Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90323
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON J(CTOD)-R CURVES OF SINGLE EDGE TENSION SPECIMENS FOR X80 STEEL

Enyang Wang , Wenxing Zhou Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Western University 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 5B9 Guowu Shen CANMET Materials Technology Laboratory Natural Resources Canada 183 Longwood Rough South, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8P 0A5 Daming Duan TransCanada Pipeline Limited 450-1st Street, SW Calgary, AB, Canada T2P 5H1

KEYWORDS Single edge tension (SE(T)), single edge bending (SE(B)), Jintegral (J), crack tip opening displacement (CTOD), resistance curves (R curves), fracture toughness test ABSTRACT Fracture toughness testing of SE(T) and SE(B) specimens is carried out to experimentally develop J(CTOD)-R curves for the X80 steel based on the unloading compliance method. Six clamped (two shallow-cracked side-grooved, two deep-cracked side-grooved, and two deep-cracked plain-sided) SE(T) and two shallow-cracked side-grooved SE(B) specimens are tested. The impact of crack length on the J(CTOD)-R curves of the SE(T) specimens is investigated. The J(CTOD)-R curves of the shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens are significantly higher than those of the deep-cracked SE(T) specimens once the crack extension exceeds 0.5 mm. A comparison of the J(CTOD)-R curves associated with the SE(B) and SE(T) specimens suggests that the crack tip constraint for the SE(T) specimens is lower than that of the SE(B) specimens with the same nominal initial crack length, and that shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens have less constraint at the crack tip than deep-cracked SE(T) specimens.
1

Corresponding author: ewang24@uwo.ca, Tel: (519) 661-2111 x 88848, Fax: (519) 661-379

INTRODUCTION The strain-based design is the most viable option for designing energy pipelines to withstand large plastic deformations due to ground movements such as frost heave and thaw settlement [1]. The fracture toughness is a key input in the evaluation of the tensile strain capacity of pipelines. The fracture resistance curves (J- and CTOD-R curves) are often used to characterize the fracture toughness for pipelines. The Jand CTOD-R curves have been recognized to be dependent on the crack tip constraint, which is defined as a structural obstacle against plastic deformation and is a function of the loading and geometric conditions [2]. It has been observed that a low level of constraint results in a high toughness resistance curve and vice versa [2]. Standard specimens for fracture toughness testing, such as the single edge bending (SE(B)) and compact tension (C(T)) specimens as specified in ASTME E1820-11[3], are deep-cracked to ensure high constraint levels at the crack tip such that the fracture resistance curves measured represent the lower bound toughness and are independent of the loading and geometric conditions [4-6]. On the other hand, real flaws in the pipeline are usually shallow and have low levels of crack tip constraint. The application of the J- or CTOD-R curves obtained from high-constraint specimens to low-constraint real structures may lead to overly conservative estimates of the tensile stain capacity. Therefore, the development of lowconstraint specimens for fracture toughness testing, e.g. the single edge tension (SE(T)) specimens, is an ongoing research subject for the pipeline industry [7, 8].

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Both pin-ended and clamped SE(T) specimens are being used in the fracture toughness tests. In calculating the unloading compliances for both types of SE(T) specimens, the rotation correction must be taken into account [5, 9-11]. The rotation correction for the clamped SE(T) specimens is less pronounced than that for the pin-ended SE(T) specimens. Empirical equations that account for the rotation correction have been developed to evaluate the crack length (a/W) and Jintegral (J) from the measured load (P), crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) and load line displacement (LLD). Side grooves are recommended for SE(T) specimens to promote uniform crack growth along the crack front [5]. Research carried out at CANMET-MTL [12] suggested that a side groove depth of 5 10% specimen thickness on each side is appropriate for clamped SE(T) specimens. The relationship between J and crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) for clamped SE(T) specimens with H/W = 10 has also been developed by researchers at MTL based on finite element analyses (FEA) [9]. However, the CTOD-R curves of clamped SE(T) specimens made from medium- and high-strength pipeline steels have not been well reported in the literature. The objective of the work reported in this paper was to experimentally develop J- and CTOD-R curves of the clamped SE(T) specimens for the X80 steel. Based on the unloading compliance method for the clamped SE(T) specimens developed at MTL [5, 9, 13], both shallow- (a/W = 0.25) and deep-cracked (a/W = 0.5) specimens were tested to develop the J- and CTOD-R curves, which were then used to investigate the impact of crack length on the J- and CTOD-R curves. For comparison, the J- and CTOD-R curves for SE(B) specimens were also determined based on the procedure specified in ASTM E1820-11 [3]. The levels of constraint at the crack tip for the SE(B) and SE(T) specimens were examined based on the comparison of the J- and CTOD-R curves associated with these two types of specimens. FRACTURE TOUGHNESS TESTING OF SE(T) AND SE(B) SPECIMENS Specimen Preparation and Test Set-up We tested eight specimens, six SE(T) and two SE(B) specimens through the use of the unloading compliance (i.e. single specimen) technique. All the specimens were made from the base metal of a grade X80 pipe segment donated by

SE(B) specimen

SE(T) specimen

Out surface notch

Pipe segment (a) Orientation of SE(T) and SE(B) specimens with out surface notches
A

B
W A-A view

4W A

H=10W

4W

(b) Clamped SE(T) specimen (H/W=10) Fig. 1 Schematic of test specimens

TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.. The wall thickness of the pipe segment is 24 mm. The crack planes in all the specimens were orientated in the longitudinal-short transverse (L-S) orientation as described in ASTM E399-09 [14], and the notches were machined on the outside surface of the pipeline segment as shown in Fig. 1(a). The six SE(T) specimens have the same width (W = 20 mm), thickness (B/W = 1), and span between the edge of clamps (H/W = 10) as shown in Fig. 1(b). Two of the specimens with a/W = 0.5 are plain-sided, whereas the other four specimens, two with a/W = 0.25 and two with a/W = 0.5, are side-grooved with the depth of the side groove on each side

Type SE(T) SE(T) SE(T) SE(T) SE(T) SE(T) SE(B) SE(B)

Table 1 List of SE(T) and SE(B) specimens a/W Side surfaces Specimen I.D. 0.25 Side-grooved (SG) SET25-SG(01) 0.25 SG SET25-SG(02) 0.5 SG SET5-SG(01) 0.5 SG SET5-SG(02) 0.5 Plain-sided (PS) SET5-PS(01) 0.5 PS SET5-PS(02) 0.25 SG SEB25-SG(01) 0.25 SG SEB25-SG(02)

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Fig. 2 Integral knife edge

2.0 mm

1.5 mm

Test Procedure and Data Processing At the start of the tests for both the SE(T) and SE(B) specimens, three loading and unloading sequences were used to evaluate the initial crack size (a0) of each specimen. For the SE(T) specimens, the load ranges for the three loading and unloading sequences are from 0.25 to 0.5 of the limit load (PY), which is defined in Eq. 1(a) [16]. For SE(B) specimens, the load ranges for measuring a0 are from 0.5 to 1.0 of the maximum pre-cracking force (Pm), as defined in Eq. 1(b), according to ASTM E1820-11 [3].

P = BN (W - a ) s Y Y
Pm = 0.5 Bb s Y / S
2 0

(1a) (1b)

(a) SE(T) test

(b) SE(B) test

where sY = (sYS+sUTS)/2; BN is the specimen net thickness; sYS and sUTS are the 0.2% offset yield strength and ultimate tensile strength, respectively, and b0 is the initial remaining ligament (b0 = W a0). The loads were applied on the test specimens through a displacement controlled procedure. A total of 50 60 loading-unloading-reloading sequences were applied to each specimen during the test. At a given sequence i, the magnitude of the unloading for SE(T) and SE(B) tests is 25% and 40%, respectively, of the maximum load from the previous sequence. For SE(T) specimens, the ai/W value at the ith sequence was evaluated from the rotation corrected CMOD unloading compliance (Cc(i)) using Eq. (2) [13].
ai 2 3 W = 2.044 - 15.732u1 + 73.238u1 - 182.898u1 + 175.653u14 + 60.93u15 - 113.997u16 - 113.031u17 + 8.545u18 + 142.84u19 1 u1 = Be CC (i ) E + 1

Fig. 3 Experimental setup

equal to 7.5%B as suggested in [12]. The two SE(B) specimens are shallow-cracked (a/W = 0.25) with the same width (W = 20 mm), thickness (B/W = 1) and span length (S/W = 4), and contain side grooves with the depth of the side groove on each side equal to 10%B as recommended by ASTM E1820-11 [3]. The geometric configurations and crack lengths for the SE(T) and SE(B) specimens are summarized in Table 1. The integral knife edge as shown in Fig. 2 was machined in all the specimens to support the clip-on gauge. All the specimens were fatigue pre-cracked in bending using a three-point bend apparatus according to ASTM E1820-11 [3]. For side-grooved specimens, the side grooves were fabricated after the fatigue pre-cracking. All the tests on SE(B) and SE(T) specimens were conducted using a servo-hydraulic test system, INSTRON 8804 test frame with a maximum capacity of 250 kN. The apparatus setups of the SE(T) and SE(B) tests are shown in Fig. 3. Both ends of SE(T) specimens were clamped with hydraulic grips. Two round-bar tensile coupons with a diameter of 12.5 mm and a gauge length of 50 mm [15] were fabricated in the longitudinal direction from the base metal of the same pipe segment from which the SE(B) and SE(T) specimens were fabricated and tested to obtain the tensile properties of the X80 steel.

(2)

where Be = B (B BN)2/B [3] and E are the effective specimen thickness and Youngs modulus, respectively, and Cc(i) is given by

CC ( i ) = Ci Fr ( i ) a0 Fr ( i ) = 1 1 - 0.165 W ( P( i ) PY

(3)

The uncorrected compliance Ci can be directly obtained from the load-CMOD curve recorded during the test. The parameter P(i) denotes the maximum applied loads at the ith sequence. The equations given in Appendix A were used to calculate the values of J-integral (J(i)) and CTOD(i) for SE(T) specimens from the predicted ai/W values. For shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens, the values of ai/W were calculated from Eq. (4) [17]. The values of J(i) and CTOD(i) were calculated from the equations given in ASTM E1820-11 [3].

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

ai = 1.01878 - 4.5367u1 + 9.0101u12 W - 27.333u13 + 74.400u14 - 71.489u15

800

No. 1 No. 2

(4)

700 600 500

The crack extension of both SE(T) and SE(B) specimens at the ith sequence, ai, was obtained from Eq. (5), in which a0q is calculated from Eq. (6) through the use of the least square fit procedure described in ASTM E1820-11 [3]. In Eq. (6), a and b are regression coefficients, and J(i) is the J-integral value at the ith sequence. The values of J(i) and ai used in Eq. (6) are those recorded before P(i) reaches its maximum value in the test.

Stress(MPa)

400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Strain (%)

Dai = ai - a0 q
ai = a0 q + J (i ) 2s Y + a J (i ) 2 + b J ( i ) 3

(5) (6)

Fig. 4 Stress and strain curves

The tested SE(T) and SE(B) specimens were heat-tinted at about 350 C for 30 minutes. They were then immersed in liquid nitrogen and broken open at the cracked section. The crack size was measured with the 9-point optical technique as described in ASTM E1820-11 [3] and compared with the crack size evaluated from the unloading compliance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Based on the test results of the two tensile coupons, the average values of E, sYS, and sUTS are 207 GPa, 520 MPa, and 710 MPa, respectively. The stress-strain curves of these two specimens are shown in Fig. 4. The measured initial and final crack sizes (a0 and ap) are compared with those predicted values as shown in Fig. 5. For all the side-grooved specimens, the maximum difference between the measured and predicted a0 or ap values is less than 5.6%. For the two plain-sided SE(T) specimens, the maximum difference between the measured and predicted a0 or ap values is about 15.9%. The predicted and measured initial crack lengths (a0/W) and crack extensions (a) of all the specimens

are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 indicates that the unloading compliance method underestimates the initial and final crack lengths of deep-cracked plain-sided SE(T) specimens. On the other hand, the predictions of the unloading compliance method agree very well with the actual crack lengths for side-grooved SE(T) specimens. It can be inferred from Table 2 that a side groove depth of 7.5%B is a reasonable geometric configuration for SE(T) specimens to achieve straightness of the crack front during the crack growth. Figure 6 shows photographically the machined notch, fatigue pre-crack front, and final crack front in one side-grooved specimen and one plain-sided specimen that have the same nominal initial crack length (a/W = 0.5). Large crack extension is observed near the roots of side grooves for the side-grooved specimen in Fig. 6(b). Note that although the two shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens are nonstandard specimens according to ASTM 1820-11 [3], their test results (i.e. a0, ap, and a) meet all the data qualification requirements specified in ASTM E1820-11 [3]. The J-R curves for all the specimens are shown in Fig. 7. The figure suggests that the crack length has a large impact on the J-R curves of SE(T) specimens: at a given crack extension the J values of the two shallow-cracked specimens (a0/W close

Table 2 Results of crack estimation Specimen I.D. SET25-SG(01) SET25-SG(02) SET5-SG(01) SET5-SG(02) SET5-PS(01) SET5-PS(02) SEB25-SG(01) SEB25-SG(02) Predicted a0/W 0.261 0.264 0.516 0.519 0.533 0.519 0.272 0.269 Measured a0/W 0.258 0.262 0.510 0.523 0.561 0.575 0.262 0.265 Predicted a (mm) 3.387 3.186 3.278 2.161 1.642 2.141 2.038 1.985 Measured a (mm) 3.508 3.256 2.734 2.283 3.044 2.778 2.078 2.018

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Crack size predicted (mm)

15 12
J (kJ/m2)

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

0 3 6 9 12 15

9 6 3 0 Crack size measured (mm) a0 a0 SE(T) SG ap ap SE(T) PS ap ap SE(T) SG a0 a0 SE(B) SG a0 a0 SE(T) PS ap ap SE(B) PS SG

0.5

1 Da (mm)

1.5

SET25-SG(01) SE(T) SG a/W=0.261 SET5-SG(01) SE(T) SG a/W=0.518 SET5-PS(01) SE(T) PS a/W=0.533 SE(B) SG a/W=0.277 SEB25-SG(01)

SET25-SG(02) SE(T) SG a/W=0.264 SET5-SG(02) SE(T) SG a/W=0.519 SET5-PS(02) SE(T) PS a/W=0.519 SE(B) SG a/W=0.279 SEB25-SG(02)

Fig. 5 Crack size of specimens

Final crack front

Fig. 7 J-R curves for specimens 2500 2000

J (kJ/m2)

Pre-crack front Machined notch (b) SET5-SG(02)

(a) SET5-PS(02)

1500 1000 500 0 0 0.5 1 a (mm) 1.5 2

Fig. 6 Broken SE(T) specimens

to 0.25) are significantly larger than those of the four deepcracked specimens (a0/W close to 0.5) once a 0.5 mm. Figure 8 shows the power law regression lines obtained from the results shown in Fig. 7 using the curve fitting procedure described in ASTM E1820-11 [3]. Figure 8 indicates that the JR curves of the shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens are higher and steeper than those of the shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens when a 2.0 mm. It is somewhat surprising to observe that the J-R curves of the two shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens (a0/W close to 0.25) are higher and steeper than those of the deep-cracked SE(T) specimens (a0/W close to 0.5) for a greater than approximately 1.2 mm. Further tests and studies are needed to confirm the generality of this observation and its implication for application of the J-R curves. Calculated from the J-R curves shown in Fig. 8, the CTOD-R curves for all the specimens are shown in Fig. 9. The figure indicates that the impact of the crack length on CTOD-R curves of the SE(T) specimens is similar to that of the crack

SET25-SG(01) SET SG a/W=0.261 SET SG a/W=0.518 SET5-SG(01) SET PS a/W=0.533 SET5-PS(01) SEB SG a/W=0.277 SEB25-SG(01)

SET25-SG(02) SET SG a/W=0.264 SET5-SG(02) SET SG a/W=0.519 SET PS a/W=0.519 SET5-PS(02) SEB SG a/W=0.279 SEB25-SG(02)

Fig. 8 J-R curves

length on the corresponding J-R curves as shown in Fig. 7: the CTOD-R curves of shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens are

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

3.5 3 2.5
CTOD (mm)

specimens were tested according to ASTM E1820-11 [3]. Based on the J- and CTOD-R curves obtained for the SE(T) and SE(B) specimens, the follow observations are made: 1. The crack length has a large impact on the J- and CTOD-R curves of the SE(T) specimens. The J- and CTOD-R curves of the shallow-cracked specimens (a/W = 0.25) are significantly higher than those of the deep-cracked specimens (a/W = 0.5) for a 0.5 mm. The J(CTOD)-R curves of the shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens are higher and steeper than those of the shallowcracked SE(B) specimens. The J(CTOD)-R curves of plainsided SE(T) specimens are slightly above those of sidegrooved SE(T) specimens with a/W = 0.5. The crack tip constraint for the SE(T) specimens is lower than that of the SE(B) specimens with the same nominal initial crack length, and shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens have less constraint at the crack tip than deep-cracked SE(T) specimens. The side groove depth of 7.5%B is a reasonable choice for SE(T) specimens to promote uniform crack growth along the crack front.

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 a (mm) 1.5 2

2.

SET SG a/W=0.261 SET25-SG(01) SET SG a/W=0.518 SET5-SG(01) SET PS a/W=0.533 SET5-PS(01) SEB SG a/W=0.277 SEB25-SG(01)

SET SG a/W=0.264 SET25-SG(02) SET SG a/W=0.519 SET5-SG(02) SET PS a/W=0.519 SET5-PS(02) SEB SG a/W=0.279 SEB25-SG(02)

3.

Fig. 9 CTOD-R curves

4.

higher than those of the deep-cracked SE(T) specimens. Furthermore, the CTOD-R curves of shallow-cracked SE(T) specimens are higher than those of shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens. Note that the CTOD-R curves of deep-cracked SE(T) specimens are higher than those of the shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens, which is in contrast to Fig. 8 in which the JR curves of deep-cracked SE(T) specimens are lower and flatter than those of the shallow-cracked SE(B) specimens for a greater than approximately 1.2 mm. Figures 7, 8, and 9 indicate that the J(CTOD)-R curves of plain-sided SE(T) specimens are slightly above those of sidegrooved SE(T) specimens with the same nominal initial crack length (a/W = 0.5); this is consistent with the observations reported in the literature [16]. The overall test results obtained in this study are consistent with the findings in the literature; that is, the crack tip constraint for shallow-cracked specimens is lower than that of deep-cracked specimens, and the crack tip constraint for SE(T) specimens is lower than that for SE(B) specimens with the same crack length. CONCLUSIONS We carried out the fracture toughness testing of SE(T) and SE(B) specimens to develop J- and CTOD-R curves for the X80 pipe steel. Six clamped SE(T) specimens were tested: two are side-grooved shallow-cracked (a/W = 0.25); two are sidegrooved deep-cracked (a/W = 0.5), and the remaining two are plain-sided deep-cracked (a/W = 0.5). All the SE(T) specimens have B = W = 20 mm, and H/W = 10. The testing of the SE(T) specimens and calculation of the crack length, J and CTOD follow the procedures developed at CANMET-MTL. In addition, two shallow-cracked side-grooved (a/W = 0.25) SE(B)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is supported by TransCanada Pipeline Ltd. and NSERC (The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) through the Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) program and by the NSERC-RIEM program. The authors are very grateful to the research scientists in the Materials Technology Laboratory at CANMET for their assistance. REFERENCES [1] Tyson, W. R., 2009, "Fracture Control for Northern Pipelines Damage and Fracture Mechanics," T. Boukharouba, M. Elboujdaini, and G. Pluvinage, eds., Springer Netherlands, pp. 237-244. [2] Yuan, H., and Brocks, W., 1998, "Quantification of Constraint Effects in Elastic-plastic Crack Front Fields," J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 46(2), pp. 219-241. [3] ASTM, 2011, "ASTM E1820-11: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness," America Society of Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA. [4] Nyhus, B., Polanco, M. L., and Orjasaether, O., 2003, "SENT Specimens an Alternative to SENB Specimens for Fracture Mechanics Testing of Pipelines," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2003(36835), pp. 259-266. [5] Shen, G., Bouchard, R., Gianetto, J. A., and Tyson, W. R., 2008, "Fracture Toughness Evaluation of High Strength Steel

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Pipe," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2008(48296), pp. 12751282. [6] Fonzo, A., Melis, G., Di Vito, L., Mannucci, G., Darcis, P., Richard, G., Quintanilla, H., and Armengol, M., 2009, "Techniques for Fracture Toughness Testing of Offshore Pipelines," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2009(43468), pp. 249-257. [7] Shen, G., Tyson, W. R., Glover, A., and Horsley, D., 2004, "Constraint Effects on Linepipe Toughness," Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pipeline Technology, Scientific Surveys Ltd., Ostend, Belgium, pp. 703-720. [8] Tang, H., Macia, M., Minnaar, K., Gioielli, P., Kibey, S., and Fairchild, D., 2010, "Development of the SENT Test for Strain-Based Design of Welded Pipelines," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2010(44236), pp. 303-312. [9] Shen, G., and Tyson, W. R., 2009, "Evaluation of CTOD from J-integral for SE(T) specimens," Pipeline Technology Conference 2009 Ostend, Belgium. [10] Cravero, S., and Ruggieri, C., 2006, "Evaluation of Crack Growth Resistance Curves for Pipeline Steels Using Constraint Designed Fracture Specimens," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2006(42622), pp. 969-978. [11] Cravero, S., and Ruggieri, C., 2007, "Estimation Procedure of J-resistance Curves for SE(T) Fracture Specimens Using Unloading Compliance," Eng. Fract. Mech., 74(17), pp. 27352757. [12] Shen, G., Tyson, W. R., Gianetto, J. A., and Park, D.-Y., 2010, "Effect of Side Grooves on Compliance, J-Integral and Constraint of a Clamped SE(T) Specimen," ASME Conference Proceedings, 2010(49255), pp. 81-89. [13] Shen, G., and Tyson, W. R., 2009, "Crack Size Evaluation Using Unloading Compliance in Single-Specimen Single-EdgeNotched Tension Fracture Toughness Testing," J. Test. Eval., 37(7). [14] ASTM, 2009, "E399-09e2: Standard Test Method for Linear-Elastic Plane-Strain Fracture Toughness Ic of Metallic Materials," America Society of Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA. [15] ASTM, 2011, "ASTM E8-11: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness," America Society of Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA. [16] Shen, G., Gianetto, J. A., and Tyson, W. R., 2009, "Measurement of J-R Curves Using Single-Specimen Technique on Clamped SE(T) Specimens," Proceedings of Nineteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE), Osaka, Japan, pp. 92-99. [17] Joyce, J. J., "J-Resistance Curve Testing of Short Crack Bend Specimens Using Unloading Compliance," Proc. Fracture Mechanics: Twenty-Second Symposium (Volume I), H. A. Ernst, A. Saxena, and D. L. McDowell, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 904-924.

APPENDIX A: A REVIEW OF EQUATIONS FOR MEASURING FRACTURE TOUGHNESS FOR CLAMPED SE(T) SPECIMENS [5, 9, 12, 13, 16] 1. Calculation of stress intensity factors K For an SE(T) specimen at a P(i), K(i) is calculated by Eq. A(1).

K(i ) = P( i ) p ai
where
a G i W

( ( BB

ai )1/ 2 W G ) W

A(1)

ai ai = 1.197 - 2.133 W + 23.886 W

3

a a a - 69.051 i + 100.462 i - 41.397 i W W W a a a - 36.137 i + 51.215 i - 6.607 i W W W

9 10 6 7 8

A(2)

a a a - 52.322 i + 18.574 i + 19.465 i W W W

11

2. Calculation of J-integral for the resistance curve test method For an SE(T) specimen, J(i) is calculated by Eq. A(3)

J (i ) = J el (i ) + J pl (i )
where

A(3)

J el (i ) = K ( i ) 2 (1 -n ) 2 E hCMOD ( i -1) Apl ( i ) - Apl ( i -1) J pl ( i ) = J pl (i -1) + b(i -1) BN g LLD ( i -1) ( a( i ) - a( i -1) ) 1 b(i -1)
where parameters hLLD(i), hCMOD(i) and gLLD(i) are defined in Eq. A(5). A(4)

hCMOD (i ) = 1.000 - 1.089

ai a + 9.519 i W W
3

a a - 48.572 i + 109.225 i W W a a - 73.116 i - 77.984 i W W

5 6

A(5)

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

a a + 38.487 i + 101.401 i W W
9

B1 = 1.0169 - 0.0634 N + 0.00567 N 2 - 0.000200 N 3 B2 = 0.6969 - 0.1216 N + 0.01487 N 2 - 0.000393N 3

where N is the strain hardening exponent.
2

g LLD (i )

a a + 43.306 i - 110.770 i W W h 'LLD (i ) a = h LLD (i ) - 1 - 1 - i W h LLD ( i )

10

hLLD (i ) = -0.880 + 15.190

3

ai a - 35.440 i W W
4

a a + 18.644 i + 18.399 i W W a a - 1.273 i - 12.756 i W W

7 5 6

a a - 12.202 i - 4.447 i W W a a + 5.397 i + 14.187 i W W

9

10

In Eq. A(4), the quantity Apl(i) - Apl(i-1) is the increment of plastic area under P(i) versus plastic CMOD (vpl(i)) between (i1)th and ith sequences. Parameters Apl(i) and vpl(i) are defined in Eq. A(6).

Apl (i ) = Apl (i -1) + [ P( i ) + P(i -1) ](n pl ( i ) -n pl ( i -1) ) / 2 n pl ( i ) = n (i ) - P(i ) C( i )

A(6)

3. Calculation of CTOD for the resistance curve test method For an SE(T) specimen, the calculation of (i) for any sequence on the force-displacement curve are made from Eq. A(7).

d (i ) = J (i ) (m(i )s YS )

A(7)

where J(i) is defined in Eq. A(3). The coefficients relating J(i), (i), and m(i), are defined in Eq. A(8).

m( i ) = mc ( i ) m( i ) = mc ( i ) - mP ( i ) ( P(i ) PY - 1 mc (i ) = A1 (ai / W ) + A2 mP (i ) = B1 (ai / W ) + B2 A1 = -0.1293 + 0.1152 N - 0.00986 N 2 + 0.000263N 3 A2 = 3.0867 - 0.297 N + 0.0194 N 2 - 0.000427 N 3

for P PY for P > PY )

A(8)

Copyright 2012 by ASME and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada