Fracture Mechanics

Fracture Toughness Testing of Metals
FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING OF METALS

Contents
Background
Specimen Configurations
Specimen Orientation
Fatigue Precracking
Instrumentation
Side Grooving
Plain Strain Fracture Toughness
K-R Curves
Background

Those who approach fracture from a solid mechanics/ structural mechanics
viewpoint, often sidestep microstructural issues and consider only continuum
models.

In certain cases, classical Fracture Mechanics provides some justification for
disregarding microscopic failure mechanisms. When a single parameter (i.e.
G, K, J or CTOD) uniquely characterizes crack tip conditions, a critical value
of this parameter is a material constant that is transferable from a laboratory
test specimen to a structure/ component made from the same material.

The situation becomes considerably more complicated when a fracture
toughness test on a small lab test specimen is no longer a reliable indicator of
how a complex structure/ component will behave. A single parameter
assumption ceases to be valid. The two configurations may even fail by
Background
different mechanisms. A number of researchers are attempting to develop
alternatives to single parameter fracture mechanics for such cases.

A fracture toughness test measures the Resistance of a Material to crack
extension. Such a test may yield a single value of fracture toughness or a
Resistance Curve, where a toughness parameter ( K, G, J, CTOD) is plotted
against Crack Extensions.

A variety of organizations throughout the world publish standard procedures
for fracture toughness measurements, including ASTM, BSI, ISO, JSME, etc.
The first standard for K testing was developed by ASTM in 1970 and for J
testing in 1981. BSI published the CTOD test method in 1979.

Existing fracture toughness test standards include procedures for K
IC
, K-R
Curve, J
IC
, J-R Curve, CTOD and K
Id
testing. We primarily focus on ASTM
standard test procedures.
Background
The reader should not rely on text books alone for guidance on conducting
fracture toughness tests, but should consult the relevant standards. Also the
reader should gain an understanding of the fundamental basis of G, K, J and
CTOD as well as the limitations of these to characterize the fracture
toughness of new materials. Ex: laminated fibre reinforced polymer matrix
composites.

All fracture toughness tests have several common features. The design of test
specimens is similar in each standard; and the orientation of the specimen
relative to symmetry directions in the material is always an important
consideration. The cracks at the root of a notch in the test specimens are
induced by fatigue in each case; the basic instrumentation to measure load
and displacement is common; but some tests require additional
instrumentation to monitor crack growth.


Fig 7.1 shows commonly recommended test specimen types.

Each test specimen has three important characteristics dimensions: crack
length (a), thickness (B) and width (W). In most cases, W=2B and a/W 0.5

There are a number of configurations that are used in RESEARCH, but not
yet standardized. They are single edge notch tensile panel, the double edge
notched tensile panel, the axisymmetric notched bar, and the double
cantilever beam specimen.

The compact specimen is pin- loaded by special clevises, as illustrated in
fig 7.2.
~

Specimen orientation is such an important variable in fracture toughness
measurements, all ASTM standard featured test methods require that the
orientation be reported along with the measured fracture toughness;
ASTM has adopted a notation for this.

Fig 7.5 illustrates the ASTM notation for fracture specimens extracted from a
rolled plate or a forging. There are six recommended orientations. The letters
L, T, and S denote the Longitudinal, Transverse and Short transverse
directions, relative to the rolling direction or the forging axis.

Two letters are used to identify the orientation of the test specimen; the first
letter indicates the loading direction (which is always normal to the crack
plane in mode I loading) and the second letter denotes the direction of crack
propagation. For example, the L-T orientation corresponds to loading in the
Longitudinal direction and crack propagation in the Transverse direction.

A similar notation applies to round bars and hollow cylinders, as fig 7.6
illustrates. The symmetry directions in this case are Circumferential, Radial
and Longitudinal (CRL) respectively.

Ideally, one should measure the toughness of a material in several
orientations, but this is often not practical.
Fatigue Precracking

LEFM applies to cracks that are infinitely sharp prior to loading. While lab
test specimens invariably fall short of this ideal, it is possible to induce cracks
that are sufficiently sharp for practical purpose. The most efficient way to
produce such a cracking is through cyclic loading.

Fig 7.7 illustrates the precracking procedure in a typical specimen where a
fatigue crack initiates at the root of a machined notch and grows to the
desired length through careful control of the cyclic load (amplitude and
number of cycles).

The fatigue crack should not adversely influence the fracture toughness
measured. Cyclic loading produces a crack with a finite tip radius and a small
plastic zone at the crack tip, which contains strain hardened material and a
complex residual stress distribution.
Fatigue Precracking
Fatigue Precracking
In order for a measured fracture toughness to reflect true material properties,
the fatigue precracking must satisfy the following conditions:
a. The crack- tip radius at FRACTURE must be much larger than the initial
radius of the fatigue crack.
b. The plastic zone produced during fatigue cracking must be small compared
to the plastic zone at Fracture.

In K
IC
testing, the maximum crack tip SIF during fatigue loading must be no
greater than a specified fraction of K
IC
.

Of course one can always perform fatigue precracking well below the
allowable loads in order gain assurance of the validity of the results, but the
TIME required to produce the crack (i.e. the number of load cycles) increases
rapidly with decreasing load amplitudes.

Instrumentation

At a minimum, the applied LOAD and a characteristic displacement of the
specimen must be measured during a fracture toughness test. Additional
instrumentation is required to monitor crack growth or to measure more than
one displacement.

Measuring load during fracture toughness test is straight forward, since all
testing machines are equipped with load cells.

The most common displacement transducer in fracture toughness tests is the
clip gauge, illustrated in fig 7.8. The clip gauge, which attaches to
the mouth of the crack, consists of four electrical resistance strain gauges
bonded to a pair of cantilever beams. Deflection of the beams results in a
change in the resistances of the strain gauges, which varies linearly with the
displacement. A clip gauge must be attached to sharp knife edges in order to
Instrumentation
Instrumentation
ensure that the ends of each beam are free to rotate. The knife edges can
either be machined into the specimen or attached to the specimen at the crack
mouth.

A Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) provides an alternative
means for measuring displacements in fracture toughness tests.

Fig 7.10 illustrates the potential drop method for monitoring crack growth.

The unloading compliance technique allows crack growth to be inferred from
the LOAD and DISPLACEMENT measuring transducers that are used in a
standard fracture toughness test. A test specimen can be partially unloaded at
various points during the test in order to measure the elastic compliance,
which can be related to the crack length.

Instrumentation
Instrumentation
In some cases it is necessary to measure more then one displacement on the
same test specimen. For example, one may want to measure both crack mouth
opening displacement (CMOD) and the displacement along the load axis. A
compact tension specimen can be designed such that the load line
displacement and the CMOD are identical, but these two displacements do
not coincide in a Single Edge Notched Bend specimen (SENB). Fig 7.11
illustrates simultaneous CMOD and load line displacement measurement in a
SNEB specimen.

Instrumentation
Side Grooving

Figure 7.12 illustrates grooves machined into the sides of a fracture toughness
test specimen. The purpose is to maintain a straight crack front during an
R- Curve test. Side grooves remove the free surfaces, where PLANE
STRESS conditions prevail and lead to relatively straight crack fronts.
Typical side- grooved fracture toughness test specimens have a net thickness
that is ~ 80% of the gross thickness.

Side Grooving
Plane Strain Fracture Toughness
(Critical Mode I Stress Intensity Factor K
IC
)

When a material behaves in a linear elastic manner prior to FRACTURE,
such that the crack tip plastic zone size is small compared to specimen
dimensions, a critical value of the mode I SIF, namely K
IC
, may be an
appropriate Fracture parameter. i.e. Fracture in a structure/ component occurs
when K
I
= K
IC
.

The ASTM standard E 399 to measure K
IC
was first published in 1970, and
has been revised several times since then.
The title: Standard Test Method for Plane Strain Fracture Toughness of
Metallic Materials.

Four test specimen configurations are permitted by the current version of
E 399. The Compact Tension Specimen (CTS), The Single Edge Notched
Bending Test, A C shaped specimen and Disk - shaped specimen.

If the plastic zone at FRACTURE is too large, it is not possible to obtain a
valid K
IC
.

ASTM E 399 recommends that the user perform validity check to determine
the appropriate specimen dimensions. The test - specimen size requirements
for a valid K
IC
are:
B, a 2.5 (K
IC
/
YS
)
2

0.45 (a/w) 0.55
So the user must know a priori the K
IC
! (Beg, borrow or steel)
ASTM standard provides a table of recommended thickness for various
strength levels.
There is not a unique relationship between K
IC
and
YS
in metals.

During Fatigue Pre-cracking, the peak value of the SIF in a single cycle,
K
max
, should be no larger than 0.8 K
IC
, according to ASTM E 399.

When a pre-cracked test specimen is loaded to failure, load and
displacement are monitored. Three types of load - displacement curves are
shown in fig 7.13 during a K
IC
test. The critical load P
Q
, is defined in one of
several ways, depending on the type of curve. One must construct a 5%
secant line (i.e. a line from the origin with a slope equal to 95% of the initial
elastic loading slope) to determine P
5
. In the case of type I behavior, the load
- displacement curve is smooth and it deviates slightly from linearity before
final FRACTURE at P
max
. This NON-LINEARITY can be caused by
plasticity, subcritical crack growth, or both. For a type I curve P
Q
= P
5
. With a
type I curve, a small amount of unstable crack growth (i.e. a pop-in) occurs
before the curve deviates from linearity by 5%. In this case, P
Q
is defined at
the pop-in. A test specimen that exhibits type III curve FRACTURES
completely before achieving 5% non-linearity. In this case, P
Q
= P
max
.

The crack length a must be measured after the test from the fracture surface.
Since there is a tendency for the crack length to vary through the thickness,
the crack length a is defined as the average of three evenly spaced
measurements. Once P
Q
, and a are determined, a provisional fracture
toughness, K
Q
, is calculated from the following equation:
K
Q
= {P
Q
/ BW} f(a/W)
where f(a/w) is a dimensionless function of (a/W). This function is given in
POLYNOMIAL form in ASTM E 399 standard for the four test specimen
types. They are also tabulated in ASTM E 399.
Now perform validity checks
0.45 (a/W) 0.55 -----(a)
B, a 2.5 (K
IC
/
YS
)
2
-----(b)
P
max
1.10 P
Q
-----(c)
If the test meets all of the requirements of ASTM E 399, then K
Q
= K
IC
.

Consider a fracture toughness test that displays considerable plastic
deformation prior to fracture. Fig 7.14 illustrates the load displacement
curve for such a case. Since this is a type I curve, P
Q
= P
5
. K
Q
value
calculated using P
Q
may just barely satisfy the size requirements namely
B, a 2.5 (K
Q
/
YS
)
2

K
Q
here would have little relevance as the actual fracture toughness of the
material
,
since the specimen fractures well beyond P
Q
; the K
Q
value here
would grossly under estimate the true toughness of the material.
Consequently the third validity requirement, namely P
max
1.10 P
Q
, is
necessary to ensure that K
IC
value is indicative of the true toughness of the
material.
Because the test specimen size requirements of ASTM E 399 are very
stringent, it is very difficult and sometimes impossible to measure a valid K
IC
in most engineering materials. A material must either be relatively brittle or
the test specimen must be very very large for LEFM to be applicable. In low
and medium strength structured steels, valid K
IC
measurements are normally
possible only on the lower shelf of fracture toughness; in the ductile brittle
transition and the upper shelf, EPFM should be used and parameters such as
the path independent integral J and the crack tip opening displacement
(CTOD) are required to characterize FRACTURE.

Example I: Structural steel;
YS
= 350 MPa (51 ksi). Estimate CT specimen
dimensions for a valid K
IC
test.
Estimated Toughness: K
IC
= 200 MPa m
B, a = 2.5(200 MPa m / 350 MPa)
2

= 0.816 m (32.1 in)!
Since a/W = 0.5, W = 1.63 m (64.2 in)!
Thus a very large test specimen would be required for a valid K
IC
test. The
material is seldom available in such thickness. Even if a sufficiently large
thickness specimen were fabricated, testing would not be practical; machining
would be probablively expensive, and a special purpose testing machine with
a high load capacity would be needed.

Conclusion: SIF is not a suitable parameter to characterize the fracture
toughness of such a material. We should try J or CTOD.

SIF (K) vs Crack Growth Resistance (R) Curves (K-R Curves)

Some materials whose behavior is predominantly Linear Elastic prior to
FRACTURE exhibit a Rising R curve.

The ASTM standard E 561 outlines a procedure for determining the SIF (K)
vs Crack growth resistance (R) curves for such materials.

Standard E 561, unlike E 399, does nor contain a minimum thickness
requirement; and thus is applicable to test thin sheets. However, this standard
is applicable only when the plastic zone size is small compared to the in plane
dimensions of the test specimen.

This test method is often applied to high strength sheet materials, where the
fracture occurs in a plane stress state.
Common misconception about plane stress, plane strain, and R-curves: It is
implied that a material in plane strain state exhibits a single value of fracture
toughness (K
IC
) while the same material in a plane stress state displays a
rising R curve. However, the shape of the K-R curve depends on the Fracture
Mechanism as well as the stress state at the crack tip!

Cleavage tends to exhibit a flat or falling R curve; while micro void
coalescence can produce a Rising R curve. The slope of R curve tends to
decrease with increasing stress triaxially and the fracture mechanism (in
steels) can change from ductile tearing to cleavage as the stress state ranges
from plane stress to plane strain.

Fig 7.15 illustrates a typical K-R curve in a predominantly linear elastic
material behavior. The R-curve is initially very steep, as little or no crack
growth occurs as the SIF K is increased. As the crack begins to grow; R
increases with crack extension until a steady state is reached, where the R
curve becomes flat. It is therefore possible to define a critical stress intensity
factor, K
C
, where the Crack Driving Force is tangent to the R curve. K
C
however, is not a material property, because the point of tangency depends on
the shape of the driving force curve, which is governed by the geometry of
the cracked body. Thus K
C
values obtained using lab test specimens are not
usually transferable to structures/ components made of the same material.

Test Specimen Design:
The ASTM standard for K-R curve testing recommends 3 configurations:
The middle tension geometry, the compact tension specimen, and a wedge
loaded compact tension specimen. The latter shown in fig 7.27 is the most
stable of the three specimen types; and thus suitable for materials with
relatively flat R curves.

Since this test method is often applied to thin sheets, The compact tension
specimen will not have the conventional geometry, with the width (w) equal
to twice the thickness (B). The specimen thickness is fixed by the shell
thickness, and the width is governed by the anticipated toughness of the
material, as well as the available test fixtures.

Standard fixtures can be used to test thin compact tension specimens,
provided the specimens are filled with spacers, as illustrated in fig 7.16.

One problem with thin sheet fracture toughness testing is that the test
specimens are subjected to out-of-plane buckling, which leads to a combined
Mode I and Mode III loading of the crack. Consequently, an antibuckling
device should be fitted to the test specimen. Fig 7.16 illustrates a typical
antibuckling fixture for thin compact tension specimens. Plates on either side
of the test specimen should not be bolted too tightly together, because loads
applied by the test machine should be carried by the specimen rather than the
antibuckling plates. Some type of lubricant, e.g. Teflon sheet is usually
required to allow the specimen to slide freely through the two plates during
the test.

The ASTM standard E 561 outlines alternative methods for computing both
K
C
and the crack extension in a R curve test; the most appropriate approach to
be selected depends on the relative size of the crack tip plastic zone. For the
special case of negligible plasticity, which exhibits a load - load point
displacement behavior that is illustrated in fig 7.17, as the crack grows, the
P- curve deviates from its initial linear shape because the compliance
continuously changes. If the specimen were to be unloaded prior to
FRACTURE, it would return to the original as the dashed lines indicate.

The compliance C at any point during the test is equal to the measured
displacement by the measured load.
The instantaneous crack length can be inferred from the compliance C
through relationship that are given in the ASTM standard. The crack length
can also be measured during the test using optical techniques.

The instantaneous SIF is computed using the current values of load P and
crack length a:
K
I
= {P/BW} f(a/W)

For the case where a plastic zone develops ahead of the growing crack, the
nonlinearity in the load - displacement curve is caused by a combination of
crack extension and plasticity as fig 7.18 illustrates. If the specimen is
unloaded prior to FRACTURE, the load - displacement curve does not return
to the origin; crack tip plasticity produces a finite amount of permanent
deformation in the specimen. The instantaneous crack length can be measured
using optical techniques or can be calculated from unloading compliance,
where the specimen is partially unloaded, the elastic compliance is measured
(C = /P), and the crack length is inferred from compliance. The SIF should
be corrected for plasticity effects by determining an effective crack length.
a
effective
ASTM standard suggests two alternative approaches for computing
a
effective
(I) the Irwin plastic zone correction and (II) the Secant method.

According to the Irwin approach, the effective crack length assuming plane
stress state is given by:
a
effective
= a + 1/2 (K /
YS
)
2

The Secant method consists of determining an effective crack length from the
effective compliance, which is equal to the total displacement divided by the
applied load (fig 7.18).

The effective SIF for both methods is computed using applied load P and
effective crack length a
effective
:
K
eff
= {P/BW} f(a
eff
/W)
The choice of plasticity correction is left largely to the user. When the plastic
zone is small, ASTM E 561 suggests that the Irwins correction is acceptable,
but recommends the Secant method when the crack tip plasticity is more
extensive.

The ASTM K-R curve standard requires that the crack tip SIF be plotted
against the effective crack extension a
eff
. The estimation of the instability
point (K
C
) should not be sensitive to the way in which the crack growth is
quantified.

Fracture Mechanics

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fracture Mechanics

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fracture Toughness Testing of Metals

FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING OF METALS

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi