hr. J. Pm. Ves.

& Piping 69 (1996) 203-206

Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Limited
Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved
ELSEVIER 030&-S-0161(95)00133-6 030%0161/96/$15.00

&-I,, failure assessment diagrams as applied

to a flaw in the vicinity of a stress
concentration
E. Smith
Manchester University/UMIST Materials Science Centre, Grosvenor Street, Manchester MI 7HS, UK

(Received 16 August 1995; accepted9 November 1995)

Analysis of a Mode III simulation model of a flaw in the vicinity of a stress

concentration, highlights the sensitivity of the failure assessmentcurve to
geometrical parameterswhen the curve is expressedin the K, (normalised
stressintensity)-l, (normalisedlimit load) format. The results are therefore
supportive of the view that, when using the R6 methodology, assessment of
sucha Aaw should be basedon the use of option 3 rather than options 1 or 2.
Copyright 0 1996Elsevier ScienceLtd.

1 INTRODUCTION material flow properties, is independent of the

Failure assessment diagrams play an important
role in integrity assessments with regard to the
effects of flaws in engineering structures. The R6
procedure’ is based on such diagrams coupled
with the use of two parameters, K, and L,,
defined by the relations
Kr=F
IC
Lr=$ or z (2)
L gL
where K is the linear elastic stress intensity
factor, P(a) the applied load (stress), K,, is the
material’s fracture toughness, and PL (or a=) is
the limit load (or limit stress). Having evaluated
the two parameters K, and L, via, respectively,
relations (1) and (2), it is presumed that failure is
avoided if the point (L,, K,) lies below a failure
assessment curve K, = f( L,).
The R6 procedure is based on the use of this
K,-L, description, there being three types of
assessment curve. With option 3, the assessment
curve is obtained from an elastic-plastic J-
integral analysis for the structure under con-
sideration, and is geometry dependent. The
option 2 curve, while being dependent on the
203
geometry of the configuration, and the option 1
curve is a lower bound of option 2 curves for
some commonly used materials. In principle,
there are great merits in option 2, since its use
bypasses the need for a detailed J-integral
analysis, as the failure assessment curve is
assumed to be geometry independent.
However, this geometry independence would
appear to be contradicted by failure curves
derived from computed J solutions.2 Further-
more, and most importantly with regard to the
present paper’s considerations, Hong and co-
workers3 have presented finite element results
which clearly show that, with regard to a flaw in
the vicinity of a stress concentration, the failure
assessment curve when expressed in the K,-L,
format falls below the option 1 and option 2
curves. They therefore argued that, in using the
R6 approach, assessment of such a flaw should be
carried out using option 3, or by suitably
modifying the option 1 and option 2 curves.
It is against this background that the present
paper analyses a Mode III simulation model of a
crack in the vicinity of a stress concentration. The
results highlight the sensitivity of the failure
assessment curve to geometrical parameters,
when it is expressed in the K,-L, format, and are
therefore supportive of the view that assessment
204 E. Smith

of a flaw in the vicinity of a stress concentration being replaced by EJ2, with E, = E/(1 - v2)
should be based on the use of option 3. where E is Young’s modulus and Y is Poisson’s
ratio. The results give the applied stress CT
required to induce a displacement V, at the crack
2 FAILURE ASSESSMENT CURVE FOR A tip, and are represented in the following form:
SHARP CRACK AT THE ROOT OF A
b
SEMI-CIRCULAR GROOVE ~=(n+b)cos-l~t(Q~b)cos-l

This section addresses the situation where there

is a sharp crack of depth d at the root of an rrE v
elliptically cylindrical groove in the planar -=za(l +p*yqn “*
+bpln% (4)
surface of a semi-infinite solid which is subjected 8%
to an applied tensile stress u (Fig. 1). The d=pb+a(l+p*)“*-a (5)
semi-major axis of the groove is a and the
with (T being obtained by eliminating the
semi-minor axis is b, whereupon the radius of
curvature at the groove root is p = b*/a. To parameters p and q (BP) between relations
(3)-(5). Our concern in this paper is for the
facilitate the analysis the Dugdale-Bilby-
special case where the cylindrical groove is
Cottrell-Swinden (DGBS) strip yield
representation4*5 is used to simulate the plastic semi-circular, i.e. a = b, when relations (3)-(S)
then simplify so as to give
deformation at the crack tip. With this
representation the material is assumed to be ?ru 1 ~~~+~cos-’ l+P* “*
non-work-hardening with fly, the material’s yield (6)
2cry=icos q 2 ( 1 + q2 >
stress, being the tensile stress within the strip
yield zone. Crack extension is presumed to occur z;- (1 +p’)“‘ln(~)1’2+p In: (7)
when the relative displacement of the crack faces
at the crack tip attains a critical value u,.
The anti-plane strain (Mode III) analogue of A=$=p+(l+p*y-1 (8)
the plane strain (Mode I) situation has been
analysed,6 and the Mode III results will be used Now the linear elastic stress intensity factor
for the Mode I situation with the shear modulus (Mode III) is given6,7 by the expression
K = a[?mf(h)]“* (9)
0 with
t t
f@) = Of A) - (1ZA)’ (10)
Furthermore, with the DBCS strip yield rep-
resentation of plastic deformation, the fracture
toughness Krc of the material is given by the
b expression
KIc = [E,~,u,]“~ (11)
Then, since L, = a/~, and K, = K/K,, (see
relations (1) and (2)), it follows from relations
(6), (7), (9) and (11) that

L,=1Jr[ cos-‘p-+cos-’
q (+$)‘“1 (12)

I and

Fig. 1. A sharp crack of depth d at the root of an elliptically

cylindrical groove in the planar surface of a semi-infinite
solid that is subjectedto a tensile stress0: There is a strip
yield zone aheadof the ciack tip.
 K,-L, failure assessment diagrams 205

Table 1. L, and K, values for the case where A = dJa = Table 3. L, and K, values for the case where
o-01 h=d/a=O*S

4 0.1 0~2 0.4 1.0 2.0 4 0.6 1.0 2.0 5.0

L, 0.500 0.547 0.613 0.747 0.851 L 0.376 0.585 0.772 0.905

K 0.660 0.542 0.406 0.263 0.203 K 0.953 0.882 0.784 0.670

with the function f(h) being given by relation the form

(10) with h = d/ a, and the parameter p being
given by the expression (see relation (8)) [K(d + Ad,)]”
.I = ; (17)
Cl
A(1 + (AD))
(14) where Ad, is the elastically equivalent size of
p= (1+@ plastic zone, and is the distance between the
By selecting values of q, relations (lo), (12), (13) initial crack tip and the tip of the elastically
and (14) give combinations of K,--L, values, and equivalent crack. The right-hand side of relation
these are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3, (17) can be expanded to the first two terms so as
respectively, for the cases where h = d/a = O-01, to give
O-1 and 0.5. The resulting failure assessment
curves are shown in Fig. 2, together with the 1
curve appropriate to the case (A = ~0) of a crack
in the surface of a semi-infinite solid, for which where S and S’ = dSldh are defined with regard
the assessment curve is (see relations (10) and to the initial crack length. K in relation (18) is the
stress intensity defined with regard to the initial
tw-tw)
r 412 1112 crack tip and is given by relation (16). Now J, as
&+ ‘b iii- given by relation (18), equates with the area W,
18 In sec(nLJ2) 1
(15)
under the stress (p)-relative displacement (u)
Inspection of the curves in Fig. 2 immediately curve appropriate to the plastic zone, up to a
shows that the failure assessment curves are value of u that is equal to the displacement UT at
markedly geometry dependent, with the curve the crack tip, i.e.
progressively being lowered as the crack becomes
more confined to the root of the groove A$1 = w,=rp(v)dv (19)
(decreasing A = d/a value).
Now at the onset of crack extension, and with the
DBCS representation, p is constant within the
3 THE SMALL L, REGIME

The regime where L, is small can be considered 1.0 I

very simply by making use of the equivalent I

elastic crack concept. Thus by reference to

relation (9), the stress intensity factor can be
written in the form Yi
0.5 1
K = aI& S(d/a) = (~%‘i S(A) (16)
with h = d/u. Now with the equivalent elastic 0.1
\I
crack concept, the J-integral can be written8 in

Table 2. L, and K, values for the case where A = d/a = \I 0.01

o-1 I I
I
I L,
8
4 0.2 0.4 1.0 2.0 5.0 01
1
L 0.397 0.541 0.718 0.837 0.931 Fig. 2. K,-L, failure assessment
curves for a crack (depth d)
K o+C39 0.780 0.625 0.524 0,431 at the root of a semi-circulargroove (radius a) for different
A = d/a values.
206 E. Smith

strip yield zone with a value uY and + = V, is the
critical value of UT at which crack extension
occurs. Furthermore, Ad, is then the elastically
equivalent size REs of zone associated with a
semi-infinite crack in a remotely loaded infinite
solid, i.e. nE,~,/24a,.~ Relation (19) thus gives
the K value appropriate to the onset of crack
extension as
l/2
remembering that h = d/a, the ratio of the crack
depth to the radius of the semi-circular groove.
Relation (24) immediately shows that the K,-L,
curve is progressively lowered as h decreases, i.e.
as the ratio d/a decreases, a result that is
consistent with the curves shown in Fig. 2.
4 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

K= (20) Analysis of the specific Mode III simulation

or since S’R,,/Sa is presumed to be small, or
otherwise the present analysis is invalid (the step
from relation (17) to (18) would not be possible),
model in Section 2, coupled with the general
small L, considerations in Section 3, have shown
quite clearly that, with regard to the assessment
of a flaw in the vicinity of a stress concentration,
the K,-L, failure assessment curve is markedly
sensitive to geometrical parameters and is lower
the more confined is the flaw to the stress

1 (21) concentration. The results therefore substantiate

the finite element results of Hong and co-
workers,3 and are supportive of the view that
Now with L, = (T/U,,, it follows from relation (16) assessment of a flaw in the vicinity of a stress
that concentration should be based, when using the
R6 procedure, on the use of option 3 rather than
=%vc= nLfS2 (24 options 1 or 2.
24u,a 24Kf

whereupon relations (21) and (22), taken REFERENCES

together, give the failure assessment curve for
small L, as 1. Mime, I., Ainsworth, R. A., Dowling, A. R. & Stewart,
A. T., Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping, 32 (1988) 3.
2. Bloom, J. M., PVP-Vol. 287, Fracture mechanics
2zs!s’L2 = 1 _ ~2f’(wf applications.In Proc. ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping
K,=l- (23) Conf, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1994p. 147.
24 48 3. Hong, Q., Ying, T. & Liankiu, S., Znt. J. Pres. Ves. &
Piping, 57 (1994)201.
with S(h) = [@(A)]‘” and with f(h) being given 4. Dugdale, D. S., J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 8 (1960) 100.
by relation (10). It then follows from relations 5. Bilby, B. A., Cottrell, A. H. & Swinden, K. H., Proc. R.
Sot., A272 (1963) 304.
(10) and (23) that the failure assessment curve 6. Bilby, B. A. & Heald, P. T., Proc. R. Sot., A305 (1968)
for small L, becomes 429.
7. Smith, E., Proc. R. Sot., A299 (1967) 455.
8. Planas,J. & Elites, M., Znt. J. Fract., 5 (1991) 139.
2
3 9. Edmunds,T. M. & Willis, J. R., J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 25
Kr=l-; l+(l+hy I L: (24) (1977)423.