Anda di halaman 1dari 15

Structural Integrity and Failure - September 2006

© Institute of Materials Engineering Australasia Ltd

CRACK PROPAGATION IN FRACTURE MECHANICS SPECIMENS


BY FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

L. C. H. Ricardo and A.H.P. Andrade

Materials of Engineering Department, IPEN, University of Sao Paulo, Avenida Lineu Prestes 2242 , 05508-
900, Sao Paulo – SP, Brazil
lricardo@ipen.br & aandrade@ipen.br

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a finite element model used to simulate the crack opening and closure stress intensity
factors. Three types of specimens (SE(B), SE(T) and M(T)) were modeled by finite element method under
constant amplitude loading to obtain the opening stress intensity factor and the results are compared with
FASTRAN data. A C(T) specimen also was modeled using a finite element code to determine the crack
closure stress intensity factor and the values found are correlated with crack propagation test results. The data
show that the finite element model can be used to reproduce the crack propagation processes.

1 INTRODUCTION the effects of nonlinear crack tip parameters. The


key for these nonlinear crack tip parameters is
A numerical simulation should represent the crack closure. Analytical models were developed
component or structures in service. An important to predict crack growth and crack closure
issue from numerical simulation is to obtain processes like Dugdale [ 4 ], or strip yield model
results very fast when compared with test, use the plasticity induced approach considering
providing inputs to researchers or engineers with normally plane stress or strain effects. Dahlberg &
qualitative and quantitative numerical results. The Stenfors [5] studied the crack closure mechanisms
discovery of crack closure mechanisms, as crack in a nodular cast iron component with notch, to be
closure induced by plasticity, roughness, oxide apply in the automotive industry.
formation, corrosion and the use of the effective
stress intensity factor range, has provided and This approach will turn design criteria considering
engineering tool to predict small and large crack fatigue more realistic permitting more optimized
growth rate behavior under service loading components. Taylor et al. [6] present a crack
conditions. growth simulation in a crankshaft to determine the
crack opening stress intensity factor and the ∆th of
These mechanisms have also provided a rationale the component. Godefroid et al.[7] present a
for developing new, damage tolerant materials. procedure to determine crack closure mechanisms
The major links between fatigue and fracture in a dual phase steel to be used in manufacture of
mechanics were done by Christensen [1] and cars wheels with automotive applications.
Elber [ 2 ]. The crack closure concept put crack Roychowdhury & Dodds [8] present a crack
propagation theories on a firm foundation and closure simulation in three dimensional specimens
allowed the development of practical life considering small-scale yielding using finite
prediction for variable and constant amplitude element method. The work consider plane strain
loading, by such as experienced by modern day constraint and discuss the effect of mesh density
commercial aircraft. Numerical analysis using in the quality of results.
finite elements has played a major role in the
stress analysis of crack problems. For R ≥ 0 loading cases, crack closure can be
predicted only when a propagating crack is used.
Swedlow [ 3 ] was one of the first to use finite Generally, an element debonding scheme of one-
element method to study the elastic-plastic stress node-per-loading cycle is used in the FE
field around a crack. The application of linear simulations. Considering the size of the elements
elastic fracture mechanics, i.e. the stress intensity often used, the corresponding crack growth rate is
factor range, ∆K, to the “small or short” crack usually orders of magnitude higher than the real
crack propagation rate. In addition, the in
growth have been studied for long time to explain
influence of the element size in the FE model on

88
the predicted crack closure results is significant under plane stress conditions. In experiments of
when a traditional plasticity model is used, Jiang crack closure with constant amplitude loading
et at.[9]. Elber´s [2] proposed the following equation for
fatigue crack propagation rates,
Jing et al.[9] shows a CCT specimen submitted a
load ratio, R= 0 and maximum nominal applied ∆a
stress, Smax ,of 160 MPa, was used to show the = C (∆K eff ) n (2)
effect of the element size on the predicted crack ∆N
opening load. For the CCT specimen ,the
corresponding stress intensity factor range, where C and n are constants of the material and
∆K = 0 , was 28.7 MPa m .The cyclic plastic ∆Keff is the effective stress intensity factor range,
which can be calculated by :
zone size ,rp,, based on the stress intensity factor
range can be determined by using the following
equation for plane-stress condition (Bannantine et ∆K eff = ∆Seff πc F (3)
al. [10]):

2
where c is the half crack length, F is the boundary
1 ⎛ ∆K ⎞ correction factor and ∆Seff is the effective stress
rp = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ , (1) range.
8π ⎝ σ0 ⎠
Figure 1 shows a panel with a central crack used
by Newman [11]. The aluminum alloy panel
2 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS material was assumed to be elastic perfect plastic
with a tensile ( and compressive ) yield stress, σy,
Since the early 1970s, numerous finite element of 350 MPa and modulus of elasticity of
and finite difference analysis have been conducted 70,000 MPa.
to simulate fatigue crack growth. The aim of these
analysis were to obtain a basic understanding of
the crack growth processes.

Parallel to these numerical analysis, simple and


complexes models of the fatigue crack growth
process were developed, although the vast
majority of these analysis and models were based
on the plasticity induced crack closure
phenomenon, according to Newman [11].

Finite element and difference analysis were


conducted using two-dimensional analysis under
plane stress and plane strain. Newman & Armen
[12] were the first to conduct two-dimensional
analysis of the crack growth process. Their
obtained results under plane stress conditions
were in quantitative agreement with experimental
results of Elber [2], and showed that crack
opening stresses were a function of R = (Smin /
Smax ) and the stress level ( Smax/ σ0 ), where: σ0= Figure 1: MT specimen
(σu + σy )*0.5; Smin and Smax are respectively the
minimum and maximum stresses applied in the
model; σ0 is the flow stress; σu is the ultimate
tensile stress and σy is the yield stress of the
material.

Fleck and Newman [13-14] studied crack growth


and closure under plane strain conditions and
found that cracks really close, but the crack
opening levels were much lower than those found

89
permits to evaluate crack closure and crack
propagation analysis until failure.

Figure 3: Stabilization of crack closure

Figure 2: MT FEM model


The FE simulations predicted an average value of
Figure 2. shows the nodes released from node A the cyclic plastic zone size of 0.35 mm, twice as
until node F, Newman & Armen [12]. Fictitious large as that obtained using the traditional linear
springs were used to change the boundary elastic based stress intensity factor. It should be
conditions associated with crack growth, crack noted that in the FE simulations, the cyclic plastic
closure or crack opening. For free nodes along the zone boundary was determined using the criterion
cracks surfaces, the springs stiffness was set to that no cyclic plastic deformation occurred outside
zero and for fixed nodes the stiffness was assigned the plastic zone. In the presentation of the results,
extremely large values. Figure 3 displays how can the plastic zone size of 0.178 mm was used.
be obtained the stabilization of opening stress
during crack propagation. Newman [15]
introduced a model called FASTRAN, which

Figure 4: Results with different element size

90
Figure 4 shows the variations of the normalized 3 DESCRIPTION OF FEM MODELS
crack opening load with element size using
bilinear material [9]. In the figure, the symbol r Figures 6-10 shows the finite element models,
represents the crack extension and rp denotes the generated using Ansys version 6.0 [16], from the
plastic zone size (rp =0.178 mm for the loading specimens SE(B) (single edge crack plate
case under consideration). Sop is the opening load bending), SE(T) (single edge crack plate tension)
(nominal stress) and Smax is the maximum nominal and M(T) (middle tension) were evaluated [16].
applied load. It should be noted that the element Fatigue crack growth was simulated by releasing
size refers to those elements near the crack tip. of the crack tip node at Kmin, followed by a single
loading cycle Kmin → Kmax → Kmin, Figure 11.
The boundary correction factors used for the
mentioned specimens are :

Figure 5: SE(B) FEM model Figure 6: SE(B) Release node procedure

Figure 7: SE(T) FEM model Figure 8: SE(T) Release node procedure

Figure 9: M(T) FEM model Figure 10: M(T) Release node procedure

91
a) SE(B)
⎛ 2 3 4

⎜ 1,124 − 1,16349 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ + 7,3168 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 18,7746 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 31,8028 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − ⎟
⎜ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎟
⎜ 5 6 7 ⎟
⎜ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎛ a ⎞ ⎟
− 33, 2295 * ⎜ ⎟ + 19 ,1286 * ⎜ ⎟ − 4 , 6091 * ⎜ ⎟
⎛ a ⎞ ⎜ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎟
f⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟
3
W ⎛ ⎛ a ⎞⎞ 2
⎜ ⎜⎜1 − ⎜ W ⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠

b) SE(T)

⎛ 2 3 4

⎜ 1,124 − 1,16349 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ + 7,3168 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 18,7746 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 31,8028 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − ⎟
⎜ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎟
⎜ 5 6 7 ⎟
⎜ ⎛ ⎞
a ⎛ ⎞
a ⎛ ⎞
a ⎟
− 33, 2295 * ⎜ ⎟ + 19 ,1286 * ⎜ ⎟ − 4 , 6091 * ⎜ ⎟
⎛a⎞ ⎜ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎝ W⎠ ⎟
f⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ (5)
⎝W ⎠ ⎜
3
⎛ ⎛ a ⎞⎞ 2 ⎟
⎜ ⎜
⎜ 1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎟ ⎟
⎜ ⎝ ⎝ W ⎠ ⎠ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

c) M(T)

⎛ 2 3 4
⎛a⎞ ⎞
5
⎜ 1,0 − 0,4999 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞ ⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞
⎟ + 0,4593 * ⎜ ⎟ − 0,3017 * ⎜ ⎟ + 0,2051 * ⎜ ⎟ − 0,0371 * ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎛a⎞ ⎜ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎟
f⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎟ (6)
⎝ ⎠ ⎜
W ⎛a⎞ ⎟
⎜ 1− ⎜ ⎟ ⎟
⎝ ⎝W ⎠ ⎠

The used elements were the 6 node quadratic


plane stress triangle and the spring element to
simulate the crack propagation. The proposed
material investigated was: Al 2024 - T351
aluminum alloy, and the mechanical parameters
were: σy = 355 MPa, σu = 457 MPa, σ0= (σu + σy
)*0.5, E = 70,000 MPa; Ep = 700
MPa ( plastic modulus ) and ν = 0.3. The size of
each triangle element was 0.05 mm and the crack
propagation rate was 0.05 mm/cycle to aluminum
alloy. The ratio of initial crack length to specimen
width is a0 / W = 0.0375; a0 = 3.75 mm; B= 25.0 Figure 11: Numerical crack propagation rate
mm; W = 100.0 mm in all specimens and
boundary factors correction were based on Liu &
Wu [17]. Three situations of K were evaluated ( 8; To compact tension, CT, the geometry
11 and 15 MPa m ) for each type of specimen. information are: B=3.8 mm; W= 50.0 mm; a/W=
0.26. The finite element model was modeled
having the smaller element 0.025 mm in the crack
propagation area as shown in the Figures 12 and
13. Table 1 shows the value of smaller elements
estimated by Irwin equation and effectively used
as well as the plastic zone size. This process was
then repeated. The maximum force employed is

92
mentioned in (7) and the boundary correction KBW (7)
factor (8) : Pmax =
⎛a⎞
πa f ⎜ ⎟
⎝W ⎠
⎛ a ⎞
⎜2+ ⎟ ⎡ 3 4

⎛a⎞ ⎜ W ⎟ * ⎢0,866 + 4,64 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 13,32 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ + 14,72 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ − 5,60 * ⎛⎜ a ⎞⎟ ⎥
f⎜ ⎟= (8)
⎝W ⎠ ⎜ 1 − a ⎟ ⎢⎣ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝ W ⎠ ⎥⎦
⎜ ⎟
⎝ W ⎠

Figure 12: C(T) FEM model Figure 13: C(T) Release node procedure

Table 1 : Smaller Element of Model

The force was divided into 9 steps of loads Pmax constant ∆P= Pmax - Pmin, under R = 0
and 9 steps of loads to Pmin, in each cycle. The and R = 0.5 load ratios. To evaluate the crack
applied loads were increased with crack length in propagation a nonlinear analysis to compute the
order to ensure that the specimen suffered a deformation history cycle by cycle was applied

93
and the Newton-Rapson method was used. Table Between any two increments, if the nodal
2 show an example of the loads steps used to displacement becomes negative the node is closed
compute the opening and crack closure stress. and a node fixity is applied to prevent crack
During each increment of unloading, the crack surface penetration during further unloading.
surface nodal displacements are monitored.

Table 2 : Loads steps to SE(T)

This criterion is a function of the number of During incremental loading, the reaction forces on
increments employed to describe the unloading. It the closed nodes are monitored, and when the
has been observed that an increment on the order reaction force becomes positive the nodal fixity is
of 1% of the maximum stress in the cycle or removed. During loading and unloading, stresses
smaller results in a negligible variation of the and displacements were monitored along the crack
contact forces along the closed crack surface surface. A negative nodal displacement indicated

94
that the crack was closed at this point, and the
displacement was set to zero. A tensile nodal
stress indicated that the crack was opening at this
point, and the nodal restraint was removed,
Solanki et al.[ 18 ].

4- EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

ASTM [19] developed a method to determine the


crack closure and opening levels providing
consistent results with works of the Donald &
Philips [20] and Graham [21]. It was found that
the results of the crack opening displacement
measurement with compliance technique near the
crack tip depends strongly on the position of the Figure 14: Crack propagation test
displacement gages. The compliance curves of the
remote clip gages were often too insensitive to The determination of crack load, Pcl, is obtained
detect the near-crack tip closure ( Pippan et al [22] by linear and quadratic adjust in the curve load
). versus COD in a determined fatigue cycle, as
shown in Figure 15. The union between linear and
A crack propagation test with compact tension quadratic adjusts is called “knot”, being the load
specimen was performed under load ratio, R = 0.1 value for this point designed by Pk. The objective
and being applied 19 MPa m and 30 Hz of test is determine a specific value to Pk that have best
frequency. Figure 14 show the specimen show the union point between the curves, linear
assembled MTS model 810 with capacity of 10 and quadratic, this point will be the crack closure
KN. Was obtained the crack closing stress load, Pcl. To find the best value of Pk is necessary
intensity factor in the Paris region of the crack to compute values of Pk between Pmax and Pmin and
propagation curve. The data acquisition was done is necessary also to compute the residues e by the
after 0.05 mm of crack growth, the procedure of follows expressions:
test is based on the ASTM.

Figure 15: Determination of knot Figure 16: Determination of Pcl

95
The software from MTS guarantee the
convergence for a Pk according with minimum e 5- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
computed. Figure 16 shows the crack closure
load. After the determination of crack closure load
the software relate the crack length, material The procedure to determine the crack opening
properties and the width of specimen and crack and closure stress intensity factor is based on Wei
length of the specimen to compute the crack & James [23] that consider the displacement at
closure stress intensity factor. first node behind crack become positive and
perpendicular stress become positive too. To
2 determine crack closure the displacement become
{v ( Pi ) − vi } , Pi < Pk ;
N
1
(v max − vmin )2 ∑
e= q
negative and perpendicular stress in the first node
i =1 behind crack become negative too.

2 Figures 17-22 show the correlation between


{v ( Pi ) − vi } , Pi ≥ Pk ;
N
1
(vmax − vmin )2 ∑
e= ref
Ansys and Fastran results from Liu & Wu [17] in
i =1
normalization of Kop and Kmax of the SE(T), SE(B)
and M(T). The results shows good correlation in
(9) all kind of specimens applying load ration R = 0
and R = 0.5. In general there is 10 % different
where, e- sum of square residues; vmax and vmin –
between the numerical and analytical codes used
maximum and minimum displacements in this work. Figures 23-30 shows examples of
perpendicular to superficies; N – number of post-processing using aluminum alloy and dual
cycles; vq- displacement obtained during test and
phase steel. The stresses shown in these Figures
used to adjust the linear curve when ( Pi vi ; Pi ≥ Pk are σxx to SE(B); SE(T) and σyy to M(T) and C(T).
); Pi vi - initial load and displacement of the test.
In this way the crack closure load Pcl will be Pk
value obtained by lower value of e.

Figure 17: Normalization of stress intensity factors SE(B), R = 0

96
Figure 18: Normalization of stress intensity factors SE(B), R = 0.5

Figure 19: Normalization of stress intensity factors SE(T), R = 0

Figure 20: Normalization of stress intensity factors SE(T), R = 0.5

97
Figure 21: Normalization of stress intensity factors M(T), R = 0

Figure 22: Normalization of stress intensity factors M(T), R = 0.5

Figure 23: Post-processing SE(B), R= 0 Figure 24: Post-processing detail SE (B) R = 0

98
Figure 25 : Post-processing SE(T), R= 0 Figure 26 : Post-processing detail SE(T)

Figure 27: Post-processing M(T), R = 0 Figure 28: Post-processing detail M(T) R = 0

Figure 29: Post-processing C(T), R = 0.1 Figure 30: Post-processing C(T) detail R = 0.1

Figure 31 an experimental result of crack possible see the Paris region. Figure 32 show the
propagation test in a C(T) specimen where is correlation between numerical and experimental

99
results by normalization of Kmax and Kcl with showing a increase of the experimental plastic
crack length and width of specimen, a/W. The zone much more than the numerical one. Is fact
points shown in the graphics are in the same that the crack propagation rate 5.0E-5 m/cycle, do
coordinates in numerical and experimental not represent the real crack propagation rate when
models. The graphic show good correlation compared with the numerical rate used in this
between numerical and experimental results in the work. To elaborate models with real crack
a/W ratio of 0.32 to 0.40. Above 0.40 the propagation rates is necessary spend a lot of time
numerical and experimental results has processing that have a duration bigger than the
divergence. The divergence is related to the test.
plastic zone formed during crack propagation,

Figure 31: Crack propagation curve of dual phase steel

Figure 32: Normalization of Kcl and Kmax

100
In the compact tension C(T) simulation were [3] Swedlow, J. L. The Effect and Plastic Flow
used10 increments to loading and 20 to unloading in Cracked Plates. PhD Thesis. California
with objective to increase the precision in the Institute of Technology. Pasadena. USA.
determination of the crack closure stress. To 1965
SE(B), SE(T) and M(T), were tested used 9 [4] Dugdale, D.S. Yielding of Steel Sheets
loading and unloading increments to determine Containing Slits; J. Mech. Phys. Solids. pp.
the stress opening. The work identified that 9 100-104. nº 8. 1960
increments to loading and unloading are best [5] Dahlberg, M. & Stenfors,S.E. Examination
agreement between time processing and quality of of The Fracture Mechanics Approach to
results. Fatigue Design of Nodular Cast Iron. In:
Blom. Fatigue 2002. Vol. 4/5. West Lands.
7 CONCLUSIONS Emas. pp. 2393-2400
[6] Taylor, D; Ciepalowicz, A.J.; Rogers, P. &
The present work presented a methodology to Develukia, J. Prediction of fatigue Failure in
simulate crack propagation processes as well as a Crankshaft Using The Technique Crack
the crack opening and closure mechanisms using Modeling. Fatigue & Fracture of
finite element method. Three kind of aluminum Engineering Materials & Structures. Vol.
alloy specimen with Al-2024-T351, SE(B), SE(T) 20. N.º 1. pp. 13-21. 1997
and M(T) were tested, comparing results with [7] Godefroid, L.B.; Guimaraes, C.R. & Silva,
FASTRAN and Ansys. The C(T) numerical A.P.F.S. Fatigue Crack Propagation and
results were compared with experimental data. Closure Behavior of a Dual-Phase
Constant amplitude loading was used to conduct Steel.COBEM. SP. Brazil. 2003
the numerical and experimental models. [8] Roychowdhury, S. & Dodds Jr, Robert H. A
numerical investigation of 3-D small-scale
It is possible to determine the stress, yielding fatigue crack growth, Eng. Frac.
displacements and later crack opening and closure Mechanics. Vol. 70., pp. 2363-2383, 2003
stress intensity factors covering all load history . [9] Jiang, Y; Feng, M.& Ding, F., A
To avoid chance to have convergence problems Reexamination of Plasticity-Induced Crack
release node in the minimum load was used. Closure in Fatigue Crack Propagation , Int.
Journal of Plasticity, Vol,. 21, 1720-
The methodology to simulate crack opening and 1740,2005
closure mechanisms by numerical or analytical [10] Newman, J.C. Jr. Finite Element Analysis
procedures is used with success in the aeronautic of Fatigue Crack Propagation Including The
and aerospace industry. The paper shows that with Effects of Crack Closure. PhD Thesis. VPI
few a cycles of crack propagation it is possible & SU. Blacksburg. USA. 1974
have characterization in terms qualitative of the [11] Newman, J.C. Jr.; Armen, H. Jr. “ Elastic-
crack opening and closure stress intensity factors Plastic Analysis of Fatigue Crack Under
using finite element method. Cyclic Loading”. AIAA Journal. nº 13. pp.
1017-1023. 1975
The methodology also can support automotive [12] Newman, J.C. Jr. A Finite Element Analysis
application supporting design criteria in of Fatigue Crack Closure. ASTM 490. pp.
characterization of properties in materials that 281-301. 1976
can be used in suspension and chassis [13] Fleck, N.A. & Newman, J.C. Jr. Analysis of
components like suspension components to Crack Closure Under Plane Strain
predict crack opening stress. Conditions. ASTM STP 982. pp. 319-341.
USA. 1988
8 REFERENCES [14] Newman, J.C. Jr. FASTRAN II – A Fatigue
Crack Growth Structural Analysis Program.
NASA TM-10459. 1992
[1] Christensen, R. H. Fatigue Crack Growth
[15] Bannantine,J.A.,Comer,J.J.,Handrock,J.L.,1
Affected by Metal Fragments Wedged
990.Fundamentals of Metal Fatigue
Between Opening Closing Crack Surface.
Analysis.Prentice-Hall,Englewood
Appl. Mater. Res.. nº 2.October. pp. 207-
Cliffis,NJ.
210. 1963
[16] Ansys Inc. Ansys Version 6.0. USA. 2002
[2] Elber, W. Fatigue Crack Propagation. PhD
[17] Liu, J.Z. & Wu, X. R. Study on Fatigue
Thesis. University of New South Wales.
Crack Closure Behavior For Various
Australia. 1968

101
Cracked Geometries. Eng. Frac. Mechanics. closure measurement and analysis. In:
Vol. 57. Nº5. pp. 475-491. 1997. McClung, R.C., Newman, Jr., J.C., (Eds.),
[18] Solanki, K.; Daniewicz, S.R & Newman Jr, Second volume, ASTM STP,vol.1343,
J.C., Finite element analysis of plasticity American Society for Testing and
induced fatigue crack:an overview; Eng. Materials,West Conshohocken,PA,pp.94 –
105, 1999
Frac. Mechanics, Vol. 71, 149 – 171, 2004
[22] Pippan,R.,Riemelmoser,F.O.,Bichler,C.,199
[19] ASTM. Standard Test Method for
9.Measurability of crack closure. Advances
Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth
in fatigue crack closure measurement and
Rates. E647 –95a. 1995
analysis. In: McClung, R.C., Newman,Jr.,
[20] Donald, J.K., Phlilips, E. P., Analysis of the
J.C. (Eds.),Second volume, ASTM
second ASTM round-robin program on
STP,vol.1343.American Society for Testing
opening-load measurement using the
and Materials,West
adjusted compliance ratio technique.
Conshohocken,PA,pp.41 – 56.
Advances in fatigue crack closure
[23] Wei, L.W. & James, M.N., A Study of
measurement and analysis. In: McClung,
Fatigue Crack Closure in Polycarbonate
R.C., Newman, Jr., J.C.(Eds.), Second
C(T) Specimens. Eng. Frac. Mechanics.,
volume, ASTM STP, vol.1343.American
Vol. 66. pp. 223-242, 2000
Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken,PA,pp.79-93, 1999.
[21] Graham, S.M., Tregoning, R., & Zhang,
X.J., Evaluation of the adjusted compliance
ratio technique for measuring crack closure
in Ti -6Al -4V.Advances in fatigue crack

102

Anda mungkin juga menyukai