2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.06.087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An engineering methodology for constraint corrections of elastic–plastic fracture toughness – Part II: Effects of specimen geometry and plastic strain on cleavage fracture predictions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
20
0
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
3
20
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…It is obvious that the predictions are in good agreement with experimental data. Note that the mechanical properties of different joint region are extracted from the nanoindentation testing because it is difficult to separate the constraint from other material elements when using well‐defined specimens …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is obvious that the predictions are in good agreement with experimental data. Note that the mechanical properties of different joint region are extracted from the nanoindentation testing because it is difficult to separate the constraint from other material elements when using well‐defined specimens …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that the mechanical properties of different joint region are extracted from the nanoindentation testing because it is difficult to separate the constraint from other material elements when using well-defined specimens. [66][67][68][69] . Therefore, the reliability of predicted FCG rate of WM based on iLAPS model and nanoindentation need to be verified.…”
Section: Fatigue Crack Resistancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Beremin model has suffered from the ambiguity in model parameter calibration, ie, the variation of the model parameters with temperature and geometrical constraint. Many empirical modifications to the Beremin model have been proposed by either introducing a fixed‐value threshold stress (σ th ), eg, in the literature, or incorporating the plastic strain (ε p ) effect, eg, in Ruggieri et al As a result, different expressions of the Weibull stress σ W have been proposed to calculate the cumulative probability based on Equation . Here are 2 examples that used a fixed‐vale threshold stress σ th for modifications: Bakker and Koers redefined the Weibull stress σ W in Equation as σW=normal∫Vp()σ1σthm·dV/V01/m. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies have identified the fundamental defects of the Beremin model, which are summarized in Table . Note that some of the highlighted fundamental defects are inherited by those modifications to the Beremin model, such as the incompliance with the physical assumption of plastic yielding as a prerequisite to cleavage fracture due to the adoption of a fixed‐value threshold stress σ th (including the case of σ th = 0), and the violation to the normality axiom of probability owing to the adoption of Equation 6a as the basic formulation of cumulative probability P . An example was elaborated in detail in the commentary to the work in Ruggieri et al In Table , the necessary corrections to the Beremin model are also provided to ensure the mathematical rigorousness and the physical compliance with the 5 assumptions below: The uniform spatial distribution of microcracks The weakest‐link postulate of brittle fracture Plastic yielding as a prerequisite for cleavage fracture The maximum tensile principal stress criterion for cleavage fracture (Equation 8) The power‐law distribution of microcrack size (Equation 9) …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 The Weibull stress model predicates on the experimentally validated weakest-link assumption 19 and entails a unique relationship 20 between the local scalar Weibull stress (σ w ) and the global crack driving force (K J ), which allows successful estimations of the cleavage failure for both the highconstraint and low-constraint specimens. 21 Subsequent development of the local Weibull stress approach incorporates the plastic-strain dependent distribution of the microcrack distribution, 22,23 the effect of prior ductile tearing, 24,25 and the assessment of surface cracks 26 and mixed-mode fracture. 27,28 Wasiluk et al 21 have updated the calibration procedure for the Weibull stress parameters, which requires two sets of fracture specimens with contrast differences in the crack-front constraint to resolve the uniqueness issue in calibrating the Weibull stress parameters through a single set of specimens.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%