0 Votes +0 Votes -

40 vues8 pagesFeb 19, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

40 vues

© All Rights Reserved

- Failure Analysis of Gas Turbine Blades
- Kink Angle
- Roeder et al 2011
- GetTRDoc
- MM658 HANDOUT
- Failure analysis of a machinable brass connector in a boiler unit installation
- Fusion
- Damage Mechanics Mat
- HSE Research Report 219 (Mooring Systems)
- Alaibadi Portela
- Tagayanagi Model
- 02 Mech Prop
- 165-Bang-Study of Fracture Mechanics in Testing Interfacial Fracture of Solder Joints.pdf
- ASU All Material Project Report_VV
- 1-s2.0-S1350630714002854-main_3.pdf
- Fracture Toughness
- FRACTURE
- Fracture Specimen Stree Analysis
- Short Summary for FEM Computational Modelling
- Factor Effecting Concrete

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Copyright ~ 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Pergamon 0013-7944(94)00188-X Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0013-7944/95 $9.50 + 0.00

F R A C T U R E MECHANICS

K, B. B R O B E R G

Department of Mathematical Physics. University College Dublin, Belfield. Dublin 4. Ireland

Abstract Virtually all methods in fracture mechanics seem to be dependent on the existence of an

autonomous region near the crack edge, a region in which the processes are dependent on the material

rather than on the body and loading geometry. This, usually tacit, assumption is questionable for very

large scale yielding. In addition, the most c o m m o n tool to describe the state of the autonomous region,

the J-integral, may lose its path-independence at very large scale yielding, and the assumption of the

existence of J- R-curves, that are independent of the scale of yielding, is far from obvious. These

circumstances, together with the fact that the J R-curve method is intended for monotone loading,

whereas most structures are subjected to more than one load application during their life-time, calls for

more reliable and adequate methods within the realm of non-linear fracture mechanics. One method with

such aspirations, the J N-method, previously suggested by the author is briefly discussed.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

CURRENT methods in fracture mechanics rest on one basic assumption, explicitly pronounced or

not, namely the concept of autonomy [1] in a region near the crack edge, including, at least, the

process region. This concept implies that, in each given class of situations--the autonomy class,

the mechanical processes near the crack edge are always the same, independent of body and loading

geometry. Each autonomy class contains (1) a given material and temperature, (2) a given mode

near the crack edge (mode I, II, III or a certain mixture), (3) certain restrictions on the body

geometry, such as a smallest permissible ratio between the length of the shortest ligament from the

crack edge to the outer boundary and the crack length, or a smallest permissible plate thickness,

(4) either rather small, usually compressive, T-stress, as in most engineering applications [2, 3], or

a large tensile T-stress, as in wedging and (5) an upper limit of the scale of yielding. The T-stress

is the non-zero principal stress near the crack edge on the (traction free) crack faces.

The simplest autonomy class concerns small scale yielding (SSY): then there is no need for

making restrictions on the T-stress. This class is, of course, the class of linear elastic fracture

mechanics (LEFM), usually specified by the ASTM criterion.

When autonomy prevails, the state of the process region can be uniquely described by means

of one parameter, only. In many cases the J-integral can be chosen for this purpose. It is reasonably

path-independent even inside the plastic region at the crack edge, provided that the path is not

drawn very near the process region and that no crack growth has taken place. Onset of (stable)

crack growth occurs when the J-integral reaches a critical value [4]. This is the so-called J-integral

criterion.

The J-integral criterion is actually not very useful for practical purposes, since it describes only

when stable crack growth starts, and not when fracture (unstable crack growth) occurs. Unlike

stable crack growth, which is governed by a local criterion, unstable crack growth is a question

of global instability. An early attempt to relate local and global phenomena, in order to determine

when unstable crack growth occurs, was made by Krafft et al. (1961)[5], who introduced

"R-curves'" (crack resistance curves). Such curves were later adapted to the J-integral: so called

J R-curves. It has been tacitly assumed that these curves are independent of the scale of yielding.

J R - c u r v e s have been widely used, but often without proper attention to the autonomy class.

They are generally obtained from tests with CT specimens, which are characterized by high

T-stresses, seldom encountered in engineering, but rather representative of wedging [2, 3]. Such

J R-curves should, consequently, not be used for the autonomy class of small T-stresses.

The J - R - c u r v e method is designed for monotone loading, but very often it is used for

tlm~+~ ~ 157

158 K.B. BROBERG

engineering structures, subjected to static loading without much regard to the number of load

applications expected. Thus static loading and monotone loading are often confused. Does this

really matter, as long as the total number of load applications is fairly low, say less than a few

hundred or thousand? The answer seems to be that it does not matter very much within the realm

of LEFM, but at large scale yielding (LSY) it really does, in some cases even if there are less than

100 load applications [2, 3]. Methods developed for low-cycle fatigue should therefore be used.

Actually, due to the rare occurrence of only one load application during the whole life-time of a

structure, methods developed for monotone loading are of very limited use (except at LEFM).

2. H O W T O D E S C R I B E T H E STATE OF AN A U T O N O M O U S R E G I O N

In L E F M the stress intensity factor, defined as an amplitude factor for the inverse square root

term in a series expansion of the stresses in the elastic region, controls the state of the autonomous

region with high accuracy, even if this term is nowhere dominating over other singular or regular

terms with a similar high accuracy. The state of the autonomous region at LSY cannot in general

be described in a similar way, i.e. by a certain term in a series expansion of the stresses or strains

in the plastic (or elastic) region, in the idealized case of a point-sized process region. One should

observe that consideration of a process region implies involvement of singular terms that are

forbidden for energy reasons in the idealized case of a point sized process region. For a certain

autonomy class the state of the process region can be regarded as controlled by a certain mix of

terms in a series expansion rather than by one dominant term, but this mix cannot be easily found.

The J-integral, therefore, which offers a fairly simple way to describe the state of the process region

without direct connection with mathematical singularities in idealized cases, seems to be a suitable

choice. However, it can be used only as long as it is reasonably path-independent outside the largest

(common) region of autonomy for the autonomy class considered. This requirement prevents the

use of J-integral methods in many cases when net section plastic flow is approached or exceeded.

Although the J-integral criterion is widely used, its experimental confirmation is still very

uncertain, at least under plane strain conditions. An early attempt by Begley and Landes[6]

received much attention in the U.S.A., but was obviously incorrect, since the authors did not

determine the onset of crack growth, but assumed, erroneously, that it occurred at maximum load.

(The excellent agreement with theory, reported by Begley and Landes, was therefore puzzling, but

turned out to depend on errors in the analysis of the experimental data.) For predominantly plane

stress conditions (thin plates) Hickerson [7] obtained experimental verification of the J-integral

criterion for considerably longer cracks and shorter unbroken ligaments than prescribed by ASTM

conventions for LEFM. However, although there is no difficulty to verify the J-integral criterion

experimentally under plane strain conditions, as long as SSY prevails up to the onset of crack

growth, there are certain difficulties at LSY with conventional test pieces, since these usually have

to be chosen so small that non-uniform deformation near the crack edge makes interpretations

uncertain: note that the J-integral is defined only for plane strain or plane stress. On the other hand,

a systematic experimental investigation of the J-integral criterion at LSY may not be very urgent.

As it appears, onset of stable crack growth, in cases of engineering interest, generally occurs at SSY,

whereas LSY may appear during the subsequent stable crack growth. The ASTM criterion implies,

for many geometries, that LEFM is valid up to about one third of the load that produces net section

yield. If stable crack growth starts at this load, then net section yield might be reached before

fracture or be closely approached before the occurrence of fracture.

From a theoretical point of view it is evident that when net section yield is approached, one

cannot rely upon autonomy near a crack edge. Due to the hyperbolic character of the equations

governing the strain field in the plastic region, the strains near the process region would be

influenced by the strains in the outer part of the plastic region, and these strains, obviously, may

be as much or more dependent on the body geometry as a whole as on the existence of the crack.

Even if the J-integral was still path-independent, the J-integral criterion would not make sense

when net section yield was approached.

Even at large scale yielding well below net section plastic flow, care must be taken that the

J-integral criterion is not actually used outside the autonomy class assumed. Such a class might

be restricted to a rather narrow T-stress region. Results from some recent studies on stress-strain

Methods in nonlinear fracture mechanics 159

fields near the crack edges [8-12], albeit performed without consideration of the existence of a

process region, have emphasized the importance of the T-stress when defining an autonomy class.

PROCESS REGION

The J R-curve shows a relation between the J-integral for a sufficiently remote path, and the

amount of stable crack growth, (a - a0). This relation is believed to be independent of the scale

of yielding, but there does not seem to be any proper justification for this belief. Actually, there

might be reason for disbelief. Stable crack growth is explained by the fact that the required energy

flow to the process region cannot be sustained, unless the load is increased, because of the gradual

increase of the screening action of the plastic region on the energy flow to the process

region [13, 14]. Then it seems to be logical to assume that this increase would be more pronounced

at LSY than at SSY, which would imply a steeper rise of the curve showing J as a function of

(a - a0).

A closer investigation shows that a dependence of the J vs (a - a0) relation on the scale of

yielding actually exists, and that it is related to a material property, which can be described as the

embedment of the process region in the plastic region at SSY. At deep embedment the J vs (a - a0)

relation appears to be strongly dependent on the scale of yielding, which unfortunately implies that

the J - R - c u r v e method is not reliable for prediction of fracture at LSY.

A simple description of a process region, adequate for the present purpose, can be made by

means of a decohesion curve; see Fig. 1. The maximum of the curve is the cohesive strength, i.e.

the stress a o required for incipient decohesion. The height increase of the process region is then

v0. Complete decohesion occurs when the height increase is v , . The ratios a o / a r , where crr is the

yield stress, and 2 = v,/vo are two of three important parameters of the process region: the third

is its height, h.

The process region height is generally dependent on the distance between dominant kernels

of micro-separations, for instance particles at which voids are opened: it should be somewhat larger

than the average distance between these kernels. With a cell model of the material, each cell

containing one dominant kernel of potential micro-separation, the process region shape could look

as schematically shown in two dimensions in Fig. 2. It is confined to a somewhat wrinkled layer

of cells with only one cell thickness in height, but possibly many cell thicknesses in length. The

stresses near the upper and lower boundaries of the process region are highest, approximately equal

to a o, at the cell furthest from the crack edge, and lowest at the cell closest to the edge. Figure 3

shows the stress vs height increase state at the upper boundary of a process region cell, marked

A in Fig. 2 and at the lower boundary of a neighbouring cell, marked B in Fig. 2. The length, L,

of the process region in the forwards direction, can be related to the height, h, and to the forwards

u3

LIJ

p.,-

/

cO

LtJ ~D

>

u3

W

I

0

0

W

IiI

>

#

LLI !

t

i

0

I

V0 V8

HEIGHT INCREASE

Fig. 1. Relation between cohesive/decohesivestress and height increase of the process region. Decohesion

occurs after the curve maximum has been reached.

160 K. B. BROBERG

extension, Rp, o f the plastic region at SSY. The latter relation describes the e m b e d m e n t of the

process region in the plastic region.

It is found that L/h depends on ao/ar, 2, and the strain hardening. Using results by Andersson

and Bergkvist [15] and after some adjustments for realistic decohesion curve shapes, one finds that

L

- ~ 0.52, (1)

h

for a process region in an elastic surrounding. This relation seems to underestimate L/h by a factor

of 2-3 for a growing crack in an elastic-plastic surrounding, according to a c o m p a r i s o n with results

by T v e r g a a r d and Hutchinson [16]. However, if decohesion takes place at very low stress, a process

region develops before plastic flow takes place, i.e. it develops in an elastic surrounding. Sj6berg

and Stfihle [17] determined the upper limit for this occurrence to be ao/ar -~ 1.6995. On the other

hand, if the stress required for decohesion is very high, no process region is formed, but increased

blunting occurs. The lower limit for this occurrence depends on the strain hardening. F o r a perfectly

plastic material it is ao/ar = (2 + n ) x f 3 ~ 2.968 [18], and for strain hardening values typical for

m o d e r n steels it is a b o u t 3-4, cf. [16]. Between the two limits, L/h is roughly constant, i.e. a r o u n d

10 for the material data used by T v e r g a a r d and Hutchinson [16]; except when the upper limit is

approached, when it first decreases to its m i n i m u m length, unity (one cell length), and then

disappears. Figure 4 shows schematically the dependence of L/h on ~ro/~rr.

The forward extension of the plastic region, including the process region, at SSY and plane

strain, can be taken as

Rp = 0.05 K~

a~' (2)

0 0

V V

Fig. 3. Cells belonging to the process region are unloaded, but increase in height, whereas cells above and

below the process region are unloaded and decrease in height. Stress and height increase are shown for

one process region cell, marked A in Fig. 2 and for a neighbouring cell, marked B in Fig. 2.

Methods in nonlinear fracture mechanics 161

PROCESS PLASTICREGION

INCREASING OD/O Y

Fig. 4. If the cohesive strength is very low, no plastic region appears, but a process region in an elastic

surrounding. If it is very high, no process region develops, but increasing blunting takes place. In an

intermediate region the process region may be many times longer than its height.

even t h o u g h this expression depends somewhat on strain hardening and process region character.

It might be convenient to introduce an embedment parameter, B = Rp/L. According to the previous

discussion B--* 1 as ao/tzr~ 1.7, and it can be assumed that B ~ i when tzD/ay.~ 1.7-2. A rough

estimate o f B when az~/ay is so high that the process region consists o f only one cell in the forwards

direction (L = h) can be made by assuming that L/Rp ~ Ey/~ . . . . where ~r ~ 3tz r/E (E is the modulus

o f elasticity) is the strain at the forwards b o u n d a r y o f the plastic region and Emax is the strain at

the forwards b o u n d a r y o f the process region. Assuming Ema, to be o f the order o f 10% implies that

B ,~ E/3Oar, so that B m a y be a b o u t 5-10 for a range o f materials used in engineering structures

and possessing a high cohesive strength.

The estimates given were based on the assumption that steady state growth is approached, i.e.

when unstable crack growth is about to occur at SSY. However, the length o f the process region

seems to be rather constant during the phase o f stable crack growth, except at the early stages,

when it increases rapidly [19].

There are three important implications o f different degrees o f embedment of the process

region.

Implication on stable crack growth. A very illustrative example can be found from numerical

calculations by Tvergaard and H u t c h i n s o n [16]. Their results concern a material with power-law

strain hardening with exponent N = 0.1, a yield stress a r = 0.003E and some assumptions regarding

the shape o f the cohesion/decohesion curve. F o u r different cohesive strengths were studied, ranging

from a~/t~v= 3.0 to ~ / a y = 3.75, which can be estimated to correspond to values o f the

embedment parameter B ranging from 2 to 10. Small scale yielding was assumed. The results

showed that the a m o u n t o f stable crack growth, estimated from their Fig. 3.1 when a steady state

is reasonably well approached, was less than the length Rp at the onset o f crack growth for B = 2,

K/Ko

Braex - B << 1

/

i

U

~ E D I A T E

EMBEDNENT

-~"~ B - 1 << 1

O GO

I

0 5 10 Rp

Fig. 5. The influence of the stable crack growth at different degrees of embedment, B, of the process region

at small scale yielding. Bmax is the maximum value of B for which a process region develops, and K/K~,

expresses the relation between current load and the load at onset of crack growth.

t62 K. B. B R O B E R G

PROCESS 1//////////////~//~/

REGION /_~/~ PLASTIC REGION ~-//~/

\ W-,.~ ~ /-//// AT ONSET OF ~//~

\ ~ ~.~////~ AUTONOMOUS ~"/~// UNSTABLE CRACI</~

\ . REGION

Fig. 6. If the amount of crack growth before fracture at SSY was much smaller than the forwards extension

of the plastic region at SSY, then one could expect the existence of an autonomous region, outside which

the J-integral was path-independent. However, the real situation at deep embedment of the process region

is rather the one schematically shown in the following figure,

but several times this length for B ~ 10. (Note that Tvergaard and Hutchinson have another

definition of the length parameter representing the size of the plastic region than the one used here.)

At poor embedment (B ,~ 2) unstable crack growth would occur after a load increase of only about

40% over the load at the onset of crack growth, corresponding to an increase of the J-integral

by a factor of 2, approximately. At deep embedment (B ~ 10) the load had to be increased by a

factor of about 4.5, which implies an increase of the J-integral by a factor of about 20.

Figure 5 shows schematically the influence of different degrees of embedment of the process

region on the stable crack growth.

The fact that the amount of stable crack growth at SSY is considerably larger than the

forwards extension of the plastic region at deep embedment of the process region seems to remove

the apparent basis for the assumption of a J vs (a - a0) relation that is independent of the scale

of yielding. Figure 6 illustrates the basis required for this assumption, whereas Fig. 7 shows the

real situation.

Implication on the distribution of energy dissipation. As can be expected, poor embedment

implies that most of the energy dissipation at SSY takes place in the process region, even when

a steady state is approached. St~,hle [19] found that 80% of the energy dissipation occurred in the

process region for materials with linear strain hardening Er/E = 0.001-0.01 and cohesive strength

tro/crr = 2.5. The embedment parameter B can be estimated at somewhat less than 2. Such a

material would be experienced as rather "brittle". At deep embedment the major part of the energy

/ ~ ""

Fig. 7. At deep embedment of the process region, the amount of stable crack growth before fracture at

SSY is considerably larger than the forwards extension of the plastic region.

Methods in nonlinear fracture mechanics 163

dissipation takes place in the plastic region. The assumption that the energy dissipation rate in the

process region is rather independent of the amount of crack growth implies that the ratio between

this dissipation and the total energy dissipation is about (Kj~./Ko)2, where K~ is the fracture

toughness and K0 the value of the stress intensity factor at the onset of crack growth. Thus it is

about 5% for the deep embedment case studied by Tvergaard and Hutchinson [16]. Analysis of

experimental results on stable crack growth in a Swedish steel, D O M E X 450 at - 1 0 0 ' C

(ar/E ~ 0.003), gave consistent results if it was assumed that 10% of the energy dissipation took

place in the process region [14], but no attempts were made to determine aD/ar.

Implication on the fracture load at large scale yielding. Analysis of results obtained by StS,hle

produced a direct illustration of the dependence of a relation between J and (a - a0). He showed

that the fracture load at large scale yielding is underestimated by LEFM at deep embedment of

the process region [20], but overestimated at poor embedment [21]. Assume now that a J R-curve

was obtained at SSY. Prediction of the fracture load for a case of LSY, using this curve, always

results in a lower fracture load than prediction by using LEFM. Thus, if the J-R-curve was

reasonably independent of the scale of yielding at which its determination was made, then LEFM

would always overestimate the fracture load at LSY in comparison to the prediction using the

J-R-curve. In view of the results obtained by St~hle [21] this implies that both L E F M and the

J--R-curve method underestimate the fracture load at deep embedment of the process region, but

that LEFM gives the better estimate. At poor embedment, on the other hand, the J R-curve

method may give the better estimate.

The purpose of the discussion in the preceding paragraph was to point out again that the

.l- R-curve is far from independent of the scale of yielding. LEFM was used as a theoretical tool

in this discussion: the fracture toughness K~, can, of course, not always be determined, due to the

requirement of large test pieces.

4. T H E J - N CURVE

The difficulties encountered in nonlinear fracture mechanics are essentially related to the scale

of yielding: the larger this scale is, the more fragile the basis for currently used methods. This fact,

together with the fact that methods developed for monotone loading are of very limited use,

because of the rarity of structures which are expected to be subjected to just one load application

during their whole life-time, calls for more reliable and adequate methods. One method, in which

the uncertainties connected with very large scales of yielding can be reduced considerably, and in

which the number of major load applications expected for the structure can be taken into account,

has been suggested by Broberg [2, 3]; see also Lundstr6m and Tryding [22]. Only a brief account

will be given here.

The test method consists simply of applying a number of load applications on a test piece and

counting the number N of cycles to failure. The J-integral at the first load application is taken as

a measure of the loading. By choosing different load amplitudes in different tests a J N-curve is

obtained. Since cracks in engineering structures generally are small compared to significant

structural dimensions, the prefabricated crack in the test piece should (as a compromise) be one

quarter of the test piece width and only tests leading to fracture before the crack has traversed half

the test piece width are accepted. The J N-curve can be directly used for predicting the number

of cycles to fracture in a structure containing a crack of the same length as the one prefabricated

in the test piece. If it is different, the number of cycles to fracture increases in proportion to the

original crack length, as a dimensional analysis shows for cracks that are much smaller than

significant structural dimensions.

For most engineering applications the T-stress is small and usually compressive. This implies

that a test piece like the three point bend specimen should be used. For wedging type loading a

CT specimen could be chosen.

The method takes advantage of the fact that it is only in the last or the last few load

applications before fracture that the scale of yielding becomes comparable to the one just before

fracture at monotone loading. The vast majority of the load applications takes place under a much

smaller scale of yielding and the amount of crack growth during the first few load applications is

much smaller than the total amount of stable crack growth at monotone loading. Thus both

164 K. B. BROBERG

autonomy and path-independence of the J-integral are much better realized than in a test with

monotone loading.

For the rare cases of monotone loading, the J-N-curve method can be used by assuming that,

say, 5 or 10 load applications instead of one actually occurs. This, of course, introduces some safety.

The requirement that the crack must not traverse more than half the test piece width is, of

course, based on the wish to obtain a reasonable simulation of a crack that is much smaller than

significant structural dimensions. This implies a limit of the number of load applications for which

data can be obtained at the given test piece size. Usually this number is a few thousand. In this

context it could be noted that only situations in which the crack grows to at most twice its original

length before fracture are considered. This contrasts sharply to cases of high-cycle fatigue.

REFERENCES

[1] G. I. Barenblatt, The formation of equilibrium cracks during brittle fracture. General ideas and hypotheses.

Axially-symmetric cracks. P M M 23, 434-444 (English transl. J. appl. Mech. 23, 622 636) (1959).

[2] K. B. Broberg, New approaches in fracture mechanics, in Mechanical Behaviour o f Materials (Edited by J. Carlsson

and N. G. Ohlson), Vol. 2, pp. 927 934 (1983).

[3] K. B. Broberg, Fracture mechanics--theoria or tekhne? Int. J. Fracture 57, 8 5 ~ 9 (1992).

[4] K. B. Broberg, Crack growth criteria and non-linear fracture mechanics. J. Mech. Phys. Solid~. 19, 407~,18 (1971).

[5] J. M. Kraft't, A. M. Sullivan and R. W. Boyle, Proc. Crack Propagation Symp. Vol. 1, pp. 8 26, College of Aeronautics,

Cranfield, England (1961).

[6] J. A. Begley and J. D. Landes, The J-integral as a fracture criterion, in Fracture Toughness, Proc. 1971 Natl. Symp.

Fracture Mechanics, Part II, A S T M S T P 514, 24 (1972).

[7] J. P. Hickerson Jr, Experimental confrmation of the J-integral as a thin section fracture criterion. Engng Fracture

Meeh. 9, 75-85 (1977).

[8] A. M. AI-Ani and J. W. Hancock, J-dominance of short cracks in tension and bending. J. Mech. Phys. Solids" 39, 23 43

(1991).

19] C. Beteg6n and J. W. Hancock, Two-parameter characterization of elastic plastic crack-tip fields. J. appl. Mech. 58,

104 110 (1991).

[10] Z.-Z. Du and J. W. Hancock, The effect of non-singular stresses on crack-tip constraint. J. Mech. Phys. Solid~ 39,

555 567 (1991).

[11] N. P. O'Dowd and C. F. Shih, Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter I. Structure of fields.

J. Mech. Phys. Solids 39, 989 1015 (199l).

[12] N. P. O'Dowd and C. F. Shih, Family of crack-tip fields characterized by a triaxiality parameter 11. Fracture

applications. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 40, 939 963 (1991).

[13] K. B. Broberg, The importance of stable crack extension in linear and non-linear fracture mechanics, in Prospect o!

Fracture Mechanics (Edited by G. C. Sih, H. C. van Elst and D. Broek), pp. 125 137. Noordhoff, Leyden (1974).

[14] K. B. Broberg, On stable crack growth. J. Mech. Phys. Solid~' 23, 215 237 (1975).

[15] H. Andersson and H. Bergkvist, Analysis of a non-linear crack model. J. Mech. Phys. Solids" 18, 1 28 (1970).

[16] V. Tvergaard and J. W. Hutchinson, On the relation between crack growth resistance and fracture process parameters

in elastic plastic solids. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 40, 1377 1397 (1992).

[17] F. Sj6berg and P. Stfihle, On the autonomy of the process region. Int. J. Fracture 54, I 20 (1992).

[18] J. R. Rice, A path independent integral and the approximate analysis of strain concentration by notches and cracks.

J. appl. Mech. 35, 379- 386 (1968).

[19] P. StS_hle, Process region characteristics and stable crack growth. Report LUTFD2/(TFHF-3019) from Division ot"

Solid Mechanics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden (1985).

[20] P. St~.hle, On the small scale fracture mechanics. Int. J. Fracture 22, 203 216 (1983).

[21] P. St~hle, On stable crack growth at large scale of yielding, in Computational Mechanics, pp. V-365 370. Springer

(1986)

[22] A. Lundstr6m and J. Tryding, A low cycle fatigue criterion based on non-linear fracture mechanics. Engng Fracture

Mech. 39, 769 781 (1991).

- Failure Analysis of Gas Turbine BladesTransféré parostroveanu57
- Kink AngleTransféré paragrbovic
- Roeder et al 2011Transféré parmusaabsiddiqui
- GetTRDocTransféré parpyman4407
- MM658 HANDOUTTransféré parmanojpatel2410
- Failure analysis of a machinable brass connector in a boiler unit installationTransféré parAnnisa Rakhmawati
- FusionTransféré parrshegde
- Damage Mechanics MatTransféré parlekan4real
- HSE Research Report 219 (Mooring Systems)Transféré parCathy_7918
- Alaibadi PortelaTransféré parJhon19806
- Tagayanagi ModelTransféré paralperenacar
- 02 Mech PropTransféré pardeformedxlump
- 165-Bang-Study of Fracture Mechanics in Testing Interfacial Fracture of Solder Joints.pdfTransféré pareid elsayed
- ASU All Material Project Report_VVTransféré parVipin Nair
- 1-s2.0-S1350630714002854-main_3.pdfTransféré parstalinrajesh143
- Fracture ToughnessTransféré paraap1
- FRACTURETransféré parDaniel Guz
- Fracture Specimen Stree AnalysisTransféré parGaurav Pundir
- Short Summary for FEM Computational ModellingTransféré parTim Syki
- Factor Effecting ConcreteTransféré parmoizm53
- Tension members-Lectures Part 2.pdfTransféré parFayyazAhmad
- Aircraft Wheel Fatigue.pdfTransféré parUtphalaDhamma
- NonlinearFiniteElementAnalysisofSteelFiberReinforced.pdfTransféré parTinesh K Raman
- 1152.pdfTransféré parlazem.360
- Stress Intensity Factor Solutions for Cracks in Railway Axles_solutions_2011Transféré parRamakrishnan AmbiSubbiah
- Fatigue Chapter 6Transféré parJia En
- Analiza cu elemente finite portfuzetaTransféré parLuca Victor
- The Effect of Temperature and Specimen Geometry on the Parameters of the Local Approach to Cleavage FractureTransféré parP R SREENIVASAN
- Punching shear behavior of reinforced concrete slabs using steel fibers in the mixTransféré parDiego Andree Vega
- High-Temperature Low-Cycle-Fatigue and Crack-Growth BehaviorTransféré parbigsteve9088

- Chapt+1+Law+and+the+Legal+SystemTransféré parfoo
- Fracture Mechanics and Fatigue Perspective: A Historical Perspective - Paris, 1998Transféré parfoo
- The Historical Development of Out Understanding of Fracture - Irwin, 1997Transféré parfoo
- Brittle Fracture TWITransféré parHouman Hatamian
- The past, present, and future of fracture mechanicsTransféré partassili17
- Ceriolo and Tommaso, 1998.pdfTransféré parfoo
- 1Transféré parEb
- MPNP Policy Guidelines PublicTransféré parfoo
- Research CritiqueTransféré parRajesh RajBaba
- En x8 Qrg WindowsTransféré parfoo
- Appendicular Skeleton 10 (2)Transféré parfoo
- 339722570-her3Transféré parfoo
- her3Transféré parfoo
- Why.docxTransféré parfoo
- What.docxTransféré parfoo

- Welding Report Sem3Transféré parhakim
- Building Construction and Materials Notes - By EasyEngineering.net.pdfTransféré parHabib Ur Rahman
- Stabilizing Agricultural Films - A Question of BalanceTransféré parVictor Castrejon
- 6172962-Packed-Bed2Transféré parNagwa Mansy
- MORT&H Stone in Wire Crates SpecififcationTransféré parKunal Mandalaywala
- CE & FLOW CHART.docTransféré parK Saraswathi Naidu
- 2005 AFS - Metallurgical Comparisons Between Operating Conditions, Inoculant Types and Fade Effects in Grey IronTransféré pardemiancito06
- Ch23Transféré parmonogod
- 17000360Transféré parSembiyan Anbarasu
- Equilibrium study of K2CO3, KHCO3, CO2 and waterTransféré parbmeghani
- dubluraTransféré parMihai Sebastian
- Metallographic EtchantsTransféré parturorama
- CONTROL OF DECARBURIZATION OF STEEL.pdfTransféré parBhushan Verma
- CHAPTER 5.1Transféré parapi-19624513
- Cimac Paper 21Transféré parozakyus
- Concrete-steel Composite Structures - Designing Buildings WikiTransféré parLucas Antonio
- 10 - Duplex Stainless Steel Offer for Oil & GasTransféré parbalu
- qestlab-britishtestmethodsTransféré parrbhavish
- PermeabilityTransféré parF.a.AlfredThom
- CL-H0006Transféré parLeiser Jose Anastacio Juarez
- FINAL - RC 01Transféré parVhan Perez
- Upstream-Downstream PCV 215 MMSCFD CaseTransféré parerwinfs
- Alpema Standards 3ed 2010Transféré parJose Torres
- Rates Analysis for Calculating Material and Labour for Building WorksTransféré paryogesh
- Burger Thesis SfrcTransféré parMihai Gheorghiu
- Heat Transfer (CH)Transféré parMahir Mahmood
- Stringing Drum ScheduleTransféré parshanmugam.s
- Chemical PulpingTransféré parAnis Keww
- informe de QuimicaTransféré parXiomara Intor
- Tabel Unsur KimiaTransféré parHamid Revival

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.