r)); similarly, in the case of a J
specimen, the el.-pl. stress distribution ahead of a crack-tip is as follows:
1
1
y
n
J
r
o
+
| |

|
\ .
where n is the tensile work-hardening exponent.
Analogous to the K
IC
-G
IC
relation, in the el.-pl. case also, J
IC
is related to K
IC
, by the following
relations:
IC IC
2
= '
OR, in the critical case,
= ' ,
where ' = for plane strain and ' = for plane stress,
(1- )
with E being theYoung's modulus and being the Poisson's ratio
K E J
K E J
E
E E E
u
u
(4.1)
Figure 4.3 shows the actual experimental correlation of Eq. (4.1) for many engineering alloys.
97
Fig. 4.3. Relation between experimental K
IC
-J
IC
for many engineering alloys [B7].
The CTOD parameter is a crack-tip ductility parameter, represented by .
The critical condition in Mode-I crack growth is, =
IC
(4.2)
Also,
IC
is related to J
IC
, by J
IC
= m
YS

IC
(4.3)
where m has values ranging from 1 in plane stress to 3 in plane strain.
Application of Eq. (4.1) will be described later in describing the Master Curve approach to
fracture-safe design/control.
Main advantage of the J or CTOD parameters are that, for elastic-plastic materials, toughness
measurement can be accomplished using small specimens, even Charpy-type or even smaller
specimens, unlike K
IC
which requires very thick (upto 6 to 12 or more) for low to medium
strength steels.
4.3. J-Measurement
Relevant ASTM (E-813, E-1820 etc.) and BS standards exist. Only J-measurement is briefly
described below. Main difference between K and J specimens is that in the former a front face
clip-gauge displacement is sufficient to obtain the critical load whereas in the case of J, load-line
displacement (LLD), measured in a suitable manner, either by actual physical configuration as
98
shown in Fig. 4.4 or by suitable analytical relations to convert front face displacement to LLD, is
required to measure energy spent (work done) in deforming and fracturing the specimen.
Fig. 4.4. Front-face displacement for K
IC
test and LLD for J
IC
test [B21].
Fig. 4.5. Load (P)-Load Line Displacement (LLD) for a non-linear
elastic body [B21].
For a non-linear elastic body, for two specimens differing in crack lengths by da,
1
= , where U is the shaded area between the two curves in Fig. 4.5.
U
J
B a
c
c
c
99
Fig. 4.6. Load (P)-Load Line Displacement (LLD) for an
Elastic-plastic body [B21].
If at the particular LLD, crack growth occurs, then the evaluated J will be the critical value. Later
analytical developments, resulted in a simplified method to evaluate J from a single specimen.
The new method depends on the separation of the elastic and plastic contributions to U (area
under the P-d curve) and LLD (v or d) as shown in Fig. 4.6. Then,
2
pl
pl el
2
2
= and = ,
'
where ' = for plane strain and ' = for plane stress
(1- )
U
K
J J
Bb E
E
E E E
u
(4.4)
In the above K is evaluated at the point fracture or unloading relevant to the evaluation.
Based on this, Begley and Landes proposed a multi-specimen method to determine critical J.
100
Fig. 4.7. Begley-Landes Multi-Specimen J
IC
method [B7].
4.4. Begley-Landes Multi-Specimen J
IC
method
A series of specimens is provided with the same size of fatigue crack, such that a/W > 0.5. Each
specimen is loaded to a different point on the load displacement curve and then loaded (Fig.
4.7b). After unloading, the crack is marked to enable measurement of stable crack growth. Crack
marking can be accomplished on steel specimens by heat tinting. The specimens are heated to about
850 C for 10 minutes, which will oxidize the fracture surface. Specimens of other materials may
be fatigue cycled at low loads, which will mark the static crack as a result of the different
topography and light reflection of the fatigue crack.
When the cracks are marked the specimens are broken to reveal the fracture surfaces. Crack
advance that occurred during the initial loading and unloading experiment can now be
101
measured. Usually the crack will have propagated more in the centre of the specimens than at
the specimen surface. Therefore, an average a should be determined from a multiple of
measurements (Fig. 4.7c).
The value of J for each specimen is determined from the load-displacement curve (Fig. 4.7a).
The values of J for all specimens are plotted as a function of a as in Fig. 4.7d. A straight
line is fit through these data points.
The initially sharp crack tip blunts before stable crack extension occurs. Crack tip blunting
can be considered to result in a small amount of crack extension, as shown in Fig. 4.7e. It is
arbitrarily assumed that crack extension due to blunting a = 0.5 (CTOD). Thus, by taking J =

YS
(CTOD) =
YS
(2a), the variation of J due to crack tip blunting is:
= 2 (4.5)
ys
J a o A
This results in another straight line, the crack blunting line, shown in Fig. 4.7d. The
intercept of the two straight lines in Fog. 4.7d is the point where the crack first started to
extend by slow stable tear. Therefore, the point of intercept demarcates J
Ic
. Standards like
ASTM E-813 and E-1820 recommend use of other sophisticated methods like compliance
changing method (CCM), potential-drop technique or other advanced instrumentation to
detect crack inititiation and crack growth measurement from a single specimen. Though none
of these techniques will be discussed here, the compliance method and also the validity
criteria and new regression methods employed will be illustrated in some worked examples.
4.5. Standard Method for crack-tip opening displacement (CTOD) Determination
The standard crack opening displacement (COD) test specimens conform to the three-point
notched bend (SENB) and the compact tension (CT) configurations following the British
Standard BS 7448. For CT specimens a J
IC
type starter notch is allowed also (see Fig. 4.4). The
preferred W/B ratio is 2, but deviation is allowed within certain limits. In principle the thickness
B must be equal to that of the material as used in service, and the specimens are not side
grooved. As the o
tc
(critical value of CTOD) resulting from this test method may be affected by
the specimen geometry and size, caution is required when comparing results from different
sources. Requirements for precracking, loading rate, etc. follow the LEFM procedure; only that,
instead of Chevron notch, straight crack-fronts are used; measurement of crack length on the
broken specimen follows the a J
IC
procedure.
As direct measurement of CTOD at the crack tip is impossible, a clip gauge is used to measure
the COD, V
g
, at or near the specimen surface (see Fig. 4.8 where clip gage is mounted on
attachable knife-edges on the specimen surface). Assuming that the ligament b (= W a) acts as
a plastic hinge with a rotation point within the ligament at some distance r.b, from the geometry
in Fig. 4.8, one obtains (with rotational factor r as constant) the plastic part of CTOD from the
following relation,
102
pl pl
.
= (4.6)
.
r b
V
r b a z
o
+ +
where z is the thickness of the knife edges and r = 0.4 and 0.46 for deep-cracked SENB and C(T)
specimens, respectively (experimentally determined). V
pl
is determined from the total Vg as in
Fig. 4.9.
Fig. 4.8. Relationship between COD, V
g
, and CTOD, o
t
[B21].
For reasons of accuracy, V
el
from the test Fig. 4.9 is not used, rather the theoretical value from
the following relation is used:
2 2
I
el
(1- )
= (4.7)
2
ys
K
E
v
o
o
| |
|
\ .
Then, total CTOD, o
t
is obtained from
2 2
I
t el pl
(1- ) .
= (4.8)
2 .
pl
ys
K r b
V
E r b a z
v
o o o
o
| |
+ = +
|
+ +
\ .
The K
I
in the above cases is obtained from the appropriate ASTM E 399 formula substituting the
initial crack length, a, and the load at which V
pl
is measured.
103
Fig. 4.9. Separation of total COD, V
g
, into elastic, V
el
, and plastic, V
pl
, components [B21].
The load-displacement records can assume six different forms as shown in Fig. 4.10. It is
necessary to establish whether stable crack extension occurred during the test and to assess the
amount of crack extension associated with possible pop-in behaviour, i.e. a small amount of
unstable crack growth followed by crack arrest.
If post-test examination of the fracture surface reveals that the corresponding crack extension
exceeded 4% of the uncracked ligament, b, then pop-in is considered significant. Otherwise, a
pop-in is only considered significant if at subsequent crack arrest, the specimen compliance has
dropped by more than 5%. To examine this, the Standard suggests the same procedure for
Cases 1, 2, and 3 in Fig. 4.10. Cases 1 and 2 are monotonically rising load-displacement curves
showing no or limited plasticity and no stable crack extension before fracture. Case 3 shows a
(significant) pop-in owing to sudden crack extension and arrest. In all these three cases the o
tc
is
taken to be o
c
, which is obtained from Eq. (4.8) using P
C
and V
C
(see Fig. 4.10).
Cases 4 and 5 may also be treated similarly. Prior to instability, which again is either fracture or
a (significant) pop-in, stable crack extension occurs. This should be revealed after the test by
examination of the fracture surface. In these cases o
tc
is calculated as the o
u
at (P
u
, V
u
). Case 6
applies to extremely ductile materials for which stable crack extension proceeds beyond
maximum load P
m
: cases o
tc
is calculated as the o
m
at (P
m
, V
m
).
104
Fig. 4.10. Types of load-COD plots obtained during CTOD testing [B21].
105
EPFM PROBLEMS
Example 4.1.
A JIc test is performed on steel with the following properties: E = 207 GPa; oys = 360 MPa en
oUTS= 560 MPa ; v = 0.28. For this purpose a 3-point bend specimen is used with the following
dimensions:
W = 50 mm; B = 20 mm; a = 30 mm. The load is found to increase linearly with displacement.
At the onset of crack extension the load is 25 kN, while the displacement is 4 mm.
a) What value follows for JIC, if this is defined as J at the onset of crack extension? b) Is this
value acceptable according to ASTM standard E 813? c) What is the corresponding value for KIc?
d) What thickness should the specimen be for a valid KIc determination?
Solution:
Given: W = 50 mm; B = 20 mm; a = 30 mm. Therefore, a/W = 30/50 =0.6 and b = W-a = 20 mm.
This a deeply cracked specimen and hence,
J = 2 U/(Bb), where U is the area under the load-LLD curve upto initiation.
As it is given that load varies linearly and that the onset of crack extension occurs at 25 kN with
LLD = 4mm,
U = 0.5*25*4 = 50 N.m =50000 N.mm
a) J = 2*50000/(20*20) = 250 N/mm = 0.25 MPa.m
b) ASTM validity criterion, B, b > 25 (J/
YS
) = 25*250/360 = 24.3 mm are not satisfied.
c) Corresponding
IC 2 2
207000 0.25 207000 0.25
= = = 237 MPa
(1 ) (1 0.28 ) 0.9216
IC
EJ
K m
u

=

d) Following the ASTM plane strain size criterion,
2
2
IC
YS
237
> 2.5 = 2.5 1.1 m
360
K
B
o
| |
| |
~
| |
\ .
\ .
106
Example 4.2.
For a large welded steel vessel the following data are available: service stress o = 200 N/mm
2
yield strength weld metal oys = 450 N/mm
Young's modulus weld metal E = 205 000 N/mm
2
Due to shrinkage after the welding process,
residual stresses develop in the weld seam which can be as high as the yield strength of the weld
metal. By means of a heat treatment these stresses can be reduced. It is required that the vessel
can withstand a crack in the weld metal with half crack size a = 60 mm. Furthermore the CTOD
value in this case may not exceed 0.5 mm.
To what level should the residual stresses be reduced to comply with these requirements?
Solution:
Using the plane stress relation relating yield stress to CTOD,
-1 -2
C YS
CTOD = 450 0.5 = 225 N.mm = 0.225 J.mm J o =
C
= = 207000 0.225 = 216 MPa
C
K EJ m
For an a = 60 mm (half crack-length), this gives
C
216
= = = 498 MPa
0.06
K
a m
o
t t
Since 200 MPa is the loading stress,
maximum residual stress permitted is 498-200 = 298 MPa which is 0.66xoys.
Hence heat treatment should reduce residual stress to this or lower levels.
107
Example 4.3.
A JIc test is performed on HY130 steel. The results, measured on SENB specimens, are:
U [J] Aa [mm]
45 0.10
70 0.40
85 0.67
105 0.99
117.5 1.22
Specimen dimensions: span L = 4W = 200 mm width W = 50 mm thickness B = 0.5 W= 25 mm
crack length a = 30 mm
Material properties: yield strength oys = 925 MPa; tensile strength outs = 953 MPa; Young's
modulus E = 210 000 MPa Poisson's ratio v = 0.28 ; mass density = 7.810
3
kg/m
3
a) Approximately (!) determine JIc using a spreadsheet or on paper. Assume that conditions
which cannot be checked but are necessary for a valid determination are fulfilled.
b) How high is KIc for this steel?
c) At least how many kilograms of weight would be saved by determining KIc through JIc with
this test? Assume that the ratios of the dimensions of the KIc specimen are equal to those listed
above.
Solution:
For each a given in the Table above the corresponding J = 2 U/(Bb), where U is the area under
the load-LLD curve. These calculated J values are plotted against a in the figure below.
(a) ASTM E 813 procedure requires construction of a crack-tip blunting line, J = 2.
YS
.a
through the origin and also constructing two exclusion lines at a = 0.15 and 1.2 mm
respectively and an offset line at a = 0.2 mm, all the three lines being parallel to the
original blunting line through the origin (In a spread sheet programme this is easily
accomplished by setting a = (J/(2.
YS)) +
a(Offset), where a(Offset) = 0.15 or 0.2 or
1.2 mm as required for each of the above three lines).
108
Then, ASTM E 813 requires that at least 4 valid points lie between the 0.15 mm and 1.2 mm
lines. Following the validity criterion, each measured J value should satisfy the condition that J
is less than (b
0
.
YS
/15), the value at the highest a will determine the maximum J permitted.
Crack Extension, Aa/mm
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
J
,
J
.
m
m
-
2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
J = 0.4465*Aa
0.5196
o
YS
= 925 MPa
1
.
2
m
m
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
0
.
1
5
m
m
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
J
Q
= 0.195 J.mm
-2
0.2 mm Offset Line
B
l
u
n
t
i
n
g
L
i
n
e
=
2
o
Y
S
(
A
a
)
J
max
= 1.16 J.mm
-2
open points excluded from power-law regression
For the present case, as indicated in the Figure, the maximum J value is much higher than all
the measured values. This condition ensures absence of ligament yielding.
Then a power-law is fitted through the valid points within the exclusion lines. In the present
case, the largest value is slightly outside the 1.2 mm exclusion line. However, from the trend
of the data it seems OK in making the fit through the 4 points. This is also in accordance with
the guideline Assume that conditions which cannot be checked but are necessary for a valid
determination are fulfilled, given in the problem.
All the above are illustrated in the Figure. Then a provisional J
Q
is determined as the J at the
intersection of the power-law regression line and the 0.2 mm Offset line. From the figure, J
Q
= 0.195 J.mm
-2
.
Now this must satisfy the conditions, B and (W-a) > 25 J
Q
/
YS
-3
25 0.195
= 5.27 10 m = 5.27 mm << = ( - ) = 20 mm
925
B W a


b)
IC 2 2
210000 0.195
= = = 211 MPa
(1 ) (1 0.28 )
IC
EJ
K m
u


109
c) For valid K
IC
test,
2 2
IC YS
> 2.5( / ) = 2.5 (211/925) 0.13 m = 130 mm B K o ~
Hence for the K
IC
specimen (dimensions in mm),
3
3
7.8 2 4 2 7.8 16 7.8
weight = gm =
1000 1000 1000
16 130 7.8
Hence, weight = = 274186 gm = 274 kg
1000
B W L B B B B
=

Similarly for the J
IC
specimen,
3
16 25 7.8
weight = = 1950 gm = 1.95 kg
1000

Hence the J
IC
test will save a weight of ~ 272 kg.
Example 4.4.
On a bend specimen a single-specimen Jc test is performed. Using a non-destructive technique
crack initiation is observed at a load P = 9315 N. During the test the load is recorded as a
function of the load-point displacement V. A polynominal fit of the P-V curve resulted in:
-5 -14 4
= 10 + 10 . P P u where V is expressed in mm and P in N.
a) Determine the critical J value at initiation; b) Is the plate thickness sufficient for a valid
JIc test?
Given: width W = 50 mm; crack length a = 12 mm; thickness B = 28 mm;
flow stress oo = 1000 MPa.
Solution:
a) Calculation of J requires knowledge of the area, that is the work done, U, under the load-
LLD (P-d) curve. This is given by:
-5 -14 3 -5 -14 4
= d , where d = (10 + 4 10 )d as = (10 + 10 ) as given above. U P d d P P d P P
}
110
From the expressions for d and dd given in terms of P, we can set up the integral in terms of P
with the integration limits 0 to 9315, the load at which crack initiates. Therefore,
9315 9315
-5 -14 3 -5 -14 4
0 0
= (10 + 4 10 )d = (10 + 4 10 )d U P P P P P P
} }
9315
-5 2 -14 5
0
-5 2 -14 5
10 9315 4 10 9315
= + = 561487.4 N.mm
2 5
10 4 10
+
2 5
U
P P

=
(

(

i.e., U = 561.5 J
IC
-2
2 2 561.5
= = = 1.055 J.mm
28 38
U
J
Bb

b) ASTM E 813 validity criterion,


Q
YS
25
25 1.06
> = = 0.0265 m = 26.5 mm
1000
J
B
o

is
satisfied.
Example 4.5.
For materials with a moderate toughness (e.g. aluminium alloys) KIc can be determined from JIc.
Express the minimum required thickness for the JIc test (Bj) in terms of the minimum required
thickness for the KIc test (Bk).
Given: Young's modulus E = 70 000 MPa; yield strength oys = 345 MPa; tensile strength
outs = 500 MPa ; E' for plane strain = E (for plane stress)
Solution:
C C
YS
j
C
j C
25 25
For , > =
345
345
25
or =
345 25
J J
J B
B
J
B J
o
=
j
JC C
70000 345
= =
25
B
K EJ

111
2
j
JC
JC K j 2
YS
2
j
K j
70000 345
For , > 2.5 = 2.5 21
25 345
For plane strain, will be replaced '=( /(1- )) / 0.91, then 23
25
B
K
K B B
E E E E B B
B B
o
u
| |
~
|

\ .
= >
~
Example 4.6.
During a JIc determination using a technique similar to that of Begley and Landes a critical
displacement (at the onset of crack growth) is found of 20 mm for an initial crack length of 10
mm. In the figure load displacement curves are given for 3 initial crack lengths (5, 10 and 15
mm). The tests are performed with bend specimens for which the thickness B and the height W
are both equal to 20 mm. The measured displacement is that of the load point.
a) How high is JIc?
b) Approximately determine the value for the critical displacement at an initial crack length of 15
mm.
Solution:
The first thing is to identify which curve in the figure represents which specimen. Normally it
can be expected (given the large differences in initial crack lenghs) that the specimen with the
smallest crack shows the highest loads while the with the largest crack length shows the lowest
loads. Based on this argument, the highest curve in the figure corresponds to the specimen with
initial a = 5 mm, the lowest corresponds to the specimen with initial a = 15 mm while the
intermediate curve corresponds to the specimen with initial a = 10 mm.
The area under the load-LLD (P vs. v or d) is the work done U. J is determined from,
I
2
=
U
J
Bb
Since in the figure the Y-axis is given as (P/B), J expression in the present case becomes simply,
I
2
=
U
J
b
It is given that for the 10 mm crack specimen, initiation occurs at a displacement of 20 mm.
Hence the area under the a = 10 mm curve upto d = 20 mm will give the required dU for
computing initiation J.
112
The area can be determined from the figure by counting squares or using a planimeter.
The area determined is 5066.52 N (per unit thickness B). Hence,
a)
-1 -2
2 2 5066.52
= = 1013.3 N.mm = 1.013 J.mm
(=( - )) 10
i
U
J
b W a

=
b) Since initiation must occur at almost the same value of J, we must find the d for the 15 mm
specimen at which (2U/5) = 1013.3 (N/mm). Hence, we must find the dfor the 15 mm curve
at which U = 2533.25 N.
It is found by some trial and error, that for the 15 mm curve, at a d = 18.14 mm, U = 2561.48 N;
at a d = 17.93 mm U = 2512.67 N. The above value of U = 2533.25 N falls between these two d
values. Hence, the required d~ 18 mm.
Note: By reading off sufficient (P/B) vs d values from the curve for each crack length specimen
and fitting them to polynomials, it is possible to find the areas to any displacement more
accurately by straight integration.
113
Example 4.7.
Using a single edge notched bend specimen of nodular cast iron, a JIc test is performed based on
the unloading compliance technique. In figure A the measured load P is plotted as a function of
the load displacement V. From these data the slope of the P-V curve during the different
unloading-loading cycles are found as follows:
No. Slope:
N/mm
Compliance,
C = Inverse
Slope, mm/N
(x10
6
)
a/W a/mm (W-a) =
b/mm
v or
d/mm
Area,U,
N.mm
a/mm J =
2U/Bb,
N/mm
1 19200
*
52.1 0.62 17.36 10.64 0 0
2 18800 53.19 0.622 17.416 10.584 0.21 433.67 0.056 11.71
3 17600 56.82 0.635 17.78 10.22 0.41 1029.21 0.42 27.78
4 15800 63.29 0.65 18.2 9.8 0.63 1650.2 0.84 48.11
5 13300 75.9 0.673 18.844 9.156 0.85 2212.94 1.484 69.06
6 11000 90.91 0.7 19.6 8.4 ~1.27 3160.22 2.24 107.49
*no crack growth yet; Note: All the bold values in Table were obtained during solution of the
problem.
For specimens with this geometry and made of this material the relative crack length a/W is
plotted in figure B as a function of the compliance C (It may be noted that in Fig. B, the
parabolic continuous curve represents the given compliance plot. The dotted lines dropped from
the C-curve to the axes are those made during solution of the problem to determine a/W for each
C determined from Fig. A).
Other data are: Young's modulus E = 200 000 MPa; yield strength oys = 350 MPa; ultimate
tensile strength outs = 450 MPa; Specimen: thickness B = 7 mm ; height W = 4B
a) Roughly indicate the positions of the J-Aa points in figure C, as they follow from the
experimental results. Be sure to add numerical values to the vertical axis. J may be calculated
without making a distinction between elastic and plastic displacements.
b) Explain how crack tip blunting is quantified for a JIc test. Indicate this in figure C.
The critical J value according to ASTM E 813 is defined as the value after 0.2 mm of stable
crack growth.
c) In figure C, draw the line that represents this stable crack growth.
d) Roughly show in figure C how the critical J-value, JIc, is obtained.
114
e) What is the JIc value (not a calculation but a graphical estimate)?
f) Is this value valid in view of the size requirements?
Solution:
From the given slope values in the Table, the corresponding inverse or C values were computed
as given in the Table. For each C, the corresponding a/W was read-off from Fig. B as shown and
the values tabulated in the Table. Also, from Fig. A, at each unloading (2) to (5), the area, U,
underload-LLD curve was determined and are given in the Table. The corresponding J values are
also given in the Table.
(a) to (d): As required in (a), Fig. C has been constructed. Answers to (b) to (d) are as detailed in
Example 4.3 given previously. The novelty of the problem is that crack length has been
determined by a Compliance procedeure. The calculations involved show sufficient
familiarization with the technique.
115
Compliance, C x 10
6
[mm/N]
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
a
/
W
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
Fig. B
Aa/mm
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
J
,
N
/
m
m
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
J = 53.5155Aa
0.8353
J
Q
15 N/mm
Fig. C
B
l
u
n
t
i
n
g
L
i
n
e
:
2
o
Y
S
A
a
1
.
2
m
m
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
L
i
n
e
o
YS
= 350 MPa
Only filled points used for
Power-Law Regression
0
.
1
5
m
m
E
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
l
i
n
e
0.2 mm Offset Line
(e) J
Q
= 0.15 N/mm; (f) B (7 mm), (W-a) (= 10.64 mm) > 25J
Q
/350 = 25*0.15/350 = 0.011 mm.
Hence Valid.
116
Example 4.8 Calculation of CTOD from COD
In a COD test made on a structural steel of yield strength 430 MPa, using a SENB specimen of
dimensions, B = 25 mm, W = 50 mm, and precracked to a depth of 26 mm, to what total crack-
tip displacement does a clip-gauge plastic displacement of 0.33 mm correspond, if the load at
this point is 50 kN and the the knife edges are 2mm thick? (Youngs modulus is 200 GPA and
Poissons Ratio is 0.3)
For the K value either the expression for the bend specimen in Fig. 2.10 (more accurate) or the
expression (e) in Table 2.8 may be used. Using the latter,
I
6 1.12+ (3.43 -1.89)
with = where =
1-0.55
P a
K Y a Y
BW W
o o
t o
o
=
= (26/50) = 0.52; therefore, Y = 1.49; taking P = 50 kN,
I
2
6 50 1000
1.49 0.026 102.2 MPa m
25 50
N
MPa and under root sign is in 'm'
mm
K
a
t

= =

| |
=
|
\ .

Then from Eq. (4.8),


2 2
I
t el pl
2 2
(1- ) .
=
2 .
102.2 1000 (1-0.3 ) 0.4 24
0.33 0.06 0.084 0.14 mm
200 1000 430 2 0.4 24 26 2
pl
ys
K r b
V
E r b a z
v
o o o
o
| |
+ = +
|
+ +
\ .
| |
= + = + =
|
+ +
\ .
117
Example 4.9 Initiation CTOD, o
i
, from multi-specimen extrapolation technique
NOTE: As discussed in Section 4.5, the COD standard simply specifies the method for determining a
critical CTOD, o
tC
. For cleavage fracture, where fast fracture coincides with initiation, this may have
extension to structural situations also. In other situations, it may be necessary to measure the initiation
value, o
i
, or a value corresponding to a fixed amount of crack extension; in such cases, and especially in
Case 6 in Fig. 4.10, where a plastic instability value, o
m
, is determined extension to structural cases may
be hazardous. Thus. Though CTOD may be useful in quality control or material development as a
comparative measure, its application to structural integrity analysis is limited.
Using acoustic emission or potential-drop techniques, it may be possible to detect fibrous or ductile
fracture initiation in some materials. Another method is the unloading compliance method, where the
specimen is partially unloaded from various load-V
g
points and the slopes of the elastic-unloading line are
compared: crack extension would result in change in slope of the elastic unloading line. However, this
requires sophisticated instrumentation and clip-gauge positioning at the load line (as for the J-integral
test) and may not be useful for very ductile materials. Another more useful technique is to use a double
clip-gauge (at different heights above the crack-tip); the first deviation from linear proportionality of the
gauges is indicative of crack initiation.
Another technique which has been successful in steels, is to generate the full CTOD-Aa curve by a multi-
specimen technique, much like the Begley-Landes procedure for J-integral. Identical test pieces are
unloaded from different positions of the Load-displacement line, heat-tinted, if necessary, and broken
open at liquid nitrogen temperature. Then the CTOD at the original crack-tip can be calculated (including
any change in the centre of rotation due to crack growth) and a plot of these CTOD values against Aa can
be extrapolated to zero crack extension to yield a o
i
value. Such a procedure is described in the following
problem.
PROBLEM: Values of COD readings and fibrous thumbnail lengths for an HY-80 steel are given
in the following Table. What is the value of o
i
for this steel?
Crack extension, Aa, mm CTOD, o
t,
mm
0 0.09
0.05 0.15
0.125 0.18
0.14 0.22
0.3 0.25
0.4 0.30
0.5 0.34
0.9 0.5
From the plot of Aa vs.o
t
given below,
it is seen that, o
i
= 0.13 mm and slope (do/da) = 0.43 mm/mm
118
Aa/mm
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
C
T
O
D
,
o
t
/
m
m
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
o
t
= 0.1254 + 0.4251*Aa
Example 4.10. Determination of o
i
by double clip-gauge method
A NiCrMo cast steel of proof strength713 MPa is tested by the COD standard using specimens
with dimensions: B = 10 mm and W = 20 mm. Two clip-gauges, gauges I and II, are mounted at
heights z
1
= 0 mm and z
2
= 2 mm above the surface of each specimen. If the first major deviation
from linearity in a plot of V
g1
vs. V
g2
occurs when V
g1
= 0.295 mm, for a crack length of 9.83
mm, what is the value of o
i
for this steel? Youngs modulus = 206 GPa and Poissons ratio = 0.3.
Test record of load vs.V
g1
is given below.
Solution:
From the Figure, when V
g1
= 0.293 mm, load, P = 11.92 kN and intercept of the line through this
point and parallel to the initial linear portion of the load-displacement curve (elastic unloading
line) with the X-axis gives a V
pl
(or V
p
) value of 0.083 mm.
With load P = 11.92 kN and crack length a = 9.83 mm giving an (a/W) or = (9.83/20) = 0.492,
following the same procedure as in Example 4.8 gives Y = 1.4. Then,
3
I
6 6 11.92 1000
= 1.4 9.83 10 = 87.98 MPa m
10 20
P
K Y a
BW
t t


=

Then from Eq. (4.8)


119
2 2
I
t el pl
2 2
(1- ) .
=
2 .
87.98 1000 (1-0.3 ) 0.4 10.17
0.083 0.048 mm
206 1000 713 2 0.4 10.17 9.83 0
pl
ys
K r b
V
E r b a z
v
o o o
o
| |
+ = +
|
+ +
\ .
| |
= + =
|
+ +
\ .
120
Example 4.11. Calculation of critical defect size using CTOD
A rocket motor case is fabricated from a Cr-Mo low alloy steel of proof stress 1200 MPa, in the
form a long cylinder of diameter 0.5 m and wall thickness 2.5 mm. If the design pressure at the
highest thrust is 8 MPa, calculate the size of the largest size that could be tolerated in the rocket
motor case, without the risk of bursting at blast-off. Critical CTOD measured in a small test
piece is 50 m and Youngs modulus is 200 GPa.
For thin sections plane stress assumption is OK. Longitudinal flaw perpendicular to the hoop
stress is the most dangerous.
Hoop stress,
h
= pd/2t; Here, Pressure, p = 8 MPa, Diameter, d = 0.5 m and thickness,
t = 2.5 mm.
Hence,
h
= 8*0.5*1000/(2*2.5) = 800 MPa
In the plane stress case, critical fracture toughness,
K
C
= EJ
C
= E*
YS
*
C
= (200000*1200*50/1000000) = 109.54 MPa
Therefore, critical defect size, a
C
= K
C
2
/(*
2
) = 12000/(3.14*800
2
) = 0.006 m = 5.8 mm
This is half-crack length, the total length of the that could be tolerated is 11.6 mm.
Comments: Now a rough estimate of the plastic zone size gives,
r
y
= (1/2)*(K
C
/
YS
)
2
= 0.0013 m = 1.3 mm and 2 r
y
= 2.6 mm ~ the sheet thickness, justifying
plane stress assumption.
NOTE: In plane strain, though there is no analytical relation linking to K
IC
, finite element
based calculations and empirical results give the following expression:
2
IC
=
YS
K
E
o |
o
where takes values between 0.45 to 0.7 (even 1 has been reported). When slow ductile crack
growth precedes final instability, it is difficult to obtain a critical value,
C
; but an ductile
initiation CTOD,
i
, will give conservative or lower-bound estimates of K, K
i
.
121
Example 4.12. The Toughness of High-Strength Weld Metal
An alloy weld metal has the following properties: proof stress = 1000 MPa; K
IC
= 95 MPam;
CTOD tests on thick small pieces gave a
i
value of 40 m; Youngs modulus, E = 200 GPa.
Find the value of in the plane strain relation discussed in the NOTE at the end of the last
Example.
Substitution the above values in
2
IC
=
YS
K
E
o |
o
gives 40*10
-6
= (95
2
/(1000*200000)),
and, therefore, = 0.89.
Example 4.13. Toughness of Thick-Section Pressure Vessel Steel (PVS)
Room temperature CTOD tests on a stress-relieved A533B PVS gave a value of 0.19 mm for
i
and almost a linear increase of with crack extension giving a slope of (d/da) = 0.5 mm/mm. If
the YS = 500 MPa, E = 200 GPa and Poissons ratio, = 0.3, find the values of K
i
and possible
values of K
IC
that might be obtained from large LEFM test specimens.
As given in the previous two Examples, the lowest (as also given in the BS standard for CTOD)
and highest (from experiments) values of are 0.45 and 1, respectively. Hence, applying these in
the expression,
2
i
i
=
YS
K
E
o |
o
, gives
2 2
-3 i i
0.19*10 = 0.45 or
500*200000 500*200000
K K
,
giving K
i
= 205.5 or 137.8 MPam, respectively.
NOTE: Actual measurement gives a value of 180-200 MPam for the K
IC
of this steel, implying
that in this steel failure occurs almost after initiation. For a K
IC
of 200 MPam, applying the
ASTM E399 validity criterion,
2
IC
, ( - ) or 2.5
YS
K
a W a B
o
| |
>
|
\ .
, will give a value of 0.4 m.
The 5% secant offset construction in the E399 standard (see Fig. 11), implies a crack growth plus
plasticity of about 2%, which in the present case would amount to 2% of 400 mm = 8 mm. So for
half this value, say, 4 mm, CTOD value will be,
122
i
d
= + = 0.19 + 0.5*4 = 2.19 mm
da
o
o o
Hence, the corresponding K values will be 690 and 460 MPam, for = 0.45 and 1, respectively.
Such high values may preclude fast fracture above the upper shelf transition temperature.
Example 4.14. Application of CTOD for Quality Control
In such applications, the aim is to specify the minimum crack tip ductility (or CTOD) that will
preclude cleavage or brittle fracture in plate of given thickness, B. Brittle fracture is promoted by
triaxial stresses, and these will be relaxed if the plastic zone size is large to promote through
thickness yielding. The criterion is that the plane stress plastic zone size should be at least equal
to the plate thickness:
2
y
YS
1
=
2
K
r B
t o
| |
>
|
\ .
and
2
YS
(plane stress) =
K
E
o
o
| |
|
\ .
. Therefore,
YS
y 2
YS YS
1 1
= =
2 2
E E
r B
o o o
t o t o
| | | |
>
| |
\ . \ .
or
YS
y
2 = 2 B B
E
o
o t tc > , where (
YS
/E) =
y
, the yield strain.
Example Application: For a 25 mm plate of structural steel with a yield stress of 400 MPa at
265 K, taking E = 200 GPa,
the yield strain,
y
= 400/200000 = 0.002, then based on the above criterion,
2*25* *0.002 0.314 mm o t > =
Hence if the CTOD is less than 0.314 mm, more detailed fracture mechanics assessment
should be performed.
Example 4.15. Welding Institute Defect Assessment Procedure
For actual application of fracture mechanics to structures, to relate operating loads to the stresses
and CTODs at the stress concentrators in critical regions (say, a crack in a weld around a nozzle
in a pressure vessel), detailed finite element based calculations may be necessary. To avoid such
a costly exercise, The Welding Institute (UK) has developed a curve which relates the CTOD to
the local estimated strain. This curve is derived from a large number of precracked wide-plate
123
tests, relating measured CTOD to applied crack-tip strain. Then the strain concentration at a
crack tip or defect is equated to the stress concentration.
Welding Institute CTOD Design Curve
Normalised Strain, c /c
y
0 1 2 3 4 5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
s
e
d
C
T
O
D
,
o

/
2
t
c
y
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
Fit Line is given by: y = -0.0919 + 0.8585x
1.0971
where y = normalised CTOD and x = normalised strain
The CTOD design curve is given above. The points represent data digitized from Knotts
diagram [ ]. The fit was generated by the authors. For normalized strains greater than 0.2, the fit
expression is a good approximation to the actual curve. a refers to the half-length of the
maximum allowable through-wall crack. This curve can be used to obtain the minimum
allowable CTOD for a given defect or the NDT limit for material with known CTOD. It may be
noted that residual stresses (especially in welds and fabricated structures) should be taken into
account in calculating the normalized strain.
Example on Use of Welding Institute Design Curve
A pressure vessel of made of low alloy steel of yield stress 500 MPa has a diameter of 25 m and
a wall-thickness of 0.25 m. It contains steam at a pressure of 5.5 MPa. Large pipes are welded
into circular openings in the vessel wall using matching weld metal. If the available NDT
techniques are able to detect defects of size larger than 10 mm, what is the minimum critical
CTOD required in the weld metal to prevent fast fracture? Also, assume that a residual tensile
stress equal to half the yield stress is present in the weld metal.
124
Solution:
Because of the large diameter to thickness ratio (d/t), a thin wall tube assumption is made. Then,
hoop stress is given by:
5.5*25
= = = 275 MPa
2 2*0.25
h
pd
t
o
For circular holes, the stress concentration factor is about 3, i. e., the local stresses exceed the
applied stress by three times. Thus the proof stress is exceeded locally and plastic strains
develop. Assuming stress concentration factor is equal to strain concentration factor, it follows,
y y
3*275 + 250 1075
= = = 2.15 =
500 500
o c
o c
,
where 3*275 accounts for the external applied load and 250 is the internal residual stress given
as half the yield stress. Then for a strain concentration of 2.15 (i. e., x = /
y
), from the fit
expression given in the above figure (Welding Institute CTOD Design Curve) one obtains,
1.0971
1.0971
y y
1.0971
= -0.0919 + 0.8585x = -0.0919 + 0.8585
2
-0.0919 + 0.8585*2.15 1.9
y
a
o c
tc c
| |
=
|
|
\ .
= =

y
= (500/200000) = 0.0025
Assuming an edge crack of length (this will give conservative or safer estimates) 10 mm (NDT
detection limit) gives: 2 *(2.5/1000)10*1.9 = 0.3 mm o t >
Comments: This toughness is achievable provided proper post-weld heat treatment is carried out
to reduce residuals stresses.
Note: For other, crack types, like embedded flaws, other curves have been developed. This
approach is not feasible when extensive plasticity and plastic collapse occurs. More robust
analytical-empirical methods, like CEGB (former UK Central Electricity Generating Board) R6
Procedure or European Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure (SINTAP) are available that
use a Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) that uses a failure curve interpolating between pure
LEFM fracture to full plastic collapse. As the actual applications of such methods are not so
simple, they are considered beyond the scope of this elementary strength of materials
approach book.
125
Appendix - Chapter 4: A Note on CREEP CRACK GROWTH (CCG) [B32,B41]
Fig. Ch4-A-1: Typical strain-time curve during creep [B32].
Creep occurs when a component is subjected to loading at a high enough temperature relative to
melting point, T
m
(usually 0.3 to 0.5 T
m
). Creep is a time dependent process that results in non-
recoverable or permanent deformation that may lead to failure creep rupture. In electrical
power generating plants, chemical process industries and aircraft gas turbines creep is the main
design failure mode.
Creep is divided into primary, secondary and tertiary modes as shown in Fig. Ch4-A-1. Primary
creep, occurring over a short time, results in decreasing strain rate. Secondary or steady state
creep is characterized by a steady state or constant (rather minimum) creep rate and often
dominates the life of a component. The tertiary creep results in accelerating creep rate and occurs
at long times.
Since a component is subjected to secondary creep deformation most of its life-time, Creep
Fracture Mechanics (CFM) based on secondary creep has received wide attention and is the
simplest to deal with. Here only a preliminary account of this will be given for the sake of
complete coverage of EPFM. Analogous to power-law plasticity, secondary creep is often
governed by a power-law:
126
= (Ch4-A1)
n
s B c o
-
where B is a constant and n the power-law creep exponent.
Analogous to J, a parameter, C
*
, is defined as a contour integral as follows (see Fig. 4.2):
* *
i
*
0
= ( )d - d (Ch4-A2)
with ( ) d , the strain energy rate density.
i
u
C W y T s
x
W
c
c
c o o c
-
-
I
- -
-
| |
c
|
| c
\ .
=
}
}
The terms have the same significance as described with respect to Fig. 4.2., only that strain
energy density, strain and displacement terms have been replaced by their rates with respect to
time.
In stress field equations, characterizing steady state creep ahead of a crack, J is replaced by C
*
.
Thus, the stress ahead of a crack in a creeping solid under steady state is:
1
*
n+1
ij
( ) (Ch4-A3) C o
where n is the power-law creep exponent. For example, the stress field and creep zone ahead of a
crack is shown schematically in Fig. Ch.4-A-2. Analogous to J, C
*
can be defined based on the
energy rate interpretation as follows:
*
1 d
= - (Ch4-A4)
d
U
C
B a
-
Equation (Ch4-A4) is schematically shown in Fig. Ch.4-A-3. This also provides a basis for
measurement of C
*
as discussed next.
127
Fig. Ch4-A-2. Schematic of the deformation zones and the associated stress
fields ahead of a crack under extensive creep [B41].
Fig. Ch4-A-3. Schematic illustration of the energy rate interpretation
of C
*
integral [B41].
128
Fig. Ch4-A-4. The load-line deflection as a function of time for a cracked
body for a fixed applied load. Determination of steady state
deflection rate (
SS
V
-
) is also shown [B41].
Experimental method of measurement of C
*
: The method based on the energy rate interpretation
requires several sets of identical specimens. The crack size is varied between different sets of
specimens. Let there be 5 sets of specimens, each consisting of 5 specimens, and thus a total of
25 specimens. The crack lengths of specimens in the various sets are a
1
, a
2
,,a
5
. Five load
levels, P
1
, P
2
,., P
5
sre chosen, and one specimen from each set is subjected one of the load
levels, measuring the steady state deflection rates. This is repeated for the other four load levels.
The steady state deflection rate (
SS
V
-
) is determined as shown in Fig. Ch4-A-4. Next, the (P-
SS
V
-
)
relationship for each crack size is plotted and the area under the curve for different values of
(
SS
V
-
) is obtained to determine U
*
, as shown in Fig. Ch4-A-5. Then, as shown in Fig. Ch4-A-6,
U
*
is plotted as a function of crack size for fixed values of (
SS
V
-
) and the slope of these curves can
be related to C
*
, as shown in the same figure.
Though used in earlier days, this is a very cumbersome method requiring a large amount time
and material. Nowadays, semi-empirical methods are used, which enable determination of crack
growth rate from a single specimen. ASTM E 1457 Standard governs the method for
determination of C
*
.
129
Fig. Ch4-A-5. P-
SS
V
-
relationship for a fixed crack size and the stress power, U
*
[B41].
Fig. Ch4-A-6. U
*
as a function of crack size for various values of
SS
V
-
[B41].
130
Different specimens like C(T), Centre-Cracked Panels, etc. are recommended. For a C(T)
specimen during extensive steady-state creep, the following relation holds:
* SS
n
= (2 + 0.522(1 - a/W)) (Ch4-A5)
( ) n+1
PV
C
B W a
-

For application, the relation between C


*
and CCG rate (da/dt), similar to that shown in
Fig. Ch4-A-7 is made use of. This relation is often expressed in the form:
*
d
a = = ( ) (Ch4-A6)
d
q
a
A C
t
-
Fig. Ch4-A-7. CCG rates plotted against C
*
for two specimen geometries [B32].
where A and q are constants. Based on analytical and experimental work Eq. (Ch4-A7) relating
CCG rate to C
*
and creep ductility,
f
, has been found to work for many materials and predict
CCG rate within a factor of 2.
131
*
f
3( )0.85
a = (Ch4-A7)
C
c
-
The creep ductility is the uniaxial creep ductility (determined from conventional creep tests) for
plane stress (thin components) and (1/30) times this value for plane strain (thick components).
Fig. Ch4-A-8. Theoretical CCG rate predictions compared with experimental data [B32].
Figure Ch4-A-8 shows a comparison of experimental CCG rate data shown in Fig. Ch4-A-7 with
those based on Eq.(Ch4-A7) under plane stress and plane stress conditions. Under plane strain
CCG rates will be about 50 times higher for the same C
*
and the experimental data closely
correspond to the plane stress predictions.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM ON CCG [B51]: A 50 mm wide and 25 mm thick C(T) specimen of
304 stainless steel is subjected to constant load at 18 kN at 594
0
C. If B and n for this material at
594
0
C are 2 x 10
-18
and 6, respectively, for stress in MPa and strain rate in hr
-1
, calculate the
value of C
*
for a/W = 0.5 and the measured load-line deflection rate is 2.5 x 10
-6
m/h.
Solution: Direct substitution into Eq. (Ch4-A5), gives:
-6
*
2 2
18 (kN) x 2.5 x 10 (m/hr) 6 kN.m kJ
= (2 0.522*0.5) = 0.139 = 0.139
(0.25 m)x(0.25 m) 7 m m hr
C
hr
+
132
Chapter 5 - An EPFM Application: ASTM E 1921
Master Curve (MC)
5.1. Reference Temperature (T
0
) and Master Curve Approach
Though the RT
NDT
based ASME K
IR
curve has been successful in application, it is having the
following deficiencies: a) the indexing parameter, RT
NDT
is empirical, and is not based on direct
measurement of the true material fracture resistance, namely fracture toughness, b) the method
follows a lower-bound approach and, hence, does not rigorously evaluate the scatter in the
fracture toughness in the transition region and hence may be overconservative (that is, it may
underutilize the capacity of the material) and c) restricts itself within its purview pressure vessel
steels with room temperature static yield stress level below 345 MPa. A new Master Curve (MC)
approach has been developed to describe the variation of fracture toughness of ferritic steels in
the transition temperature regime. This approach interprets the scatter in fracture toughness
through the weakest link model and a three-parameter Weibull distribution with a fixed slope of
4. This introduces a new indexing parameter, known as the reference temperature, T
0
. T
0
is
defined as the temperature corresponding to a median fracture toughness of 100 MPa\m for 1
inch (25. 4 mm) thick fracture toughness specimens. It is determined by actual measurement of
fracture toughness of ferritic steels that experience onset of cleavage cracking at elastic, or
elastic-plastic K
JC
instabilities, or both. As T
0
is based on actual measurement of fracture
toughness and has better theoretical and statistical basis, it can better deal with scatter and
constraint (thickness) effects. The basic Master Curve method has been recently standardised in
the ASTM E-1921 standard [T8]. A limit on K
JC
values, relative to the specimen size, is
specified to ensure high constraint conditions along the crack front at fracture.
ASME is also taking steps to incorporate this procedure in their code. A preliminary step in this
direction has been taken by incorporation of T
0
concepts in the ASME Code Cases N-629 and
and N-631. N-629 is proposed for ASME Section XI, recognises measurements of T
0
in
irradiated material as an alternative means of estimating Reference T
0
[T3]. N-631 is proposed
for ASME Section III, establishes alternative T
0
based Reference Temperature for initial property
determinations in RPV [T2]. Though, ASTM E-1921 is specifically applicable for static
conditions, procedures detailed in it are increasingly being applied to dynamic fracture studies
also, using instrumented precracked Charpy impact test.
OUTLINE
Definitions of the New Reference Temperature (T
0
) and Master curve
(MC) and their Basis and Background; Outline of ASTM E-1921
procedure for determination of T
0
; Illustration of determination of T
0
and
MC for a 9Cr-1Mo steel by Instrumented Precracked Charpy Testing;
Comparison of MC with the K
IR
curve for the 9Cr-1Mo steel.
Ref.: [B28], [B56], [B60], [T8]
133
5.2. Statistical basis of the Master Curve
The scatter in fracture toughness in the transition region is recognised as being a characteristic of
structural steels. The present concept acknowledges that data scatter results from randomly
distributed cleavage triggering sources such as carbide cracking, multiple cleavage crack
clustering and dislocation pile-ups. Based on weakest-link theory and Weibull statistics, the
cumulative probability of failure, p
f
is given by:
min 0 min
0
1 exp{ ( )[( ) /( )] }
b
f Jc
B
p K K K K
B
= (5.1)
where K
min
is the toughness level below which cracks cannot propagate, K
0
is the scale
parameter obtained at the point where K
JC
= K
0
and p
f
= 0.632 and b = 4. By setting p
f
equal
for two specimen sizes (say, B = B
1
and B = B
2
), the following expression results:
1
4
1
(2) min (1) min
2
[ ]
Jc Jc
B
K K K K
B
| |
= +
|
\ .
(5.2)
This is the basis of the size correction equation in ASTM E-1921 method, where B
2
is set
equal to 1 inch and K
min
= 20 MPa\m (because ferritic steels of yield strengths ranging from
275 to 825 MPa (40 to 120 ksi) will have fracture toughness cumulative probability
distributions of nearly the same shape, independent of specimen size and test temperature, when
K
min
is set equal to 20 MPa\m). Thus in the three-parameter Weibull model used to define
the relationship between K
JC
and the cumulative probability for failure, p
f
, (p
f
is the
probability for failure at or below K
JC
for an arbitrarily chosen specimen taken from a large
population of specimens) given above, the only unknown is the scale parameter, K
0
. Data
samples consisting of six or more valid (defined below) K
JC
values are used to estimate the true
value of the parameter K
0
from the following relation [ASTM E 1921]:
4 1/ 4
0 ( ) min min
1
[ ( ) /( 0.3068)]
N
Jc i
i
K K K N K
=
= +

(5.3)
where N = number of specimens (valid values) and K
min
= 20 MPa\m. For a data set
consisting of invalid values (but not less than 6 valid values), N is replaced by the number of
valid values, r. The standard deviation of the data distribution is a function of the Weibull slope
(b = 4) and (median K
JC
) K
JC(med)
, which is given by [ASTM E 1921]:
1
4
( ) 0 min min
( )[ln(2)]
Jc med
K K K K = + (5.4)
134
where K
min
= 20 MPa\m and [ln(2)]
0.25
= 0.9124. For all valid set data size correction can be
applied either before or after computing K
0
, while for data set with invalid data (but with not less
than 6 valid data), the invalid data are replaced by the corresponding limit values (computed using
Eq. (5.6)) and then first K
0(x)
is computed (where x corresponds to the thickness of the specimens-
all of the same B) and K
0(x)
converted to K
0
corresponding to 1 B, for computing the K
JC(med)
for 1
thickness. From the K
JC(med)
, the T
0
is determined using the following relation [ASTM E 1921]:
( )
0
30
1
ln[ ]
0.019 70
Jc med
K
T T

= (5.5)
with K
JC(med)
in MPa\m and T
0
in C.
For censored data, due to crack length violation (see Fig. 5.1), the invalid data are replaced by
the largest valid data in the data set.
Fig. 5.1. Illustration of the 9-point average crack-length measurement on a 25 mm
C(T) Specimen (the slashed area shows side-grooves if present) tested as per
ASTM E1921 [B52]. (see NOTES for Fig. 5.1 also given next)
135
NOTES for Fig. 5.1:
i 0
max
p 0 0
- = 0.95 mm 0.05 = 0.05*25 mm = 1.25 mm
= - = 0.026 mm 0.05 = 1.216 mm
a a B
a a a b
s
A s
Here the actual measurements are for a non-side-grooved specimen (B
N
= B). As shown, 0.01B from the
surface (or the root of the side-grooves, if presented) are omitted. a
k
, a
0
and a
p
are the average values of
machine notch depth, fatigue crack length and final crack length, respectively. Please note that the
permitted maximum deviation of any measurement from the average for the precrack length is 5% of B or
0.5 mm whichever is larger and valid slow-crack growth extension before cleavage is less than 5% of
initial ligament or 1 mm, whichever is smaller; otherwise, the tests are invalid and should be used as
censured data.
5.3. Validity limits
The size validity limit for data censor mentioned in the previous paragraphs are applied using
the relation [ASTM E 1921]:
0.5
0
30
ys
Jc
Eb
K
o (
s
(

(5.6)
where E is the Youngs modulus, b
0
is the remaining ligament depth and o
ys
is the yield stress (at
the relevant test temperature and strain rate). This is to ensure sufficient constraint at the crack
tip. A lower toughness limit of 50 MPa\m is imposed, because at the lower shelf and low
temperatures, there is a change in the cleavage triggering mechanism and size effects are
considered unimportant below a toughness value of 50 MPa\m and hence for application of
ASTM E-1921 procedure test conditions are chosen such that values much above the lower
cut-off limit, preferably close to or above 100 MPa\m are obtained, a condition difficult to be
met in small specimens, especially Charpy size specimens. It may be noted that Eq. (5.6)
pertains to plane stress formulation as was available in the earlier ASTM E1921 versions;
in the latest revisions (for example, ASTM E 1921-05) this has been changed to the plane
strain formulation, i. e., the denominator in the RHS of Eq. (5.6) is 30*(1
2
) instead of 30.
136
Similarly, for conversion of J to K
Jd
, the plane stress formula has been used instead of the
plane strain one recommended in the latest revision of ASTM E1921.
5.4. Multi temperature equation for T
0
To compute T
0
from six or more valid K
JC
results obtained at different temperatures, the
following the multi-temperature equation has been proposed:
4
0 min 0
5
1 1
min 0 min 0
exp{0.019( )} ( ) exp{0.019( )}
0
[31 77exp{0.019( )}] [31 77exp{0.019( )}]
i n n
i i JCi i
i i
i i
T T K K T T
K T T K T T
o
=
= =

=
+ +

(5.7)
where the Kronecker o
i
= 1 for valid data and 0 for censored data. K
min
= 20 MPa\m.
Censoring is done as described for the single temperature case: for size validity Eq. (5.6) is used;
for crack growth violation the highest valid value in the data set is used. Then the values are 1
size corrected using Eq. (5.2) before using Eq. (5.7) for computing T
0
. It may be noted that
ASTM E 1921 restricts the test temperatures to within 50
0
C of the actual T
0
. Also, for the
multi-temperature case, considering increased inaccuracies from data generated between
(T
0
-50) and (T
0
-14), an additional criterion for sufficient number of specimens has been
specified as follows:
3
i i
1
1 (5.8)
i
rn
=
>

Where r
i
is the number of valid specimens within the i-th temperature range, (T - T
0
), n
i
is the
specimen weighing factor for the same temperature range as given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Weighing-Factors for Multi-Temperature Anaysis
(T - T
0
) Range,
0
C 1T K
JC(limit)
range, MPam Weight Factor, n
i
.
50 to -14 212 to 84 (1/6)
-15 to -35 83 to 66 (1/7)
-36 to -50 65 to 58 (1/8)
The exact procedure for treatment of censored data is slightly different from that for the single
temperature case, and is detailed in Sections 10.4.1 and 10.4.2 of ASTM E 1921-05. Values
censored due to crack growth limitation are not size corrected.
137
5.5. Master Curve equations
The following equations [ASTM E 1921] are used for computing the Master Curve and the 5%
and 95% tolerance bounds (TB) from T
0
:
0
(median) = 30 + 70exp(0.019( ))
JC
K T T (5.9)
0
(5% TB) = 25.4 + 37.8exp(0.019( ))
JC
K T T (5.10)
0
(95% TB) = 34.6 + 102.2exp(0.019( ))
JC
K T T (5.11)
The general equation for the tolerance bounds is given by Eq. (5.11a) [T20]:
1
4
JC(0.xx) 0
1
= 20 + ln {11+77exp[0.019( )]}
1 0.
K T T
xx
( | |

| (

\ .
(5.11a)
where 0.xx represents the cumulative probability level: 0.5, 0.05, 0.95 and 0.01 being the values
for the median (50%), 5%, 95% and 1% TB, respectively. In fact, the 1% TB curve falls closer to
the ASME lower-bound K
IC
.
5.6. DETERMINATION OF T
0
AND MC FOR A 9Cr-1Mo STEEL EXAMPLE [B28]
This example illustrates, the reference temperature, T
0
, and the Master Curve (MC) determined for
the 9Cr-1Mo base material following ASTM E 1921 guidelines using instrumented pre-cracked
Charpy (PCVN) tests. As the ASTM E 1921 generally determines T
0
in the static/quasi-static
regime, the result obtained in this study is termed as T
0
dy
signifying dynamic conditions.
For developing a dynamic Master Curve for the 9Cr-1Mo steel base material, the Master Curve
equations corresponding to static/quasi static cases are used (see previous Sections); only the
static toughness terms are replaced by the dynamic counterpart, i.e., K
Jd
.
5.6.1. T
0
dy
from Pre-Cracked Charpy Test (PCVN) [B28]
The experimental/computational steps involved in determining T
0
dy
are shown in the flow chart
given in Fig. 5.2.
The dynamic reference temperature, T
0
dy
is determined using the pre-cracked Charpy specimens
following ASTM E 1921 guidelines. To minimise the oscillations in the load signals (common in
high speed tests see Chapter 6, Section 6.1 for a more detailed description of instrumented
impact test), the initial T
0
dy
was determined by tests conducted at a reduced impact test velocity
138
of ~1.12 m/s; this was further converted to T
0
dy
at 5.12 m/s, the normal impact velocity, by
estimating the shift in T
0
dy
with change in test velocity from some empirical formulae.
Fig. 5.2. Flow-chart for T
0
determination [B28].
K
Jd
from 10x10x55 PCVN
specimens were determined at
~1.12 m/s at 50 C
Validity limit criteria was
applied following ASTM E
1921
From both the valid and invalid K
Jd
values, K
0
was determined and then
size corrected to 1 inch following
ASTM E 1921
Using K
0
, K
Jd
(med) and T
0
dy
were
computed as per
ASTM E 1921
T
0
dy
at 1.12 m/s was converted to
T
0
dy
at 5.12 m/s applying suitable
shift equation.
Master Curve-Dynamic
Fracture Toughness Test,
was constructed using T
0
dy
at
5.12 m/s, following ASTM E
1921
Weibull Plot was constructed
using both the valid and
invalid K
Jd
values following
ASTM E 1921
139
Fig. Typical load-displacement record from the low-blow test
of a PCVN BM specimen
Load-point displacement, d/mm
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
L
o
a
d
,
P
/
k
N
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
P
GY
P
F
P-d trace
Linear Fit
(initial elastic part of P-d trace)
Sp. No.: 91BM19; Test Temp.: -50
0
C
V
0
= 1.103 m.s
-1
; a
0
= 4.601 mm
Fig. 5.3 Typical load displacement trace [B28].
Though ASTM E-1921 gives approximate test temperatures for quasi-static tests with reference
to 28 J Charpy energy, (T
28J
), such guidelines are not available for dynamic loading conditions.
However, it suggests that the test temperature should be selected such that it yields fracture
toughness values corresponding to 1 inch thickness specimens, close to 100 MPa\m. As per this
guideline, following some trial and error tests, starting from the T
28J
temperature, the test
temperature was chosen as 50 C.
Figure 5.3 shows a typical load-displacement plot for the 9Cr-1Mo base material, obtained from
a PCVN test at 50 C using instrumented Charpy impact test (Instrumented Charpy Impact Test
is described in more detail in Chapter 6). This shows clear elastic-plastic fracture with substantial
work-hardening before the fracture. Using these traces, the K
Jd
values for the 10x10x55 size
PCVN specimens are determined following ASTM E 1921 procedures. The test temperature, test
velocity, validity criterion (Eq. 5.6) and 1 inch size corrected K
Jd
values are reported in
Table. 5.2. Two tests were conducted at a hammer velocity of 5.12 m/s, at 20 C and the
corresponding results are also shown in Table 5.2. Both valid and censored data are used for
computing T
0
dy
. In the present results only size correction was involved, no violation of crack
growth requirements. Invalid data (only 2 out of 10 in the present case) are replaced by the
validity limit calculated by Eq. (5.6).
Probability values, p
f
, are assigned to K
Jd
values following Eq. (5.12) [ASTM E 1921] after they
are ranked in the order of increasing magnitude.
140
p
f
= (i 0.3)/(N + 0.4) (5.12)
In Eq. (5.12), p
f
is the cumulative probability of failure, i is the rank of corresponding K
Jd
value
(i =1 for the lowest K
Jd
and i =N for the highest K
Jd
), N is the total number of K
Jd
values, 10 in
the present case. The p
f
, and the Weibull plot points are reported in Table 5.3.
The scale parameter of the Weibull distribution, K
0
, is estimated following Eqn. (5.3). For all the
K
Jd
values (not 1 inch size corrected) obtained at 50 C, K
0
is determined as 149.65 MPa\m.
This was further corrected for 1 inch size using Eqn. (2) as 122.70 MPa\m. The median K
Jd
was
calculated with Eqn. (4), using the K
0
as 122.70 MPa\m. Thus, the K
Jd
(median) was determined
as 113.71 MPa\m. With the test temperature as 50 C and the determined K
Jd
(median) value,
the T
0
dy
was determined using Eqn. (5) as 59.4 C. The Weibull plot is shown in Fig. 5.4.
The regression line, with a slope 4 was fitted to the data points (shown in Fig. 5.4) and the trend
of the data points with respect to the slope 4 line are seen to be in conformity with the ASTM E
1921 proposition.
Table 5.2. K
Jd
results from PCVN tests for the 9Cr-1Mo steel, base material,
at impact velocity of ~1.12 m/s [B28].
Specimen
No.
Test
Te-
mp/
C
Initial
test
velocity
V
0
/m.s
-1
Initial
crack
length,
a
0
/ mm
K
Jd
/
MPa.\m
o
yd
/
MPa
Validity
limit/
MPa.\m
Validity
results
1 inch size
corrected
K
Jd
/
MPa.\m
91BM11 70 1.08 4.408 57.8 - - - 50.0
91BM13 55 1.07 4.427 56.4 - - - 48.8
91BM12 50 1.11 4.505 137.1 717.3 166.1 Valid 112.8
91BM14 50 1.11 4.395 162.3 707.6 166.6 Valid 132.7
91BM15 50 1.15 4.707 187.0 742.6 165.9 Invalid 152.2*
91BM16 50 1.15 4.383 83.5 713.6 167.5 Valid 70.3
91BM17 50 1.13 4.61 118.9 745.6 167.7 Valid 98.3
91BM18 50 1.14 4.541 P
F
not
clear
717 165.6 - -
91BM19 50 1.10 4.601 243.9 721.6 165.2 Invalid 197.3*
91BM10 50 1.10 4.805 60.00 P
F
<
P
GY
- Valid 51.7
91BM20 50 1.13 4.885 163.00 762.5 165.2 Valid 136.4
91BM8 50 1.11 5.095 70 P
F
<
P
GY
- Valid 60
91BM9 50 1.13 4.632 134.0 712.1 163.6 Valid 110.3
91BM21 20 5.12 4.870 286.7 779.7 166.7 Invalid 230.6*
91BM22 20 5.12 4.625 296.5 789.2 171.6 Invalid 233.4*
* 1 inch size corrected from invalid K
Jd
141
Table 5.3. K
Jd
, cumulative probability of failure (p
f
) and the Weibull plot points [B28]
Rank K
Jd
,
MPa\m
p
f
Weibull Plot Points
X-axis
ln (K
Jd
-20)
Y-axis
ln{ln[1/(1-p
f
)]}
1 60.0000 0.0637 3.6889 2.6638
2 70.5000 0.1635 3.922 1.7233
3 83.5281 0.2596 4.1515 1.2020
4 118.8664 0.3558 4.5938 0.8217
5 133.3748 0.4519 4.7307 0.5086
6 137.1293 0.5481 4.7633 0.2304
7 160.7989 0.6442 4.9473 0.0329
8 162.2600 0.7404 4.9577 0.2990
9 165.1581 0.8367 4.9778 0.5940
10 165.8971 0.9327 4.9829 0.9927
FIg. 5.4. The Weibull plot with all the K
Jd
data, obtained from
PCVN test at 50 C with hammer velocity of ~1.12 m/s [B28].
As the PCVN tests were conducted at a reduced velocity of ~ 1.12 m/s, to account for the test
velocity effect on the reference temperature, T
0
, the shift in T
0
, associated with the change in test
velocity or the stress intensity factor rate is given by Eq. (5.13) [B44].
0 2 4 6 8
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
fit with slope 4
l
n
{
l
n
[
1
/
(
1
-
p
f
)
]
}
ln(K
Jd
-20)
142
(22 0.016 ) log (22 0.016 ) log
ref ref
y y
test test
K V
T
K V
o o
- -
- -
A ~ ~
(5.13)
where o
y
is the yield stress at the test temperature/strain rate (660 MPa in the present case).
Applying these results in the Eqn. (5.13), for tests at 1.12 and 5.12 m/s, the T
0
yielded a shift of
7.5 C based on velocity based estimation. So, the T
0
dy
corresponding to test velocity of 5.12 m/s
was estimated as T
0
dy
(at ~1.12 m/s) + 7.5
O
C = 51.9 C.
Thus, T
0
dy
(at 5.12 m/s) = 51.9
O
C~ 52 C
The Master Curve at test velocity of 5.12 m/s is plotted using T
0
dy
as 52 C as shown in
Fig. 5.5.
Fig. 5.5. A Comparison of Master Curves (Dynamic) and K
IR
Curve 9Cr-1Mo Steel: T
0
dy
= -52 C, RT
NDT
= -25 C [B28].
Comment: ASME K
IR
Curve is unrealistically Conservative Compared to the Trend of Dynamic
Fracture Toughness Variation as Shown by the Master Curve in Dynamic Condition.
143
Typical Calculation of K
Jd
for Specimen No. 19 Tested at -50 C (Fig. 5.3)
The relevant data obtained from the above load-displacement trace are:
Crack Length, a = 4.601 mm (9-point average crack length determination is illustrated for a C(T)
specimen in Fig. 5.1)
General Yield Load, P
GY
= 7.4 kN.m; Brittle Fracture Load, P
F
= 8.63 kN and Total area up to P
F
under
the load-displacement trace, U = 8.42 J.
The initial compliance from the linear-elastic portion of the load-displacement trace,
C
T
= 0.0358 mm/kN (= reciprocal of initial slope)
ASTM E 1921 Standard specifically uses the plane stress version of Eq. (4.3.1) for computing K
JC
or K
Jd
(for dynamic tests as in the present case). This requires separation of the total energy into elastic and
plastic parts. In the present test, there is no physical crack extension observed prior to brittle cleavage
fracture at P
F
, except crack tip blunting and some miniscule stretch zone formation at the crack tip.
Plastic energy, U
p
l = U (1/2)(P
F
)(d
el
) = U (1/2)*P
F
*C
T
*P
F
= 8.42 (1/2)*0.0358*8.63*8.63 = 8.25
1.47 = 7.1 J
Therefore, plastic part of J, J
p
l = 1.9*U
pl
/(Bb) = 1.9*6.78/(10*(10-4.601)) = 0.250 J.mm
-2
.
It may be noted that in computing J
pl
, the multiplication factor used is 1.9 instead of the usual 2.0 (see Eq.
(4.3.1)) and this is as given in the ASTM E 1921 standard.
The elastic part, J
el
is obtained from J
el
= K
2
/E, where K is evaluated using the 3PB specimen formula (see
Fig. 2.1) at load P
F
= 8.62 kN and a = 4.601 mm.
K at P
F
= 81.3 MPam and E = 210.1 GPa and J
el
= 0.0314 J.mm
-2
. Therefore, total J
C
= 0.25 + 0.0314 =
0.281 J.mm
-2
. Then, K
Jd
= EJ
C
= 243 MPam, subscript d signifies dynamic test.
Dynamic yield stress,
Yd
= 2.85P
GY
*W/(Bb
2
) for a precracked specimen (for unprecracked specimen, the
factor 2.85 is replaced by 2.99). Substituting the values of W = B = 10 mm and others as given above,
Yd
= 724 MPa, the subscript d signifies the dynamic test.
Now the ASTM E1921 Standard validity condition is,
K
Jd
(Eb
Yd
) = [(210000*(10-4.601)*723/(30*1000))]
0.5
= 165 MPam.
Hencethepresent result isinvalid.
144
5.7. APPLICATION OF THE ASME CODE CASES N-629 AND N-631 [B28]
ASME Code Case N-631 (Section III) defines RT
T0
for unirradiated reactor vessel material,
while ASME Code Case N-629 (Section XI) defines RT
T0
for unirradiated and irradiated reactor
vessel material. This new reference temperature is defined as:
RT
T0
= T
0
+ 19.4
0
C (5.14)
RT
T0
is the equivalent of RT
NDT
for utilizing the ASME lower-bound (LB) K
IC
and K
IR
curves
(Eqs. (3.3.2) and (3.3.1), respectively). Since, presently, the design is based on ASME curves
based on RT
NDT
, and as the familiarization with and transition to the new ASTM E 1921 based
MC approach will take time (including further validation), this procedure has been proposed.
5.8. A NEW UPPER-SHELF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MASTER CURVE (USFTMC or
USMC) FOR FERRITIC STEELS [B14 to B16]
The current Appendix G (ASME) method does not consider upper shelf toughness behavior in
calculating a resistance toughness. The implementation of a model for fracture toughness on the
upper-shelf will be necessary to ensure that appropriate toughness values are used at all
temperatures of interest. For ferritic steels, the master curve (MC) proposed by Wallin
characterizes the median fracture toughness and its scatter in the transition regime; the ASTM E
1921 reference temperature, T
0
, locates the MC on the temperature axis. However, this MC
neither does define the upper-shelf nor it quantifies the US fracture toughness. Recently, based
on some theoretical models, a new MC has been proposed that quantifies US fracture toughness;
moreover, an empirically defined upper-shelf start temperature (T
US
) has been correlated to the
ASTM E 1921 reference temperature (T
0
). These correlations are given below:
2
US 0
with the temperatures in C and R = 0.99
50.1 + 0.79 (5.15) T T =

The USFTMC is given by Eq. (5.16):


{ }
( ) - (288 C) 1.75 exp ( 273.15) + ( 273.15) ln
IC IC 1 2 3 ref
J T J C C T C T c o
-
= + =
( | |
|
(
\ .

(5.16)
where, T
ref
= 288 C (or 561 K), C
1
= 1033 MPa, C
2
= 0.00698/K, C
3
= 0.000415/K,

= 0.0004/sec and
ref
= 3.33 MPa.
145
Thus, Eqs. (5.15) and (5.16) together with the ASTM E 1921 MC provide a complete description
of fracture toughness from lower-shelf through all the way to the upper-shelf based only on
determination of the single index of reference temperature (T
0
). Figure 5.6 illustrates these
concepts for an A533B reactor pressure vessel steel (RPV).
Fig. 5.6. Comparison of Model Predictions of Transition and Upper-Shelf Fracture
Toughness (Based Only on T
0
) with Experimental Results for a Low-Transition
Temperature A533B Steel [B14].
Using these equations it is possible to estimate the complete variation of initiation fracture
toughness with temperature in both the transition regime and on the upper shelf based only on a
measurement of To. The USFTMC method is summarized in the next Box for easy
reference.
146
UPPER-SHELF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS MASTER CURVE (USFTMC or
USMC) CALCULATION PROCEDURE
Step 1. Estimate T
0
using ASTM E 1921.
Step 2. Convert the mean toughness curve from ASTM E 1921 in Step 1 to J units by:
{ }
2
2
0
C
30 70 exp(0.019( )) (1 ) T T
J
E
u +
= ,
where E = (207200 - 0.057T), T is in C and = 0.3.
Step 3. Calculate T
US
using the T
0
from Step 1 in Eq. (5.15).
Step 4. Calculate J
C
at T
US
(from Step 3) using the Eq. from Step 2. Call this J
C(US)
.
Step 5. Calculate J
IC
at T
US
using Eq. (5.16) and call this J
IC(US)
.
Step 6. Let J
ADJUST
= {J
C(US)
- J
IC(US)
} using J
C(US)
from Step 4 and J
IC(US)
from Step 5.
Step 7. The variation of J
IC
with temperature can be estimated as follows:
IC 1 2 3 ADJUST
= 2.09 exp ( 273.15) ( 273.15) ln
T
ref
J C C T C T J c o
( | |
+ + + +
` |
(
\ . )

The complete variation of initiation fracture toughness with temperature is now defined in both
the transition regime where failure occurs by cleavage (using the equation for Jc in Step 2) and
on the upper shelf where failure occurs by microvoid coalescence (using the equation for JIc in
Step 7). Conversion of these equations to K-units can be made by using the conventional
relationship between J and K in plane strain (Eq. (4.1)).
5.9. Effect of strain rate or stress intensity factor rate (SIF) rate on T
0
[B55]
If T
0
is known, estimates of T
0
dy
(reference temperature under dynamic loading conditions) can
be made using Wallins strain rate shift equation [K. Wallin and T. Planman. Effect of strain rate on
the fracture toughness of ferritic steels. IAEA Specialist Meeting on Master Curve Testing, Results and
Applications. 17-19 Sept., 2001, Prague, Czech Republic, 12 pages and E. Lucon and R. Chaouadi.
(2002) Radiation damage assessment by the use of dynamic fracture toughness measurements on
precracked Charpy V notch specimens. Effects of Radiation on Materials: 20
th
Int. Symposium. ASTM
STP 1405, (Eds.) S. T. Rosinski, M. L. Grossbeck, T. R. Allen and A. S. Kumar, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2002 as in [61], pp. 68-78.], Eqs. (5.17).
147
1.09
1.66
0
dy 0
0
= 9.9exp (5.17a)
190 722
and
.
=
( ln )
ys
T
T
T
K
o
-
(
| |
| |
I + (
| |
\ . ( \ .

I
I
(5.17b)
where T
0
is the quasi-static (stress intensity factor SIF- rate ~ 1 MPam.s
-1
) reference
temperature and the SIF rate in Eq. (5.17b),
-
K , is the dynamic rate, approximately equal to 10
4
to 10
5
MPam.s
-1
for low velocity tests at 1 to 2 m.s
-1
and 10
6
MPam.s
-1
for the normal
velocity impact tests at ~5 m.s
-1
. The yield stress in Eq. (5.17a) is the room temperature YS,
taking dynamic SIF rate as 10
6
MPam.s
-1
. Expressions for variation of yield stress with
temperature and strain rate are given in Section 6.1.2 (under Modified Schindler Procedure
MSP).
148
Chapter 6 Instrumented Charpy Impact Test, Charpy-
Fracture Toughness Correlations and Reference Temperature
Prediction
6.1. Instrumented Charpy Impact Test
6.1.1. Introduction
Results of instrumented precracked Charpy tests were analysed in Chapter 5 for evaluating the
fracture toughness and reference temperature under dynamic loading conditions of an impact
test. The fracture toughness obtained from these dynamic tests, called dynamic fracture
toughness, is denoted by K
Id
or K
Jd
depending on whether the result is obtained in LEFM mode
or Elastic-Plastic mode; in Fig. 5.2 the test specimen was showing elastic-plastic mode and hence
J
d
value and K
Jd
were obtained. The use of additional instrumentation (typically an instrumented
tup) allows a standard Charpy impact machine to monitor the analog load-time response of
Charpy V-notch specimen during deformation and fracturing. The primary advantage of
instrumenting the Charpy test is the additional information obtained while maintaining low cost,
small specimens, and simple operation. The most commonly used approach is application of
strain gages to the striker to sense the load-time behavior of the test specimen. In some cases,
gages are placed on the specimen as well, such as for the example shown in Fig. 6.1.
In instrumented impact test (IIT), often semi-conductor strain gauges are used to obtain large
signal to noise ratio. A typical load (P) displacement (d) trace for a ferritic steel is shown in
Fig. 6.2 with the various energy and load features marked. At the brittle fracture load, cleavage
and fast fracture occurs and this gets arrested at the arrest load. Figure 6.3 shows a typical series
of load-time traces from IIT of CVN specimens of a carbon steel: at the lower-shelf, the fracture
is purely linear-elastic with sudden brittle failure occurring at the maximum load corresponding
to 100% cleavage, while as the tests progresses through to the upper shelf, general yielding
precedes cleavage fracture and, ultimately, at the upper shelf, the traces do not show any fast
fracture. Such traces can be analysed for obtaining what is called the load-temperature diagram
shown schematically in Fig. 6.4. The fracture mechanisms in the various regions are also
summarized.
OUTLINE
Instrumented Impact Test (IIT) - Brief Outline; Data Reduction from IIT;
Charpy-Fracture Toughness Correlations Old and New; Prediction of
Reference Temperature; Illustrated Examples on IIT Data Reduction,
Comparison of Fracture Toughness Predictions from IIT, Correlations and
Master Curve. Refs. [B48], [B49], [B54], [B55] [B56], [B56], [B60] to
[B62], [B38], [B40], [B19], [B47], [B36], [B66], and [T18]
149
Fig. 6.1. Charpy specimen with additional instrumentation at the supports [T18]
Fig. 6.2. Typical load (P) displacement (d) trace from an instrumented impact test (IIT) [T18]
150
With reference to Fig. 6.4., above the temperature T
D
, called the brittleness transition
temperature corresponding to the intersection of the brittle fracture load (P
F
= P
m
without any
general yield at temperatures lower than T
D
) curve with the general yield load (P
GY
) curve.
General yield represents a situation where plastic deformation starting at the V-notch spreads
across the remaining ligament below the V-notch. Dynamic yield stress (
yd
) corresponding to
the loading rate in an impact tested CVN specimen (at the usual impact velocity of ~ 5 m/s the
strain rate ~ 1000 s
-1
) can be obtained from the P
GY
values. More importantly, the P
F
= P
GY
values at T
D
can be used to obtain (as shown later) the microcleavage stress,
f
, a constant for a
particular steel (especially at low temperatures) and is related to fracture toughness, and hence an
important fundamental parameter controlling micro-fracture processes.
Fig. 6.3. A typical series of IIT load-time traces using CVN specimens for a carbon
steel over its DBTT range ( 1 ft-lb = 1.356 J;
0
C = (
0
F 32)*5/9)
[B48, DynaTup Product Data Sheets (IGCAR-1979)].
151
For dynamic loading, the dynamic yield stress (DYS),
yd
, and flow stress,
fl
, of standard
Charpy V-notch (CVN blunt-notched, not precracked) specimens can be estimated for post
general yield behavior as:
GY
yd 2
GY m
fl 2
2.99 (6.1.1a)
and
2
2.99
P W
Bb
P P
W
Bb
o
o
=
+ | |
|
\ .
= (6.1.1b)
Fig. 6.4. Typical load-temperature diagram for a ferritic steel obtained from IITs of CVN
specimens over the transition region (see R. A. Wullaert (1970) in Impact Testing of Metals,
ASTM STP 466)
152
where general yield load, P
GY
, and maximum load, P
m
, are as indicated in Fig. 6.2; W is the
specimen width and b is the remaining ligament depth, (W a). For a standard CVN specimen
W = 10 mm and a = 2 mm. For precracked specimen the constant 2.99 is replaced by 2.85.
Additional strength and toughness values from IIT
Apart from DYS (o
yd
), microcleavage fracture stress (
f
), the load-temperature
diagram and the DBTT based on it, T
D
, described above, the following parameters can
also be obtained from an IIT.
- Dynamic fracture toughness: K
Id
(linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) parameter)
- Elastic-Plastic Fracture toughness: J
Id
/J
id
or critical crack tip opening displacement
(CTOD) dynamic J calculation for precracked CVN (PCVN) specimens was
demonstrated in Chapter 5.
- Fracture appearance from the analysis of P-d traces as in Fig. 6.3, empirical formulae
have been obtained to calculate the Fracture Appearance and therefrom the DBTT, called,
Fracture Appearance Transition Temerature (FATT) conventionally, FATT is obtained
by analysis of fracture surfaces of broken CVN specimens using low magnification
macro-photographs (see, ASTM E23 standard)
- Reference Temperature from T
4kN
, where T
4kN
is the temperature at which IIT load-
time(or displacement) traces show an arrest load P
a
= 4 kN
- Reference Temperature, T
0
, through advanced correlations
- Testing PCVN specimens gives lowerbound fracture toughness values for ferritic steels
- Computerised acquisition and processing of data with new analysis procedures can
help determine initiation J values (J
i
) from both CVN and PCVN specimens and generate
the entire J-R curves (see Examples 4.3 and 4.7 in Chapter 4 for explanation of J-R
curves and J
i
)
A NOTE ON T
D
(brittleness transition temperature)
Physically, T
D
represents 100% cleavage fracture (end of the gross elastic region in the load-
temperature diagram) and whereas many of the Charpy energy indices like T
28J
, T
41J
etc.
mentioned later represent different amounts of cleavage or ductile fracture that varies depending
on the type of steel. Hence, T
D
is said to be capable of truly reflecting the change in DBTT of
steels resulting from neutron irradiation or ageing embrittlement. Recently, Chaouadi [B11] has
correlated T
D
to T
0
and a fit to his data gives: T
0
= 1.53T
D
+ 39.95, where T
0
is the ASTM E
1921 reference temperature. It is also claimed that shift in T
D
(T
D
) correlates with irradiation
induced shift in T
0
.
153
Figure 6.5 gives a schematic variation of fracture toughness (LEFM) of ferritic steels with
loading rate at higher loading rates the fracture toughness is called dynamic fracture toughness.
For ferritic steels increased strain rates result in higher strength, reduced ductility and reduced
toughness. Table 6.1.1 gives an idea of the strain rates or loading rates involved in some
common fracture toughness tests.
6.1.2. Calculation Procedures in Instrumented Charpy Impact Test ([B45], [B53], [B50], [T18])
Load-time data processing
In computerized systems, the load (P)-time (t) data are acquired by a high speed transient
recorder or digital storage oscilloscope (which is capable of capturing the signals at a fast or slow
rate according to the speed of the test) and converted to digital form for storage and further
processing by a computer (older systems record the P-t trace in an analogue storage oscilloscope
and a Polaroid photo of the signal is taken and the trace analysed manually not so efficient and
Fig. 6.5. Effect of loading rate on fracture toughness of ferritic steels
(Schematic 1 ksi\in = 1.099 MPa\m) [B6].
accurate). As is well known, the signal from the instrumented impact test is superimposed with
oscillations especially so in the case of precracked CVN (PCVN) tests at high velocity; this
results from inertial load and wave propagation effects related to the mechanics of the impact
test. To reduce the effects of these on the accuracy of the results, either advanced analysis
techniques called dynamic analysis are employed or tests are done at a reduced velocity.
154
Table 6.1.1. Strain rates or loading rates in some fracture tests [B50]
So a mathematical curve smoothing is done to obtain a sort of average load values. For example,
Fig. 6.2 is a record for a high speed test (~5.5 m/s) of a CVN specimen while Fig. 5.2 is the
record for a PCVN specimen tested at a reduced velocity (~ 1.1 m/s) with the smoothened curve
superimposed). General yield load, P
GY
, is determined as the load at the intersection of the initial
straight line portion of the P-d curve (representing elastic deformation) and the average curve
after the general yield as shown in both the Figs. (5.2) and (6.2). Dynamic yield stress (DYS),

yd
, and flow stress,
fl
, values are obtained from Eq. (6.1.1).
K
Id
and J
Id
/K
Jd
estimation by conventional methods [B45, B53, B50 and T18]
Based on observations like those in Fig. 6.3, P-t or P-d traces can be classified into three types as
shown in Fig. 6.6. Type I failure is brittle failure exhibiting no gross ligament plasticity or
general yielding. Type II failure shows plasticity up to maximum load and sudden failure on
reaching the peak load. Type III failure shows post maximum load plasticity before brittle failure
or complete ductile failure.
155
For Type I brittle failure, K
Id
(LEFM dynamic fracture toughness) is estimated using the ASTM
E 399 expression for the three point bend (TPB) specimens using an a/W=0.2 and the final
expression for K
1d
applicable to the standard CVN specimen is :
4.67 (6.1.2)
Id C
K P =
where the inertial corrected (see next paragraph for explanation) critical fracture load, P
C
, is in
kilonewtons (kN) and K
1d
is in MPam.
Critical fracture load P
C
is obtained from the brittle fracture load, P
F
, by applying corrections for
oscillations; correction by using so called Vargas procedure is illustrated in Fig.6.6 against the
Type-I P-t trace. Lower bound values of K
Id
are obtained by applying a multiplication factor of
0.8 to the values obtained from Eq. (6.1.2) using P
F
directly (instead of P
C
) the 0.8 factor may
account for notch acuity effects also at the lowest temperatures for a CVN specimen, because
standard CVN specimen is a blunt notched specimen.
For Type II P-d traces (Fig. 6.6), J
Id
is estimated by a J-integral approach using the relation
Id
0

(6.1.3)
A
J
B b

where q = 1.384 for a CVN specimen and A is the area under the P-d curve up to crack initiation
(for deep cracked TPB specimen with a/W = ~0.5, q = 1.9 (ASTM E1921) or 2 (ASTM E1820 or
E813)). The point corresponding to (P
m
+P
gy
)/2 is taken as the crack initiation point, where P
m
is
the maximum load on the P-d trace. J
Id
values are converted to K
Jd
values using
Jd Id
2
(6.1.4)
where ' = for plane stress and ' = for plane strain
(1 )
K E' J
E
E E E
u
=

The plane strain and plane stress values differ by 5% for a Poissons ratio of 0.3, thus the latter
gives conservative (that is, lower) values. Empirically, for blunt CVN specimens, lower bound
values of K
Id
are obtained by applying a multiplication factor of 0.65 to the values from
Eq. (6.1.4).
K
Jd
can also be calculated from CTOD. The total CTOD at initiation,
t
, is the sum of elastic
(
el
) and plastic (
pl
) parts given by:
156
TYPE- I
Fig. 6.6. Typical load-time (P-t) traces from instrumented Charpy impact tests (P
GY
,
P
max
, P
F
above are sometimes referred to as P
gy
, P
m
and P
f
, respectively) [B53].
157
t el pl
2 2
pl
ys
(1 )
(6.1.5)
2
K v
E
o o o
o
o
= +

= +

where K is calculated from Eq. (6.1.1) (or the ASTM E399 expression for TPB specimen with
the appropriate a/W) using the load at the crack initiation point and for dynamic tests
ys
is
replaced by
yd
.
The plastic part of the CTOD for a CVN specimen is calculated using the following relatio
pl pl 0.16 (6.1.6) d o =
Then fracture toughness based on CTOD is given by:
yd t
Id
( 1.7 (6.1.7) K E o o o ) =
The CVN specimen lower bound value is given by applying a multiplication factor of 0.65 to the
results from Eq. (6.1.7). For deeply cracked PCVN specimens, CTOD can be obtained as
discussed in Section 4.5. For small specimens like Charpy specimens, using only the plastic
contribution in Eqs. (6.1.3) and (6.1.7) results in only negligible error.
For Type III P-d traces (Fig. 6.6) showing significant ductility and crack extension after
maximum load, taking crack initiation as for Type II traces will be ultra-conservative (i.e,
significantly underestimate the true J
Id
obtainable from precracked CVN specimens). So,
methods used in the literature like compliance changing rate or key-curve method can be applied
to identify crack initiation and extension. This aspect is not within the purview of this book.
K
Jd
and J
1d
estimation by the Modified Schindler Procedure (MSP) [B53 to B55]
For the power law J-R curve (see Examples 4.3 and 4.7 in Chapter 4 for explanation of the
J-R curves and J
i
) given by
( ) (6.1.8)
p
J H a = A
Schindler [15], by an analytical-empirical procedure, suggested a method for obtaining the
constants H and p from the following equations:
158
0
V mp 1
0
1-
( ) 2
( ) (6.1.9)
{ ( ) }
p
p
p
p
a
H C E
p B b
q
+
( | |
=
( |

\ .
mp 1
V
3
[1 ] (6.1.10)
4
E
p
C

| |
= +
|
\ .
where E
mp
is the plastic energy up to maximum load (see Fig. 6.2) and C
V
is the total CVN
energy, i.e, the impact energy and where q(a
0
) = 1.384 for a CVN specimen with a
0
= 2 mm. The
J by the Schindler procedure is referred to as J
Sch
; J from Schindler curve for a = 0.1 mm is
referred as J
Sch0.1
and the corresponding K is K
JSch0.1
.
Later, Schindler, based on further analysis, suggested that minimum J
Id
(J
MSP
MSP as defined
in the title to this Section)) can be obtained obtained from the following relation (this J
MSP
can be
converted to K
Jd-MSP
using Eq. (6.1.4)):
-3
V
MSP
V
fld
7.33 10
(6.1.11)
1 1.47 ( )
m C
J
C
o

=

where J is in Jmm
-2
,
fld
is the dynamic flow-stress (Eq. (6.1.1b)) and m is the power-law
exponent given by
( )
yd
log log60
10 (6.1.12) n
o
=
Knowing n alone from
yd
, the ratio of o
maxd
/o
yd
(or equivalently a ratio of P
m
/P
gy
) can be
estimated using Eq. (6.1.13) given below [B55]:
2 3
(6.1.13) = 0.9867 + 1.6647 + 19.137 - 6.6306 p n n n
where the load ratio p = P
m
/P
gy
(or o
maxd
/o
yd
) usually is in the range of 0.8 to 2.0. For variation
with temperature of the Youngs modulus, E, the following relation has been used (with E in
GPa and temperature T is in C) [B55]:
= 207.2-0.0571 (6.1.14) E T
When yield load data is not available, the variation of static yield stress can be estimated from
the following equation [B55]:
-4 2 -7 3
ys
= 6.895 (73.62-0.0603 +1.32 10 -1.16 10 ) (6.1.15) T T T o
159
where T is in F (F = C*(9/5) + 32) and o
ys
is in MPa. The results from Eq. (6.1.15) must be
scaled using known YS values for the particular steel at one or two temperatures. For example, at
room temperature (RT) of 25 C, YS value computed from Eq. (6.1.15) ~ 480 MPa; then for a
steel with actual RT YS value of 580 MPa, the scaling factor computed (based on RT YS) is
(580/480) approximately 1.21 and all the YS values computed over a range of temperature (say
the whole transition region) using Eq. (6.1.15) must be multiplied by 1.21 to yield the actual YS
values for the particular steel. If the YS values for a steel are known at two or three temperatures,
then the above procedure can be applied at each of these temperatures (i. e., calculating ratio of
known YS over the YS computed from Eq. (6.1.15)) and then determining an average scaling
factor to scale all the YS values from Eq. (6.1.15) over the temperature range of interest
usually, the transition temperature range for ferritic steels.
In the case of dynamic fracture toughness, corresponding dynamic yield stress values evaluated
from instrumented impact tests or estimated from Eq. (15) are employed. Dynamic yield stress
can be estimated from the following equation [B55].
yd ys-RT 10
666500
= + -190 (6.1.16)
( +273)*log(2*10 * ) T t
o o
where t is the fracture time in ms (usually taken as 0.1 ms for impact tests) and T is in C. The
values from Eq. (6.1.16) should be scaled using known values of dynamic yield stress at RT (see
the next paragraph) or at other temperatures as was suggested for the estimation of static yield
stress.
A good way to estimate the RT dynamic yield stress (
yd-RT
) is to apply the empirical relation
Eq. (6.1.17) - to obtain the RT dynamic general yield load (P
gy-RT
dy
as will be obtained from
instrumented Charpy V-notch tests) from the easily available RT static yield stress (
ys-RT
). The
empirical equation for estimating P
gy-RT
is as follows [H. Mathy and T. Greday. Interpretation of the
impact strength transition of structural steels by means of instrumented Charpy tests. C.R.M. Report No.
52, C.R.M. (Centre De Recherches Metallurgiques), Liege, Belgium (Reprinted by Effects Tech. Inc.)
(May 1978) [B55]]:
dy
gy-RT ys-RT
(N) 6300 14.8 (6.1.17) P o = +
where
ys-RT
is in MPa and
yd-RT
is estimated from the P
gy-RT
dy
using Eq. (6.1.1a).
The general procedure that can be adopted for evaluation of results from IIT of CVN specimens
is to obtain the lower-bound estimate for each specimen taking the lowest value from the
estimates obtained using the equations given in the various sub-sections of Section 6.1.2. This
will be illustrated later.
160
6.2. Fracture Toughness Correlations with Charpy Energy and other Parameters
6.2.1. Direct Charpy energy (C
V
) temperature - T
0
Correlations
One of the simplest and direct correlations is that between the temperature for 28 J C
V
energy,
T
28J
, and T
0
[B56] as given by Eq. (6.2.1) (all temperatures in this section are C):
0
0 28J
18 ( = 15 C) (6.2.1)
est
T T o

=
Subsequently, the above has been revised by many authors.
Similarly, based on T
41J
, the following correlations have been given [B56]:
0
0 41J
0 1 41J
26 ( = 25 C) (6.2.2)
with conservative estimate given by
- 1
est
T T
T T
o
o

=
= (6.2.2a)
Equation (6.2.2a) is recommended as a very conservative estimate.
6.2.2. Older CVN energy (C
V
) - K
IC
Correlations and T
0
estimates
The C
V
-K
IC
correlations examined in this paper are the following pertaining to the Charpy
transition region:
Rolfe, Novak and Barsom (RNB correlation [B38, B36, B6]) given by Eq. (6.2.5),
4 1.5 0.5
IC V
V
= ( .1000.(2.28).10 . ) (6.2.5)
(YS range = 270-1700 MPa; range 4 82 J)
K E C
C

=
where K
IC
is in MPam, E is the Youngs modulus in GPa and C
V
is the Charpy energy in J.
Sailors and Corten (SC correlation [B40, B36]) given by Eq. (6.2.6)
0.5
IC V
V
= 14.63 (6.2.6)
(YS range = 410-480 MPa; range 7 68 J)
K C
C =
Roberts lower-bound correlation (RLB correlation [B36]) given by Eq. (6.2.5),
0.63
IC V
= 8.47 (6.2.7) K C
161
Barsom and Rolfes K
d
-K
c
(dynamic to static fracture toughness) temperature shift (Barsom-
Rolfe Shift - BRS) procedure given by Eqs. (6.2.8a) and (6.2.8b) [B36, B6]:
0.5
d V
V
= (0.64 ) (6.2.8a)
(YS range = 250-345 MPa; range 2.7 61 J; in MPa; in MPa m)
K EC
C E K =
shifted CVN ys-RT
shifted CVN d
= - (119 - 0.12 ) (6.2.8b)
( = temperature after shift; CVN test temperature at which is
T T
T T K
o
=
d CVN IC shifted ys-RT
given by Eq. (6.2.8a); at = at ; = room temperature yield stress) K T K T o
Here a dynamic fracture toughness is computed and shifted to lower temperatures to give the
static values.
Marandez-Sanz Procedure [B36]
This procedure has been verified for C
V
50 J and involves the following steps:
- Determination of the impact CVN transition curve
- Calculation of K
IC
-T curve from C
V
using the following
correlations:
0.5
V
IC
IC v
= 19 (6.2.9)
where is in MPa m, is in MPa and is in J.
K C
K E C
- Calculation of T
K100
(temperature corresponding to K
IC
= 100 MPam) using the
correlation:
K100 28J
28J
= 9 +1.37 (6.2.10)
where is the 28 J Charpy temperature as described before.
T T
T
- Shift the K
IC
-T curve so that it passes through the coordinates: (T
K100
(
0
C), 100 MPam)
Another lower bound correlation for the lower-shelf and lower transition region is given by
Eq. (6.2.11) [B4]:
25 V
25
= 12 (6.2.11)
where is the estimated material fracture toughness in MPa m for a thickness
mat
mat
K C
K
V
of 25 mm
and Charpy energy ( ) is in J. C
162
Most of the above correlations and a large number of additional correlations compiled and
tabulated by Nevasmaa and Wallin [B69] are reproduced in Appendix Tables A1 to A3.
6.2.3. New Reference Temperature Correlations [B67, B68, B54, B55, B53]
(a) IGCAR Procedure
Methodology
2.1. Inverse Wallin Strain Rate Equation IWSRE
Recently, the author had prepared a paper [1] which provides an inverse relation to the Wallin
Strain Rate Equation (WSRE) [2,3] for estimating the reference temperature [4] at larger loading
rates (expressed in terms of stress-intensity factor - SIF - rates) from room temperature yield
stress and (quasi-)static reference temperature, T
0
[4]; the inverse relation is termed IWSRE.
IWSRE enables estimation of the quasi-static reference temperature from a knowledge of room
temperature yield stress and dynamic reference temperature, i.e., reference temperature
corresponding to faster loading or SIF rates. The T
QSch
dy
obtained from the application of the
modified Schindler procedure (MSP) to Charpy impact data was taken as the reference
temperature at a SIF rate of 10
6
MPam.s
-1
[1,5]. Then applying the T
QSch
dy
in the IWSRE along
with the RT-YS and the SIF rate of 10
6
MPam.s
-1
, results in an estimate of quasi-static T
0
,
namely, T
QMSP-IW
, the subscript indicating the use of both the MSP based T
QSch
dy
and the IWSRE
The IWSRE derived in [1] is given below:
125.98 0.409
dy
ys-RT
0
dy
0
0
' = -41.54exp (1a)
72.86 0.142
and
. '
= + 10
( ' ln )
T
T
T
K
o

-
(
| | | |
( I +
| |
( \ . \ .

I
I
0
(1b)
Correlation Coefficient, R =0.8801; Standard Error of Estimate, SEE = 20 C
wher
e the temperatures are in K, YS is in MPa and SIF rate is in MPam.s
-1
. For our purpose, T
0
dy
is
taken as T
QSch
dy
(which is obtained from Eq. (2)) and the corresponding SIF rate is taken as 10
6
MPam.s
-1
. The estimate of reference temperature from Eq. (1) is referred as T
QMSP-IW
, indicating
the application of both T
QSch
dy
(by the MSP) and the IWSRE.
2.2. T
QSch
dy
by the modified Schindler procedure (MSP)[1,5,7]
For ease of reference, it is appropriate to repeat the procedure for calculating T
QSch
dy
though the
same has been detailed in [1]. This simply involves use of the Schindler relation (Eq. (2)) [14-15]
for computing a dynamic initiation J, J
d
as modified in [1,5,7]:
163
3
V
V
fd
7.33 10
(2)
1 1.47 ( )
d
n C
J
C
o


=

where C
V
is the total Charpy V-notch (CVN) energy, i. e, the impact energy in J, J
d
is in Jmm
-2
,
n is the power-law exponent and
fd
is the dynamic flow stress; J
d
is converted to K
Jd
using the
usual relation (K
Jd
= EJ
d
: plane stress equation is used following the older ASTM E-1921
procedure as detailed in [1]). The dynamic work-hardening exponent is computed using the
following equation (Eq. (3)):
y
(log log60)
10 (3) n
o
=
where
y
=
yd
is in MPa [1,5,7]. In the absence of actual instrumented impact test load-
temperature data, the procedures for computing
yd
(dynamic yield stress) and
fd
are detailed in
[1,5,7].
Since, usually C
V
-T (temperature) data from impact tests are fitted to a continuous curve
(usually a Tanh or exponential curve for data excluding the upper-shelf values or even a best
fitting polynomial), the above procedure would yield a continuous series of K
Id
values extending
from the lower-shelf to the upper-shelf or upper cut-off value. The resulting K
Jd
data are
examined for validity by using the ASTM E 1921 equation [4]:
0.5
0
30
ys
JC
Eb
K
o (
s
(

(4)
where, in the case of dynamic tests, the corresponding dynamic quantities are used (for an
unprecracked CVN specimen, b
0
= 8 mm). Usually for the K
Jd
estimated from the C
V
values,
validity extends up to the upper-shelf or to much larger K
Jd
values than 100 MP\m. Then the K
Jd
values from the lower-shelf (only those above 50 MP\m) to the upper cut-off limit are size
corrected (to 1T equivalence) using the following ASTM E 1921 equation [4]:
0.25
(1T) ( )
1T
20 [ 20]
x
JC JC x
B
K K
B
| |
= +
|
\ .
(5)
Dynamic quantities are used for dynamic tests, and for a CVN specimen B
x
= 10 mm and B
1T
=
25.4 mm (1).
Then the T-K
Jd
pairs between 80 to 120 MP\m are selected and the reference temperature,
T
QSch
dy
, is computed using Wallins multi-temperature equation given below [4,1]:
4
0 min 0
5
1 1
min 0 min 0
exp{0.019( ) ( ) exp{0.019( )}
0
[31 77exp{0.019( )}] [31 77exp{0.019( )}]
i n n
i i Jd i
i i
i i
T T K K T T
K T T K T T
o
=
= =

=
+ +

(6)
164
where the Kronecker o
i
= 1 for valid data and 0 for non-cleavage or censored data and K
min
= 20
MP\m (usually for the range of dynamic fracture toughness values considered, validity is always
satisfied for the usual structural steels because of elevation in yield stress at faster loading rates).
For some low upper-shelf steels, there was saturation at the upper-shelf at or below the 100
MP\m. The way in which such cases are dealt with is discussed in detail in [1] as also later while
dealing with TSE5A Charpy data. In addition to applying the computed T
QSch
dy
to Eq. (1), a
direct correlation between T
0
and T
QSch
dy
was also derived in [1] as given in the next sub-section
(2.2a)
2.2a. T
QMSP
- T
0
estimate from the direct correlation between T
0
and T
QSch
dy
[1]
The final equation for evaluation of T
QMSP
(i.e., reference temperature estimate based on direct
correlation of T
QSch
dy
obtained by MSP with the measured reference temperature) is as given
below:
dy
QMSP QSch
0
-795 + 735.8exp(0.0011 ) (7)
Correlation Coefficient, R = 0.9521; Standard Error of Estimate, SEE = 19.9 C
T T =
2.2b. T
QSchW
- T
0
estimate based on both T
QMSP
and T
QMSP-IW
[1]
For reasons discussed in [1], it was suggested to take the larger of the two estimates, namely,
T
QMSP
and T
QMSP-IW
, as the final estimate based on the MSP and IWSRE procedures, and
designated T
QSchW
, signifying the use of MSP procedure originating from modifying an
expression due to Schindler and the IWSRE originating from modifying an expression due to
Wallin.
2.3. Other or older correlations/expressions used
2.3a. Charpy energy (C
V
) temperature - T
0
correlations [7,1]
A conservative estimate (at least for the older steels) is given by [7,1]:
Q41b 41J
(8) T T =
2.3b. T
QSLF
from Schindler like fit (SLF) procedure [7,1]
The K
IC
values (K
IC
= 100 MPam is likely to occur in the range C
V
= 30-70 J) are estimated
from the following relation:
165
V
IC
V
ys
'
(9)
1 ' ( )
A n C
K
C
B
o

=

where
the work hardening exponent n is determined from Eq. (3) using the static yield stress (
ys
) at the
particular temperature and A and B are fit constants. For the sake completeness, the fit
constants given in [7,1] as a function of room temperature yield stress (RT-YS:
ys-RT
) are
tabulated in Table A1 in Appendix-A. Thus, knowing RT-YS, A and B values for a particular
steel can be estimated from to enable computation of K
IC
values in the transition region. Then,
the temperature corresponding to a K
IC
= 100 MPam is determined as T
QSLF
, the SLF in the
subscript indicating Schindler like fit (similar to Eq. (2), but here directly correlated to K
IC
).
T
QSLF
is the equivalent of T
0
as discussed in [7,1].
2.3c. T
QM2
from the Mean 2 Procedure (M2P) [7,1]
The conclusion arrived in [7] was to take the mean of the two estimates, namely, T
Q41b
and T
QSLF
,
and designated, T
QM2
, as a consistent and assuredly, but not excessively, conservative, estimate
of reference temperature. The most conservative of the two, namely, T
Q41b
and T
QSLF
, was
recommended for the most conservative estimate.
2.3d. T
0
from the correlation based on the brittleness transition temperature, T
D
[6]
The brittleness transition temperature, T
D
, represents 100% cleavage fracture (end of the gross
elastic region in the load-temperature diagram [7,6]), whereas many of the conventional Charpy
energy indices like T
28J
, T
41J
etc. represent different amounts of cleavage or ductile fracture that
varies depending on the type of steel. Hence, T
D
is said to be capable of truly reflecting the
change in ductile brittle transition temperature (DBTT) of steels resulting from neutron
irradiation or ageing embrittlement. Recently, Chaouadi [6] had correlated T
D
to T
0
and a fit to
the data obtained in [1] gives Eq. (10).
T
QBT
= 1.5T
D
+ 40 (10)
where T
QBT
is the T
0
equivalent estimated from T
D
, the subscript indicating brittleness-
transition. It was also shown, in the limited cases examined in [1], that the shift in T
D
(T
D
)
correlates well with irradiation induced shift in T
0
and T
41J
. Chaouadi states that T
D
-correlation is
better, especially for the newer and advanced steels [6]. However, the general trend of the results
in [1] was, because of the problem of scatter and lack of robustness of the T
D
data for welds and
inhomogeneous materials, it was unsuitable for making an assuredly conservative estimate of
reference temperature.
2.4. Final comments on the methodology in Sections 2.1 to 2.3
It was shown in [1] that the estimate, T
QSchW
, is a reliable and conservative one, but not unduly
conservative as the RT
NDT
(except for some high reference temperature steels). Moreover, it was
demonstrated in [1] that even for a worst steel (that is, a steel having a very high transition
temperature), even with a less conservative T
QSchW
estimate (compared to T
QM2
or T
QBT
or known
166
T
0
), the adoption of the ASTM E-1921 1% MC produced a nearly lower-bounding curve. T
QM2
was suggested as a more assuredly conservative estimate. For steels with T
QSch
dy
greater than 60
C, applicability of T
QSchW
require further exploration and validation. The T
QBT
estimate is
promising, provided robust estimates of T
D
are available, which is not usually the case as was
shown in [1]. The final conclusion in [1] was to recommend T
QSchW
as the reference temperature
estimate (T
Q-est
) for steels with T
QSch
dy
60 C; for steels with T
QSch
dy
> 60 C, the larger of the
two estimates, namely, T
QSchW
and T
QM2
, was recommended as the reference temperature
estimate (T
Q-est
). This whole procedure, based on [1], is termed IGCAR-procedure (after the
initials of the authors organization Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research).
6.2.4. FATT-Master Curve (FATT-MC) approach for lower-bound fracture toughness [B53]
Because of the sharp transition and high scatter in fracture toughness in the transition region, for
engineering applications, a master curve (MC) or reference fracture toughness curve is used to
obtain a lower bound estimate of fracture toughness. One approach uses the 50% shear fracture
appearance temperature (FATT) for locating the master curve. Since, nowadays, MC refers to the
reference toughness curve indexed to the reference temperature T
0
determined by the recent
ASTM E 1921 standard, in this paper, the MC based on FATT is referred to as FATT-MC, to
avoid any confusion. The FATT-MC for low alloy Cr-Mo steels (especially for 2.25Cr-1Mo type
steel) is given by Eq. (6.2.21):
IC
IC-us
(99 % Conf.Curve) 0.0807 1.962 exp[0.0287 ( FATT)]
(for 233 K ( -FATT)) (6.2.21)
K
T
K
T
= +
>
0.623 0.406 exp[ 0.00286 ( FATT)]
( for 623 K (T-FATT) 233 K)
T = +
> >
where T is temperature in K. An expression for the FATT-MC for 2.25Cr-1Mo steel is not
available for dynamic test results. However, based on dynamic fracture toughness results of
A508/A533 steels, a 99% confidence FATT-MC given is given by the following expression
Eq. (6.2.22):
Id
Id-us
0.0545 0.1443 exp(0.0187 ( FATT))
(for 368 K ( -FATT)) (6.2.22)
1.1195-0.1674 exp(0.0022 ( -FATT))
K
T
K
T
T
= +
>
=
(for ( -FATT) 368 K) T >
This can be taken as the FATT master curve for predicting 99% confidence lower bound K
Id
.
The K
IC-us
, the upper-shelf fracture toughness (i.e., the fracture toughness at the upper-shelf
temperature, which is defined as the temperature at which CVN impact specimens first
167
experience zero-percent brittle fracture: the corresponding CVN energy is called the CVN-us), is
given by the modified Rolfe-Novak-Barsom upper-shelf (RNB-US) correlation (Eq. (6.2.23)):
2
IC-US V-US
0.2 0.2
0.6478 ( 0.0098) (6.2.23)
K C
o o
| |
=
|
\ .
where the fracture toughness is in MPa\m, C
V-US
is in J and yield strength,
0.2
, is in MPa. For
dynamic fracture toughness values, the corresponding dynamic yield strength should be used.
For obtaining the FATT, apart from direct measurement of PSF (percent shear fracture) on
fracture surfaces of the broken Charpy specimens as suggested in ASTM E23 method, several
empirical relations have also been proposed that relate PSF to the various load (P) values that
can be determined on the P-d traces of the IIT. The most widely used are the following:
f a
m m gy
PSF2 {1 } 100% (6.2.24a)
( )
P P
P P P

=
+
f a
m m gy
PSF3 {1 } 100% (6.2.24b)
0.5 ( )
P P
P P P

=
+
where, P
a
is the crack arrest load.
RNB-US correlation, Eq. (6.2.23), is not a lower-bound correlation.
6.2.5. Lower-bound estimate for upper-shelf fracture toughness
For Charpy upper-shelf (US) region (i. e., for this purpose defined as the temperature at above
which 100% shear fracture appearance is exhibited), a lower-bound estimate of US fracture
toughness is given by Eq. (6.2.25) [B4].
mat V
(MPa m) = 0.54 (J) + 55 (6.2.25) K C
The expression is recommended for C
V
60 J.
Recently Wallin [B61, B62] has derived a near-lower-bound correlation for predominantly ductile
fracture (especially applicable to Charpy US region) applicable in the temeperature region -100
to 300 C. In fact, this new correlation gives not only the initiation J-value, but also the J-a
tearing resistance curve (J-R curve) as a function of standard in the C
V
values in the US as a
function of temperature. The correlations are as given below:
168
m -2
1mm
[kJ.m , mm] (6.2.26) J J a = A
where
1.28 -2
1mm V-US
20
= 0.53 exp( ) [kJ.m , J, C] (6.2.27)
400
T
J C


and
ys 0.256
V-US
20
= 0.133 exp( ) + 0.03 [J, C, MPa] (6.2.28)
2000 4664
T
m C
o



For estimating J
IC
, Wallin [B61] provides the following relation:
1
IC IC
m
f 1mm
2
f ys
ys
+ 0.2 mm - ( ) (6.2.29)
2
150 MPa
with flow stress approximated by: . 1 +
J J
J o
o o
o
| |
(
|
~
(
|
(

\ .
Flow stress can also be obtained by the procedure described in Section 6.1.2 under Modified
Schindler Procedure (MSP).
169
6.3. Dynamic Fracture Toughness from Instrumented Drop-Weight Test [B49]
Drop-weight (DW) test for determining T
NDT
temperature was described in Section
3.3.2. Some labs have instrumented drop-weight testers with the tup or striker
instrumented with strain gauges as shown in Fig. 6.1 for an IIT machine. Figure 3.14
showed broken halves of a P-3 specimen tested at below the T
NDT
(Nil-Ductility
Transition Temperature-NDTT) temperature. Half of the same Fig. is reproduced in
Fig. 6.8, illustrating the semi-elliptical thumb-nail crack formed by the crack-starter
weld-bead. Based on available SIF solutions for such a crack, the equation for
calculation of K
Id
is given on the left column of Fig. 6.8; right column illustrates the
distinctitive load-time traces obtained above and below NDTT. For brittle fractures,
the measured fracture load, P
F
, and crack depth, a, K
Id
can be estimated.
Another useful empirical expression is that (K
Id
/
yd
) at T
NDT
= 0.074m.
170
Fig. 6.8. Dynamic fracture toughness measurement from an Instrumented DW Test [B49].
Illustrative Example 6.1:
CompleteI I T datafor aserviceexposed2.25Cr-1MoSteel [B53]
Table Ex.6.1.1. Test temperature, impact
energy, primary loads and PSF data from
instrumented impact tests on service-exposed
CVN specimens of 2.25Cr-1Mo steel
T
(K)
C
v
(J)
P
gy
(kN)
P
m
(kN)
P
f
(kN)
P
a
(kN)
Type of
P-d
trace
Measured
PSF
*
213 3 11.6 11.6 0 Type-I 0
213 5 11.6 11.6 0 Type-I 0
243 10 13.6 13.6 0 Type-I 0
243 11 13.7 13.7 0 Type-I 9.8
243 31 12.7 15.7 15.5 0 Type-I/II 0
258 45.5 11.5 16.0 16.0 0 Type-II 9.5
258 47 11.7 16.0 16.0 0 Type-II 6.2
258 78 11.7 16.2 15.0 0 Type-III 21.9
171
273 110 11.5 16.2 13.8 0 Type-III 26.6
273 78.5 11.5 16.0 15.5 0 Type-III 17.7
273 108 11.5 16.0 14.0 0 Type-III 27.1
283 105 11.0 16.0 14.2 0 Type-III 27.4
283 125 11.0 16.0 12.5 3 Type-III 41.0
283 125 11.3 15.8 13.2 0 Type-III 37.4
295.5 160 10.0 15.1 11.0 5.7 Type-III 56.7
295.5 160 10.2 15.3 10.8 2 Type-III 54.4
323 217 9.0 14.9 N.A N.A Type-III 68.2
323 214 9.0 14.8 9.0 2.8 Type-III 76.6
* PSF-Percent Shear Fracure Appearance
Table Ex.6.1.2 Various transition
temperatures and microcleavage fracture
stress obtained from instrumented Charpy
test for service-exposed 2.25Cr-1Mo steel
T
D
(
0
C)
T
28J
(
0
C)
T
68J
(
0
C)
T
41J
(
0
C)
T
0-Sch
dy
(
0
C)
T for 50%
PSF(FATT)
(
0
C)
o
f
(MPa
)
-35 -28 -9 -21 4 22 1561
NOTE: The various Charpy energy indices are from the mean curve fitted to the data.
Only for RT
NDT
smooth curve through the lowest values is taken.
Table Ex. 6.1.3 Displacements and energy values corresponding
to different crack initiation criteria determined from load-displacement
traces of instrumented impact test for service-exposed 2.25Cr-1Mo steel
T
(K)
d'
(mm)
d'
pl
(mm)
d
i
(mm)
d
i-pl
(mm)
E'
(J)
E'
pl
(J)
E
i
(J)
E
i-pl
(J)
213
P
PRS1
(
0
C)
P
PRS2
(
0
C)
T
0-PRS1
(
0
C)
T
0-PRS2
(
0
C)
T
0-SSP
(
0
C)
T
0-28
(
0
C)
T
0-41
(
0
C)
T
0-M5
(
0
C)
-114.3 -18.9 -69.9 -55.9 -66 -47.5 -54.6 -58.8
172
213
243
243
243 1.34 0.71 2.19 1.50 13.1 9.0 25.4 20.3
258 1.64 1.00 3.30 2.57 16.6 12.5 41.3 35.8
258 1.42 0.79 2.50 2.37 13.8 9.6 36.8 31.2
258 1.68 1.00 3.15 2.38 17.6 12.8 39.8 33.5
273 1.78 1.07 3.15 2.34 18.5 13.5 39.0 32.5
273 1.50 0.91 3.19 2.50 14.5 10.7 38.9 33.7
273 3.81 2.88 3.94 3.01 48.3 40.9 50.4 42.9
283 1.60 1.00 3.87 3.15 15.5 11.6 48.3 42.8
283 1.72 1.03 2.80 2.03 17.3 12.7 33.2 26.9
283 1.84 1.06 3.18 2.30 18.4 13.0 37.8 31.0
295.5 1.86 0.86 3.29 2.13 15.7 9.5 34.8 26.5
295.5 1.99 0.81 3.48 2.12 16.7 9.45 37.6 27.7
323 1.64 1.00 4.64 3.83 14.0 10.3 55.6 49.7
323 1.95 0.82 3.41 2.08 15.1 8.65 34.4 25.2
Notes: (i) ` denotes values at (P
m
+ P
gy
)/2 ; (ii) pl denotes plastic
component; (iii) i denotes crack initiation as determined by modified
compliance change rate/key curve (KC) procedure (see [B53]).
Table Ex.6.1.4. Various dynamic fracture toughness estimates for service-exposed 2.25Cr-1Mo
ferritic steel
T
(K)
K
Id
(P
f
)
K
Ji
K
J
(CTODi)
K
J
(CTOD')
K
J
' K
JSch-
0.1Aa
K
JSch-min
Lower-bound
K
Id
(IIT-LB)
o
yd
(MPa)
o
fd
(MPa)
Sch-H Sch-p KC
exponent
=m
213 43.6 43.6
213 43.6 43.6
243 51.2 51.2
243 51.4 51.4
243 58.2 168 181.9 96.2 112 147.5 62.6 58.2 593.3 663.41 0.325 0.453 0.0844
258 223 226.3 108.6 131.9 190.4 79.8 79.8 537.3 642.85 0.518 0.433 0.09
258 208.2 219.3 97.1 115.9 190.1 82.0 82.0 546.6 647.76 0.523 0.439 0.0918
258 216 220.3 109.5 133.5 201.9 115.1 115.1 548.95 654.06 0.764 0.551 0.1005
273 212.5 216.4 112 136.9 242.9 139.7 139.7 537.3 647.06 0.971 0.495 0.0956
273 216.5 223.3 103.3 122.4 218.6 125.5 125.5 537.3 642.38 0.751 0.475 0.1181
273 244.3 245.3 184.1 238.5 239.8 138.8 138.8 537.3 643.08 0.948 0.496 0.0965
283 243.8 245.1 105.9 127.2 240.1 152.9 152.9 513.9 630.70 0.940 0.491 0.1208
283 193.5 196.9 108.0 132.8 240.4 170.5 170.5 513.9 630.70 1.004 0.518 0.1184
283 207.6 212.3 110.7 134.8 238.5 159.6 159.6 527.9 633.04 0.994 0.521 0.1039
295.5 191.9 192.2 94.1 115.4 225.9 229.4 192 467.2 587.96 1.018 0.579 0.1417
295.5 196.4 193.9 92.2 114.5 227.1 208.0 193.9 476.9 596.59 1.025 0.577 0.1176
173
323 262.7 244.6 95.8 119.7 241.4 294.7 244.6 420.5 558.99 1.241 0.607 0.1561
323 187.1 180.8 87.2 109.6 269.4 291.6 180 (*) 422.5 557.12 1.573 0.614 0.1528
348 234 (RNB)
373 234 (RNB)
Note 1: All K
Id
estimates reported are in MPa\m; Note 2: i signifies crack initiation point detected by modified
compliance change rate/KC (key-curve) methods; Note 3: ` (prime) signifies crack initiation taken at (P
m
+ P
gy
)/2
(used only for Type-II traces which are indicated in bold); Note 4: o
fd
flow-stress estimated from the dynamic
yield stress formula using (P
gy
+ P
m
)/2 for load; Note 5: RNB-Rolfe-Novak-Barsom correlation; Note 6: The
underlined value in the lower-bound toughness column out of trend and neglected.
Fig. Ex.6.1.1
174
Fig. EX.6.1.2 (P
F
appears to be P
I
)
Fig. Ex.6.1.3
Fig. 2 Load-temperature diagram for service exposed
2.25Cr-1Mo steel from instrumented impact test
Test Temperature, T/K
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
L
o
a
d
,
P
/
k
N
8
10
12
14
16
18
P
m
P
f
P
gy
T
-
D
/
2
3
8
K
13 kN
Fit to P
m
data above Q
Fit to P
f
data above Q
Fit to P
gy
data
Fit to P
m
=P
f
data points
upto point Q
Q
Fig. 4 Measured PSF (ASTM E23) and calculated PSF3
plotted against test temperature
Test Temperature, T/K
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
P
S
F
0
20
40
60
80
100
Measured PSF (ASTM E23)
Fit to measured data
PSF3
Fit to PSF3 data
Mateial: Service-exposed
2.25Cr-1Mo Steel
50% PSF ~ 293-294K
175
COMMENTS:
- For the present material the PSF3 formula seems to predict the percentage fracture
appearance correctly.
Fig. Ex.6.1.4. Fracture toughness estimations from older Charpy
correlations compared with MC prediction
Temperature/
0
C
-200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
K
I
C
/
M
P
a
.
m
0
.
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
RNB-Correlation
SC-Correlation
RLB-Correlation
BRS-Procedure
1in MC data: T
0-M5
= -58.8 C
Lower-Bound-IIT-K
Id
-data
Marandez-Sanz
FATT-MC-K
IC
FATT-MC-K
Id
E 399 K-IC from 1in MC data
USMC K
JC
data from T
0-M5
US-LB-K-IC using C
V
Wallin-LB-US-K
JC
from C
V
K
IC
=12*Cv^0.5-LS lower-bound
Material: Service Exposed
2.25Cr-1Mo Steel-21IGC
COMMENTS:
- Lower-Bound (LB) IIT (Lower bound K
Id
values given in Table Ex. 6.1.4) diamonds with
centre star - should be compared with the FATT-K
Id
-MC (right extreme curve), while the FATT-
K
IC
-MC bears comparison with all the fracture toughness estimates (K
IC
) using older correlations.
- Older correlations, compared to the MC based on T
0-M5
, seem to be extremely conservative,
especially in the lower-shelf and lower transition regions.
- BRS (Barsom-Rolfe dynamic-static shift) does not seem to applicable to this steel as its values
very larger (extreme left).
176
- Wallins US lower-bound correlation seems to applicable to lower-shelf also and gives values in
agreement with older Charpy correlations.
Fig. Ex. 6.1.5. Various lower-bound (LB) and MC curve estimates
of fracture toughness compared with ASME K
IC
-K
IR
curves
T/
0
C
-100 -50 0 50 100 150
K
I
C
/
M
P
a
.
m
-
0
.
5
0
100
200
300
400
E 399-K
IC
from 1in MC data
FATT-MC-K
IC
FATT-=MC-K
Id
USMC from T
0-M5
US-LB-K
IC
from C
V
Wallin-LB-US correlations
K
IC
= 12*C
V
^0.5, LB-Lower-Shelf
ASME LB K
IC
: RT
NDT
= -35
0
C
ASME K
IR
: RT
NDT
= -35
0
C
ASME LB K
IC
: RT
T0
= -39.3
0
C
ASME K
IR
: RT
T0
= -39.3
0
C
1in MC: T
0
= - 58.8 C
IIT-K
Id
-LB
COMMENTS:
- Material: Service Exposed 2.25Cr-!Mo Steel as shown above
- ASME K
IR
curves based on RT
NDT
or RT
T0
are close together, validating the concept of
the RT
T0
.
- Lower-Bound IIT K
Id
values higher than ASME K
IR
curves
- New USFTMC (USMC) seems to be reasonable.
- FATT -K
Id
-MC is very conservative, even compared to the K
IR
curve.
177
Illustrative Example 6.2:
Comparison of actual fracture toughness data for a modified 403SS (12Cr Martensitic stainless
steel with RT YS = 677 MPa: W. A. Logsdon and J. A. Begley. Upper shelf temperature dependence of
fracture toughness for four low to intermediate strength ferritic steels. Engng. Fracture Mechanics, 9(1997) pp. 461-
470) steel with those predicted by Charpy Correlations and MC based on T
0-M5
(Measured T
0
= -
28 C; T
0M5
= -4.2 C)
Fig. Ex.6.2.1. Comparison of actual K
IC
with those estimated using the
older Charpy Correlations, the MC based on T
0-M5
and ASME K
IR
-K
IC
curves
Temperature/
0
C
-200 0 200 400
K
I
C
/
M
P
a
.
m
0
.
5
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
RNB-Correlation
SC-Correlation
RLB-Correlation
BRS-Procedure-K
IC
MC: T
0-M5
= -4.2
0
C
Test K
IC
Data:1T Size Corrected
Measured ASTM E 399 Valid KIC
USMC-K
IC
LB-US-K
IC
from C
V
Wallins-LB-US K
IC
ASME RT
NDT
- K
IC
: RT
NDT
= 20
0
C
ASME RT
NDT
- K
IR
: RT
NDT
= 20
0
C
ASME RT
T0
- K
IC
: RT
T0
= 15
0
C
ASME RT
T0
- K
IR
: RT
T0
= 15
0
C
COMMENTS:
- K
IC
from older Charpy correlations is extremely conservative comared to actual or T
0M5
-MC data.
- Conservatism of the T
0M5
is obvious.
- ASME curves follow older Charpy correlation data.
- US-MC concept seems to be attractive.
178
Illustrative Example 6.3:
Comparison of K
Id
from IIT and Drop-Weight NDT with RT
NDT
based K
IR
Curve for a 403 SS
martensitic Stainless Steel 403SS-IGC [B49]
Fig. Ex.6.3.1
COMMENTS:
- RT
NDT
= 305 K and DW NDTT (T
NDT
) = 298 K
- T
D
= 234 K and
f
= 2143 MPa
- K
Id
from Instrumented DW tests (see Section 6.3 and Fig. 6.7) agree with the K
Id
from IITs.
- ASME K
IR
is conservative for the present steel in the lower-shelf and lower transition regions.
179
APPENDIX
Table A1. Summary of lower shelf and lower transition correlations
Reference Eq. No. Equation YS
range-
MPa
Charpy
energy
range-J
Equation-
UNITS
Chaudhuri, S.K. etal.
Int. J. of Pressure Vessels
and Piping, 22 (1986),pp.
23-30.
(A1-1) log
c
= 1.14logC
V
2.33
(HAZ, ductile fracture)
log
c
= 1.3logC
V
2.58
(HAZ, brittle fracture
log
c
= 1.06logC
V
2.24
(Weld metal)
520 40-63
24-35
18-40
mm,J
Girenko, V.S. and
Lyndin, V.P. Automatic
Welding, 13-19
September, 1985.
(A1-2) K
IC
= 2.5C
V
0.5
200-
1700
2-150 MPam, J
Imai, J., et al. Proc.
"Transport and Storage of
LPG and LNG", Brugge,
7-10 May 1984, pp. 91-
100
(A1-3)
0.5 IC
V
Y
2.5
K
C
o
=
Not
Known
5-215 MPam, J, MPa
Logan, J.G. and
Crossland, B
Practical Applications of
Fracture Mechanics to
Pressure Vessel
Technology, Institution
of Mechanical Engineers
(London), 1971, pp 148-
155.
(A1-4) K
IC
= 20.3C
V
0.5
820-
1420
7-37 MPam, J
Sailors, R.H. and Corten,
H.T ASTM-STP-514,
1973, pp 164-191.
(A1-5) K
IC
= 14.6C
V
0.5
410-
815
7-70 MPam, J
Barsom, J.M. and Rolfe,
S.T. ASTM STP 466,
1970, pp. 281-302 and
Rolfe, S.T. and Novak,
S.T ASTM-STP-463,
1970, pp. 124-159.
(A1-6)
(A1-7)
K
IC
2
= 45.1C
V
1.5
2
IC V
Y Y
0.64 0.01
K C
o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
270-
1700
270-
1700
4-82
31-121
MPam, J, MPa
MPam, J, MPa
EXXON Chemical:
'Fitness for Service
Guide', Part B, Section 5,
Material Property Data,
Rev. 4, February
1995.
(A1-7)
V
IC
650
1000
C E
K =
(claimed to be always
conservative)
Not
known
Not
known
MPam, J, MPa
180
Table A2. Summary of upper transition and upper shelf correlations
Reference Eq. No. Equation YS
range-
MPa
Charpy
energy
range-J
Equation-
UNITS
Ito, T. et al. Study of
Brittle Fracture Initiation
from Surface Notch in
Welded Fusion
Line, IIW Doc. No. X-
707-73, 1973.
(A2-1)
2 5 V
IC
Y
2.9 e
C
K
o
| |
=
|
\ .
570-
840
5-160 MPam, J, MPa
Norris, D.M. et al.
Fracture Mechanics 13th
Conference, ASTM-STP-
743, R. Roberts (Ed.),
ASTM, 1981, pp. 207-
217.
(A2-2)
Y
IC V
[ 1600]
1300
J C
o + | |
=
|
\ .
447-
1696
22-192 N/mm, J,
MPam
Priest, A.H. et al.
Effects of Radiation on
Materials, 11th
Conference, ASTM-STP-
782, H.R. Brager and J.S.
Perrin (Eds.),
ASTM, 1982, pp. 475-
491.
(A2-3)
2
IC IC
Y Y
1662 0.011
K K
o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
2
IC V
Y Y
0.65 0.0064
K C
o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
190-
320
(Parent
Plate)
290-
450
(Weld
metal)
5-120 MPam, J, MPa
Thorby, P.N. and
Ferguson, W.G. Mat. Sci.
and Engng,22, 1976, pp.
177-184.
(A2-4) K
IC
= 16.9C
V
0.534
400-
600
13-85 MPam, J
Witt, F.J.Int. J. Pres. Ves.
and Piping, 11, 1983, pp.
47- 63.
(A2-5) K
IC
= 2.78C
V
3.93
K
IC
= (0.068C
V
+ 9.9)
2
414-
648
47-203 MPam, J
British Standard BSI
PD6493:1991: Guidance
on methods for assessing
the acceptability of flaws
in fusion welded
structures.
(A2-6) K
IC
2
= 0.54C
V
+ 55 <480 0-250 MPam, J
181
Table A3. Summary of correlations involving temperature shifts
Reference Eq.
No
.
Equation YS
range-
MPa
Char
py
energ
y
range
-J
Equati
on-
UNITS
PVRC
Group on
Toughness
Requiremen
ts, WRC
Bulletin
175, August
1972.
(A
3-
1)
IC NDT
= 1.333 exp[0.0261( - 89)] 29 K T T + +
<621 NA MPa
m, C
British
Standard BSI
PD6493:1991:
Guidance on
methods for
assessing the
acceptability
of flaws in
fusion welded
structures.
(A
3-
2)
As above, but with T
NDT
= T
40J
<480 NA MPa
m, C
Barsom, J.
M. Engng.
Fract.
Mech., 7,
1975, pp.
605-618.
(A
3-
3)
A3
-4)
K
IC
2
= 105C
V
T = 119 0.12
Y
(
Y
< 965 MPa)
250-
1700
3-61 MPa
m, J,
C,
MPa
Matsumoto,
K. et al.
Proc.
3rd Int.
Symp. of
Japan
Welding
Society.Crit
eria for
Preventing
Service
Failures in
Welded
Structures',
26-28
September,
(A
3-
5)
K
IC
= 1.615exp[0.038(T ATT + 140)] + 31
ATT = arrest transition temperature
Not
specifi
ed
NA MPa
m, C
182
1978,
Tokyo,
JWS, pp.
167-172.
Oda, I. Engng.
Fract. Mech.,
29 6, 1988,
pp. 663-671.
(A
3-
6)
(A
3-
7)
(A
3-
8)
V
C
Y
= 0.0344ln 256
C
o
o
| |
|
\ .
(brittle)
V
C
Y
= 1.8l 0.1
C
o
o
| |

|
\ .
(ductile)
T = FATT - T
f
276-
834
3-50
50-
200
mm, J,
MPa
Sanz, G.
Revue de
Metallurgie,
CIT, Juillet,
1980.
(A
3-
9)
T
K100MPam
= 1.37 T
CV28J
+ 9
K
IC
= 19 C
V
0.5
274-
820
5-50 MPa
m, J
Wallin,
K.
Jernkonto
rets
Forskning
, Report
No. T040-
29,
December
1994
(A
3-
10)
T
K100MPam
= T
CV28J
- 18
300-
1500
NA C
Ibid (A
3-
11)
K
0
= 31 + {77 exp(0.019[T
0
])} 300-
1500
T +
20 to
-109
C
MPa
m, C
Ibid (A
3-
12)
0.25
IC 28J
25 1
= 20 + {11 + 77 exp(0.019[ - + 18]} ln K T T
B P
| |
|
\ .
300-
1500
NA MPa
m,
Cm
mm
183
Test Standards and Hand Books (Reference T)
NOTE: In the TEXT References to material under this heading are preceded by Letter T: for example
Ref. 1 is referred as T1 in the TEXT.
1. ESIS Instrumented Charpy V-Notch Standard, Proposed Standard Method for the Instrumented Charpy-
V Impact Tests on Metallic Materials, Draft 10, European Structural Integrity Society, ESIS (Jan 14, 1994).
2. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, Use of FractureToughness Test Data to
Establish Reference Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials Other than Bolting for Class 1 Vessels,
Section III, Division 1, ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code: An American National Standard, Code
Case N-631, ASME, New York (1999).
3. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, Use of FractureToughness Test Data to
Establish Reference Temperature for Pressure Retaining Materials, Section XI, Division 1, ASME Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code Case N-629, ASME, New York (1999).
4. ASTM E 1152. Standard Method for Determining J-R Curves. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol
3.01, ASTM (1999).
5. ASTM E 1290-93: Standard Test Method for Crack Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Fracture
Toughness Measurement. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01, ASTM (1999) pp. 831840.
6. ASTM E 1457: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Creep Crack Growth Rates in Metals. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03. 01(1998), American Society for Testing and Materials.
7. ASTM E 1820-99: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness, Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01, ASTM (1999) pp. 9721005.
8. ASTM E 1921-02: Standard Test Method for Determination of Reference Temperature, To, for Ferritic
Steels in the Transition Range. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 3.01, ASTM (2002).
184
9. ASTM E 23-98: Standard Test Methods for Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01, ASTM (1999) pp. 138162.
10. ASTM E 399-90: Standard Test Method for Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness of Metallic Materials,
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01, ASTM (1999) pp. 422452.
11. ASTM E 561: Standard Practice for R-Curve Determination. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 3.01,
ASTM (1999).
12. ASTM E 647-95a: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01, ASTM (1999) pp. 577613.
13. ASTM E 813. Standard Method for J
IC
, a Measure of Fracture Toughness. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol 3.01, ASTM (1999).
14. ASTM E1221. Standard Method for Determining Plane-Strain Crack Arrest Toughness, K
Ia
, of Ferritic
Steels. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.01 (1999) ASTM.
15. ASTM E20887a: Test method for conducting drop-weight test to determine nil-ductility transition
temperature of ferritic steels. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03. 01(1990), p. 360, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA.
16. BS 7448: Fracture mechanics toughness tests Part 1: Method for determination of K
Ic
, critical CTOD
and critical J values of metallic materials , The British Standard Institution (BSI) (1991) London.
17. BS5762 - 1979: Methods for Crack Opening Displacement (COD) Testing. The British Standards
Institution (1979).
18. Mechanical Testing and Evaluation (2000). Volume 8 of the ASM Handbook, ASM International,
Materials Park, OH.
19. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear Islands, RCC-M Code (1988)
French Design Code.
20. TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 429: GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION OF THE MASTER
CURVE APPROACH TO REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL INTEGRITY IN NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS. INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 2005.
Bibliography and Additional References (Reference B)
NOTE: In the TEXT References to material under this heading are preceded by Letter B: for example
Ref. 1 is referred as B1 in the TEXT.
1. Allen, R. J., Booth, G. S. and Jutla, T. (1988). A review of fatigue crack growth characterisation by linear
elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) Parts 1 and 2, Fatigue and Fracture of Engineering Materials and
Structures, Vol. 11(No. 1)pp.45-69 and (No. 2) pp.71-108.
2. American Society for Materials (1996), Stress Corrosion Cracking and Hydrogen Embrittlement in ASM
Handbook, Fatigue and Fracture, Vol. 19, pp.483-506.
3. Anderson, T. L. (1991). Fracture Mechanics, Fundamentals and Applications. CRC Press, Boston.
4. Bannister, A. C., British Steel (1998). "STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
FOR EUROPEAN INDUSTRY (SINTAP): SUB-TASK 3.3 REPORT: FINAL ISSUE;
DETERMINATION OF FRACTURE TOUGHNESS FROM CHARPY IMPACT ENERGY:
PROCEDURE AND VALIDATION." Document No.: SINTAP/BS/17; BRITE-EURAM Project No.:
BE95-1426 Task 3 Sub-Task 3.3; Contract No.: S454 BRPR-CT95-0024 (Google Search).
5. Barsom, J.M. and Rolfe, S.T. (1970). Correlations between KIc and Charpy V-notch test results in the
transitiontemperature range. Impact Testing of Metals. ASTM STP 466 (ASTM, Philadelphia) pp. 281
302.
6. Barsom, J. M. and Rolfe, S. T. (1999). Fracture and Fatigue Control in Structures:Application of Fracture
Mechanics, Third edition. Butterworth Heinemann,Woburn, MA.
7. Broek, D. (1986). Elementary Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Fourth edition, Kluwer Academic
Publisher, Boston.
8. Broek, D. (1988). The Practical Use of Fracture Mechanics.
185
9. Callister, William (1994). Materials Science and Engineering : An Introduction. John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
10. Carter, Bruce J. (Dr.) (Jan. 2001). www.cfg.cornell.edu: Introductory Lecture on Computational Fracture
Mechanics byCornell Fracture Group.
11. Chaouadi, R. (2007). On the (in)adequacy of the Charpy impact test to monitor irradiation effects of
ferritic/martensitic steels. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 360, pp.7591.
12. Dieter, G. E. (1986). Mechanical Metallurgy. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
13. Dowling, N. E. (1999). Mechanical Behaviour of Materials Engineering Methods for Deformation,
Fracture and Fatigue (2
nd
Edition). Prentice Hall International Inc.
14. EricksonKirk, M. - Principal Investigator (Dec. 2004). "Materials Reliability Program: Implementation
Strategy for Master Curve Reference Temperature, To (MRP-101)", Report 1009543 (Final Report).
Sponsors: EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,D.C., USA.
15. EricksonKirk, M. - Principal Investigator (April, 2005). " Materials Reliability Program: Development of a
New Process for Calculating RPV Heat-Up and Cool-Down Curves Proof of Concept (MRP-144)",
Report 1011742 (Final Report). Sponsors: EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, and U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington,D.C., USA.
16. EricksonKirk, Mark and EricksonKirk, Marjorie (2006). An upper-shelf fracture toughness master curve
for ferritic steels. Int. J. of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83, pp. 571583.
17. Fuchs, H. O. and Stephens, R. I. (1980). Metal Fatigue in Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
18. Hellan, K. (1984). Introduction to Fracture Mechanics. McGraw-Hill Book company, New York.
19. Hertzberg, R. W. (1989). Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, Third edition.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
20. Jan Zuidema and Michael Janssen (August 2002). Exercises on Fracture Mechanics. Delft University of
Technology, Laboratory of Materials Science (Section Mechanical Behaviour of Materials). Spon Press,
Taylor & Francis Group ( London and New York). This provides a large number of problems with answers,
but no solutions.
21. Janssen, M., Zuidema, J. and Wanhill, R. J. H. (2002). Fracture Mechanics. Textbooks by Delft
University Press. Three Chapters (1, 3 and 7) from this Book are freely available on the Web (Google
Search).
22. Kim, S. H., Park, Y. W., Kang, S. S. and Chung, H. D. (2202). Estimation of fracture toughness transition
curves of RPV steels from Charpy impact test data. Nucl. Engng.& Design, 212, pp.49-57.
23. Knott, J. F. (1973). Fundamentals of Fracture Mechanics. Butterworths, London.
24. Knott, J. F. and Elliott, D. (1979). Worked Examples in Fracture Mechanics. The Institution of
Metallurgists Momograph No.4, London.
25. Lidbury, D. P. G. and Morland, E. (1987). Review of fracture toughness requirements and data relevant to
LWR reactor pressure vessel steels. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 29, pp.343-428.
26. Many Authors. FRACTURE. (Student Project Web Site: MSE2094)
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/97ClassProj/contents.html
27. Moitra, A.,Sreenivasan, P. R.,Ray, S. K. and Mannan, S. L. (1996). Instrumented drop-weight test results
for normalised and tempered 9Cr-1Mo steel. Int. J. Pres. Ves. and Piping 69, pp.253-261.
28. Moitra, A. (2003). Ductile-Brittle Transition Temperatures and Dynamic fracture Toughness of 9Cr-1Mo
Steel. Ph. D. Thesis Submitted to Dept. of Metullurgical Engineering, Centre for Advanced Study,
Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005, INDIA.
29. Murakami, Y. ( Editor-in-Chief) Stress Intensity Factors Handbook, Vols. 1 and 2, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1987; Vol. 3, SOC. Materials Science, Japan and Pergamon Press, Kyoto, 1992; Vols. 4 and 5,
Soc. Materials Science, Japan, Kyoto, 2001.
30. Neil James, M. (Prof). Fracture Mechanics Tutorials - WebPage: http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/si and
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/Interactive_Resources/index.html . This contains a large number of
worked examples.
31. Nestor Perez (Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Puerto Rico) (2004). FRACTURE
MECHANICS. KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS.
32. ODowd, Noel, Dr. (20022003). ADVANCED FRACTURE MECHANICS: Lectures on Fundamentals
of Elastic, Elastic-Plastic and Creep Fracture. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College,
London (freely Available on the Web).
186
33. Paris, P. and Erdogan, F. (Dec. 1963). A critical analysis of crack propagation laws, Journal of Basic
Engineering, (Trans. of the ASME), pp.528-534.
34. Parton, V.Z. (1992). Fracture Mechanics: From Theory to Practice. Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers.
35. Ramesh, K.(Professor, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India) (1999).'e-book on Engineering
Fracture Mechanics'. ISBN: 978-81-904235-0-2; Publisher: IIT Madras; Distributor: Online Solutions;
Contact for Copies - International: onlsol@singnet.com.sg or sales@onlsol.com;
India: online_solutions@vsnl.com.
36. R. Roberts and C. Newton (Feb. 2001). Interpretive Report on Small-Scale Test Correlations with K
IC
Data.
WRC Bulletin No. 265. Welding Research Council, NY, USA.
37. Rooke, D. P. and Cartwright, J. C. (1976). Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors. Her Majestys
Stationary Office, London, UK.
38. Rolfe, S. T. and Novak, S. R. (1970). Slow-bend K
IC
testing of medium-strength high-toughness steels.
Recent Developments in Plane Strain Fracture Toughness Testing, ASTM STP 463, pp. 124-159.
39. Russell, R. H. (ed.) (1992). Stress Corrosion Cracking - Materials Performance and Evaluation.
American Society for Materials.
40. Sailors, R.H. and Corten, H.T. (1972). Relationship between material fracture toughness using fracture
mechanics and transition temperature tests. ASTM STP 514 (ASTM, Philadelphia), pp. 164191.
41. Saxena, A. (1998). Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics for Engineers. CRC Press LLC. New York.
42. Schijve, J. (1978). Four lectures on fatigue crack growth, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 11(No. 1)
pp.169-206.
43. Schindler, H.- J. (1996). Estimation of the Dynamic J-R curve from a Single Impact Bending Test.
Proceedings of the 11
th
European Conference on Fracture, Poitiers, EMAS, London, pp. 2007-2012.
44. Schindler, H.- J. (2000). Relation Between Fracture Toughness and Charpy Fracture Energy: An analytical
Approach. Pendulum Impact Testing: A Century of Progress, ASTM STP 1380, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, pp. 337-353
45. Server, W. L. (1978). Impact Three-Point Bend Testing for Notches and Precracked Specimens, J. Test.
Eval.,Vol 6 (No. 1), pp.2934.
46. Sih, G. C. (1973). Handbook of Stress Intensity Factors. Inst. of Fracture and Solid Mechanics, Lehigh
University.
47. Sovak, J. F. (May, 1982). Correlation of data from standard and precracked Charpy specimens with
fracture toughness data for HY-130, A517-F and HY-80 steel. J. testing and Eval., 10(3), pp.102-114.
48. Sreenivasan, P. R. (Nov. 1983). Linear elastic fracture mechanics and instrumented impact testing.
Presented at the Specialists Meeting on Fracture Mechanics conducted at the Reactor Research Centre
under the auspices of Indian Institute of Metals.
49. Sreenivasan, P. R., Ray, S. K., Mannan, S. L. and Rodriguez, P. (1992). Determination of K
Id
at and
below NDTT using instrumented drop-weight testing. Int. J. Fracture 55, pp.273-283.
50. Sreenivasan, P. R. (Oct. 1996). Instrumented Impact TestingAccuracy, Reliability, and Predictability of
Data, Trans. Indian Inst. Met., Vol 49 (No. 5), pp. 677696.
51. Sreenivasan, P. R., Moitra, A., Ray, S. K., Mannan, S. L. and Chandramohan, R. (1996). Dynamic
fracture toughness properties of a 9Cr-1Mo weld from instrumented impact and drop-weight tests. Int. J.
Pres. Ves. and Piping 69, pp.149-159.
52. Sreenivasan, P. R. (2001). DATA SHEETS (courtesy IWM, Freiburg, Germany) obtained during official
deputation (two months: October-November, 2001) at the Institut fur Werkstoffmechanik (IWM), Freiburg,
Germany, participating in an IAEA coordinated project on Evaluation of IAEA Reference Material within
the Master Curve Concept using Static and Dynamic Fracture Testing.
53. Sreenivasan, P. R., Shastry, C. G., Mathew, M. D., Bhanu Sankara Rao, K., Mannan, S. L., and
Bandyopadhyay, G. (April, 2003). Dynamic Fracture Toughness and Charpy Transition Properties of a
Service Exposed 2.25Cr-1Mo Reheater Header Pipe. J. Engng. Materials Tech. (Trans. ASME) 125,
pp.221-233.
54. Sreenivasan, P. R. (2010). Simplicity, consistency and conservatism of some recent Charpy energy-fracture
toughness correlations in estimating the ASTM E-1921 reference temperature. Communicated to Int. J.
Pres. Ves. And Piping.
55. Sreenivasan, P. R. (2007). Estimation of ASTM E-1921 Reference Temperature from Charpy Tests:
187
Charpy energyFracture Toughness Correlation Method. Communicated to Engng.Fract. Mechanics.
56. Sattari-Far, Iradj and Wallin, Kim (Oct. 2005). Application of Master Curve Methodology for Structural
Integrity Assessment of Nuclear Components. SKI (Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate) Report 2005:55,
Stockholm, Sweden.
57. Suresh, S. (1998). Fatigue of Materials (2
nd
edition). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
58. Tada, H. et al. (1973). The Stress Analysis of Cracks Handbook. Del Research Corporation, Hellertown,
PA.
59. Tetelman, A. S. and McEvily, A. J. (1967). Fracture of Structural Materials. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
60. Wallin, Kim (Dec. 1994). Comparison of the Scientific Basis of Russian and European Approaches for
Evaluating Irradiation Effects in reactor Pressure Vessels. EUR16279EN (Limited Distribution), Report
for European Network on Ageing Materials Evaluation and Studies, VTT Manufacturing Technology,
Finland.
61. Wallin, Kim (2001). Low-cost J-R curve estimation based on CVN upper shelf energy. Fatigue Fract
Engng Mater Struct, 24, pp. 537-549.
62. Wallin, K. (2001). Upper shelf normalization for sub-sized Charpy specimens. Int. J. Pres. Vessels and
Piping, 78, pp. 463-470.
63. Wei, R. P. (1978). Fracture mechanics approach to fatigue analysis in design, J. of Engng. Materials and
Technology (Trans. of the ASME), Vol. 100, pp.113-120.
64. Williams, J. G. (1984). Fracture Mechanics of Polymers. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
65. Wright, Douglas (Department of Mechanical and MaterialsEngineering, The University of Western
Australia). Notes on DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF MACHINE ELEMENTS.
(http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au\DANotes\intro\contents.html).
66. Wullaert, R. A. et al. (Eds) (1981). CSNI Specialist Meeting on Instrumented Precracked Charpy Testing.
Nov 1980, EPRI NP-2102-LD, Electric Power Research Institute, Paulo Alto, California, USA.
67. Sreenivasan, P. R. (2010). Inverse of Wallins relation for the effect of strain rate on the ASTM E-1921
reference temperature and its application to reference temperature estimation from Charpy tests. Being
accepted for publication in Nucl. Engng and Design.
68. Sreenivasan, P. R. (2010). Characterisation of the master curve based fracture toughness of the ORNL
TSE5 steel and an unirradiated and irradiated ASTM A203D 3.5%Ni steel by the IGCAR-procedure.
69. P. Nevasmaa and K Wallin (1997). Structural Integrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry
SINTAP. Task 3 Status Review Report: Reliability Methods, REPORT VAL A: SINTAP VTT/4. ESPOO,
Finland, March 1997.

You might also like