Zerbst

Fracture and Crack Propagation in Weldments.
A Fracture Mechanics Perspective A Fracture Mechanics Perspective

Uwe Zerbst, BAM Berlin
Outline
Specific aspects of weldments
Determination of fracture toughness
Determination of the crack driving force
Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength
Outline
Fracture mechanics of weldments: Specific aspects
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Misalignment
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Misalignment
Susceptibility
to cracking
Weld imperfections
Figure according to Gagg, 2005
ISO 5817: Arc welded joints in steel - Guidance on quality levels
for imperfections
26 different types of weld imperfections
Can be assigned to distinct groups from the perspective of mechanical integrity Can be assigned to distinct groups from the perspective of mechanical integrity
(a) Cracks and crack-like imperfections
have to be avoided or if they occur are immediately subject to
fracture mechanics analysis
(b) Material imperfections which act as crack initiation sites
of paramount importance for fatigue strength and fatigue life analyses of paramount importance for fatigue strength and fatigue life analyses
(c) Geometric discontinuities
increase the local stresses, affect crack initiation, propagation and final failure
(d) Imperfections which probably are of no effect on fracture or fatigue life
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Susceptibility
to Cracking
Material inhomogeneity
Reason: Inhomogeneous cooling & TTT behaviour
Figure according to Toyoda, 1998
HAZ regions
Consequence
Toughness scatter
Specific requirements
on toughness testing
identification of
specific micro-
structure
Figure according to Toyoda, 1998
number of test
specimens
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Unintended and intended
mismatch
Usually in steel:
moderate overmatching
Strength mismatch
moderate overmatching
Cases of undermatching:
aluminium, high strength steels
Pronounced mismatching:
laser & electron beam welding
YW YB
M =
W = Weld metal
B = Base plate
Strength mismatch
Effect on crack driving force
Effect on crack path deviation
Figures: Dos Santos et al., Koak
UM
OM
Factors affecting the mismatch effect
Crack location (weld metal, fusion line etc.) Mismatch ratio (
YW
/
YB
)
Global constraint interdependency (W-a)/H
Residual stresses
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Welding residual stresses
Reason: inhomogeneous cooling
constrained shrinking
solid state phase transformations
External restraint
macro-residual stresses (residual stresses of the
first kind); vary within the cross section over a
distance much larger than grain size
Internal forces and moments are in equilibrium with
respect to any cross section and axis respectively
Figure according to
Leggatt, 2008
Scatter and uncertainty in simulation and measurement
Figures according to
Bouchard, 2008
Dependency on location along the weld
Further effect: Stop-start features
Figures according to Hosseinzadeh and Bouchard,
2011; (b) Bouchard, 2008
Residual stress profiles
Individual determination
Compendia (upper bound curves
to literature data) to literature data)
Membrane stress (as-welded:
max. value: yield strength)
p r
Y
+
Post weld treatment:
Membrane stress (yield strength at
annealing temperature + correction
for ratio of E modules at room &
annealing temperatures
Mechanical post weld treatment
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Misalignment
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Misalignment
Types of misalignment:
(a) Axial misalignment between flat plates
(b) Angular misalignment between flat plates
(b) Angular misalignment between flat plates
(c) Angular misalignment in a fillet welded joint
Consequence:
Notch effect/local bending stress
Strong effect of fatigue life and
shallow crack propagation
Effect on long crack fatigue
propagation and (sometimes)
on failure load
Outline
Specimen geometries most appropriate
Fracture toughness determination
Modifications compared to testing of non-welded material
for weldments, e.g., shallow cracked
bend specimens
Weldment specific aspects of specimen
preparation such as the introduction of
the notch, minimisation of residual
stresses and misalignment
Generation of a straight crack front
ISO 15653
Validity criteria
Required number of test specimens
Strength mismatch effects for testing
in the net section yielding range
ISO 15653
Fracture toughness determination: Scheme
According to ISO 15653
Adapted testing
Perform test as much as possible representative with respect to the component
in service. Relevant factors and parameters are:
Welding process including filler material
Base plate composition
Joint thickness
Preheat and interpass temperatures
Heat input
Detailed welding procedure
Joint configuration
Restraint
Postweld treatment
Time between welding and testing
Environment
Test temperature
Hydrogen release heat treatment
prior to testing can be necessary
when the time between welding
and the beginning of service is
much longer than those between
welding and testing.
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Susceptibility
to cracking
Specific features because of inhomogeneous
microstructure, metallography
HAZ testing: Pre and post test
metallographic examination
In steel: crack tip no more distant
than 0.5 mm from target microstructure
Crack front should sample either 15%
or at least 7 mm of the HAZ microstructure
Both within the central 75% of the specimen thickness
ISO 15653
Randomly distributed small regions of low toughness (weak links) across the ligament;
Specific features due to inhomogeneous
microstructure: Weakest link approach (1)
in weldments: HAZ brittle zones
During load increase, when stress peak is shifted into the ligament to the location of
the nearest weak link the whole specimen (or component) fails
Due to the random distribution of the weak links
in the ligament area the distance of the
first one from the crack tip varies from
specimen to specimen and so does the
work necessary to shift the stress peak work necessary to shift the stress peak
to the right position
fracture toughness scatter
The longer the crack front the higher the
probability of a weak link next to it
probability of a weak link next to it
Toughness scatter becomes smaller
for longer crack fronts but lower bound
remains constant
Same lower bound toughness can be
determined by using few specimens
with large crack fronts or by using
many specimens with short crack fronts
Usually: 3-Parameter Weibull distribution; e.g., Stage 2 and 3 Options of SINTAP Master
Curve approach
BS 7910: Minimum of 12 valid HAZ tests for ductile-to-brittle transition BS 7910: Minimum of 12 valid HAZ tests for ductile-to-brittle transition
Figures according to Toyoda, 1998
Pop-in behaviour
Pop-in: Discontinuity in the load versus displacement curve in the fracture mechanics test
displacement suddenly increases and
load decreases load decreases
Different reasons:
Limited cleavage fracture propagation + arrest
Out-of-plane slits
Other reasons
Criteria: > 4 (2) % of (W-a) crack propagartion
Fig.: Dos Santos
et al., 2001
Criteria: > 4 (2) % of (W-a) crack propagartion
Load drop more than x %
Increase in compliance
Problem: When is a pop-in event
component relevant?
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Specific features because of strength mismatch
ISO 15653: Error in J integral or CTOD (standard equations) due to mismatch
less than 10% as long as
Weld metal testing:
CTOD tests:
J integral tests:
M > 1.5 or 1.25: overestimation of J or CTOD
M < 0.5 underestimation
< < 0.5 M 1.5
< < 0.5 M 1.25
HAZ testing: Error for J and -20% to +10% for CTOD as long as
Else mismatch specific
pl
function in
< < 0.7 M 2.5
5%
( )
= +
2
pl
K U
J
E B W a

pl
function for strength mismatch (EFAM , Schwalbe et al.)
Some additional solutions in the literature
Definition of weld width H for other than prismatic welds
Proposals:
(a) H = average of 2H
1
and 2H
2
(b) equivalent H, H
eq
, on the basis of
the shortest distance between the
crack tip and the fusion line along
the slip lines emanating from the
crack tip
However: Systematic investigation
still missing.
Effect of strength mismatch on constraint and toughness
According to Toyoda, 2002
According to Kim (Schwalbe et al., 1996)
Complex issue: Various constraint parameters
Damage mechanics simulation (e.g. GTN)
Effect of strength mismatch on toughness
and crack path deviation
Electron beam weld, steel
Kocak et al., 1999
Probability of crack path deviation
decreases with longer crack front
Laser beam weld, steel
Heerens & Hellmann, 2003
Stress-strain curves
Micro tensile tests
e.g., Kocak et al., 1998
BS 7448: Estimation from hardness
p0.2B
p0.2W
Base plate : R 3.28 HV 221 for 160 < HV < 495
Weld metal : R 3.15 HV 168 for 150 < HV < 300
=
=
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Specific features because of residual stresses
Considered at applied side
(crack driving force in component)
Specimen if possible residual Specimen if possible residual
stress free (but not realistic)
Specimen preparation
in order to generate
straight crack front
From left to right:
- Local compression - Local compression
- (Reverse
bending)
- High R ratio
test
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Misalignment
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Misalignment
Specific features because of misalignment
Deformation of specimen wings in order to avoid bending Deformation of specimen wings in order to avoid bending
However, no plastic deformation within a distance B from weld
Outline
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Crack path simulation by damage
mechanics methods, e.g., GTN model
Local parameters for at least base plate,
Crack driving force and
fracture assessment
Local parameters for at least base plate,
weld metal and HAZ
Negre et al., 2004
}
Conventional fracture mechanics
(finite element based and analytical)
Lower bound toughness or R curve
or probabilistic analysis
Effect of mismatch and residual stresses
}
Mismatch corrected limit load
on R curve or toughness scatter!
(crack path deviation)
Again: When are pop-in events component
relevant?
( )
-2
e r
J J f L ( =

( )
r r
K f L =
Crack driving force: R6 type assessment
FAD approach CDF approach
2
e
J K E =
r mat
K K K =
( )
( )
-1 2
2 6
r r r
f L 1 0.5 L 0.3 0.7 exp L
(
( = + +

r
0 L 1
( ) ( )
( ) N 1 2N
r r r
f L f L 1 L

= =
max
r r
1 L L
( )
max
r p0.2 m eL
L 0.5 R R R
(
= +

Example. Option 1B analysis (no Lders plateau)
r Y ref Y
L F F = =
( )
p0.2
0.001 E R
min
0.6
( )
p0.2 m
N 0.3 1 R R
(
=

( )
r p0.2 m eL
L 0.5 R R R
(
= +

Replace F
Y
by F
YM
Mismatch corrected limit load F
YM
Example
Conservative option:
F
YM
determined as F
Y
based on the lower yield
strength of base plate and weld metal
Individual determination
F
YM
solutions as functions of global geometry,
mismatch ratio M and (W-a)/H
Limit states:
long crack a and/or wide weld (large H) short crack and/or narrow weld (small H)
plastic zone mainly in weld metal plastic zone mainly in base plate
F
Y
based on
YW
gives good estimate F
Y
based on
YB
gives good estimate
(e.g. laser or electron beam weld)
Mismatch corrected limit load F
YM
Examples
UM OM
Fracture analyses including mismatch: Examples
F
c
= 569 kN
F
c
= 589 kN
M = 1.5
F
c
(homogenous) = 550 kN
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Primary stresses
p
:
Arise from the applied mechanical contribute to
load, including dead weight or plastic collapse
inertia effects
Primary and secondary stresses
Secondary stresses
s
:
Result from suppressed local do not contribute
distortions, e.g., during the to plastic collapse
welding process, or are due
to thermal gradients
Self-equilibrating across the
structure, i.e., net force and
K factor determination is based
on both primary and secondary
stresses but only the primary
structure, i.e., net force and
bending moment are zero
However: Secondary stresses can act like primary stresses in the crack carrying section
Treatment as primary conservativ
stresses but only the primary
stresses are taken into account
for the limit load F
Y
,
Crack driving force due to primary
and secondary stresses
Primary stresses only
n
a
K a f
(
| |
=
(
|
}
Primary + secondary stresses
n n
n
a
K a f
T
| |
=
(
|
\
(

( )
n
n
n
x
x
T
(
| |
=
(
|
\
(

}
Interaction factor V
Small scale yielding:
K = K
p
+ K
s
However: because of rather high

s
in as-welded structures
s
in as-welded structures
K > K
p
+ K
s
L
r
< 1
and because of stress relief
K < K
p
+ K
s
L
r
> 1
Although secondary stresses dont
contribute to plastic collapse they
contribute to ligament yielding
contribute to ligament yielding

p s
I I
r
mat
V K K
K
K
+
=
( )
2
p s
I I
r
K K 1
J
E f L
V
(
+
=
(

FAD approach:
CDF approach:
p s
K K K V = + = + = + = +
s
p
s
K
V
K
= = = =
Plasticity corrected
K factor for se-
condary stresses
Determination of V
s
V
K
= = = =
K factor for
secondary
stresses
Fit function to finite
element results
Different options for determining
s
p
K
( )
s p
p r
K K L 0 0.02 0.04
e.g., plastic zone corrected K:
p
( ) ( )
s s
p eff
K a a K a =
L
r
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
( )
2
s
eff
Y
K a 3 plane strain
1
a a =
2 1 plane stress
(

= +
(

Fracture analyses including residual stresses
Example: Residual stress profile
( )
2 3
T *
R Y
z z z
z t 1 0.917 14.533 83.115
t t t
( ( (
= +
( ( (

4 5 6
z z z
215.45 244.16 93.36
t t t
( ( (
+
( ( (

Transverse residual stresses (compendium)
Example: Critical load for stable crack initiation
Reduction in critical load: ca. 25%
Example: Fatigue crack propagation and residual lifetime
No effect on K
But on R = K
min
/K
max
Effect on crack closure behaviour
Reduction in
Effect on crack closure behaviour
Reduction in
residual lifetime:
ca. 25%
Simplified assumption:
R > 0.5 (BS 7910)
Ongoing discussion on
less conservative deter-
mination of V factor
This workshop
Including solutions
Without elastic follow-up Without elastic follow-up
Large elastic follow-up
for application to short crack propagation problems
Inhomogeneous
microstructure
Residual stresses
Misalignment
Strength mismatch
Susceptibility
to cracking
Misalignment
Example:
Angular distorsion
Butt weld
clamped
Misalignment
( ) ( )
s
m
tanh tanh
y
t t

= =
` `

) )
2 2
3 3
2 2 2
Solution for bending stress
s
refered to membrane stress
m
Alternativ: Finite element stress distribution
1 2
m
3 2
(rad!)
t E
(
=
(

Outline
Frequently: Inclusions at or
close to surface are
crack initiaton sites
Initial defects in engineering alloys
crack initiaton sites
Further crack initiation sites:
Primary phases
Pores/cavities
Corrosion pits
Crack initiation at inclusions in steel (42CrMoS4)
(Figs. Pyttel)
Surface roughness
(scratches)
Welding defects
Distinguish between geometrical dis-
continuities (considered at applied
side) and material defects
Weld discontinuities and defects
side) and material defects
Applied side Material
- Misalignment - Slag lines
- weldment geometry - Pores
- Undercuts - Lack of fusion
- Overlap - Cracks
Initial crack size and
geometry (multiple cracks)
Usually excluded
- Overlap - Cracks
Specified by
weldment
quality
system
Steel 350WT
Crack initiation in WAZ
0.3 mm deep surfacerdefect
(Josi, 2010)
Discontinuity VD (normal quality) VC (high quality) VB (post weld treated)
Overlap < 0,5 mm < 0,1 mm not permissable
Lack of fusion not permissable not permissable not permissable
Example: Weldment quality grades: VOLVO
Group Weld Quality Standard 181-0004, 2008
Lack of fusion not permissable not permissable not permissable
Transition > 0,25 mm > 1 mm > 4 mm
radius
Undecut < 0,05 t (max 1 mm) < 0,025 t (max 0,5 mm) not permissable
inadequate < - 0,2a (max 2 mm) smaller not permissable smaller not permissable
weld thickness
Misalignment < 0,1 t (max 2 mm) not permissable not permissable
Single Pore 0,4 t (max 4) 0,3 t (max 4) 0,2 t (max 2)
0,3 t (max 3) 0,2 t (max 2) 0,1 t (max 1)
Pores cluster 6% / 3% 4% / 2% 2% / 1%
- Crack initiation N
i
- short crack growth N
Contributions to fatigue life
Contribution to overall lifetime Nt:
Polak (CSI, 2003):
- short crack growth N
s
- long crack growth N
l
t i s l
N N N N = + +
Crack initiation stage N
i
at smooth, nominally defect-free surfaces:
- less than 5-20% of overall lifetime N
t
- even less for existing initial defects
Allows to treat defects as initial cracks in a fracture mechanics model
Long crack growth
(a > 0,5 mm, 2c > 1 mm)
Short crack growth
K concept not applicable
Alternatives:
plasticity corrected K
Specifica of mechanically short cracks
plasticity corrected K
(e.g., plastic zone size corrected)
J-Integral
CTOD
Gradual built-up of plasticity-induced
crack closure effect:
Fracture and Crack Propagation in Weldments.
A Fracture Mechanics Perspective A Fracture Mechanics Perspective
Uwe.zerbst@bam.de
Shallow crack propagation and fatigue strength

Zerbst

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zerbst

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fracture and Crack Propagation in Weldments.

A Fracture Mechanics Perspective A Fracture Mechanics Perspective

contribute to ligament yielding

You might also like