1-s2.0-S0013794400000527-main

© All Rights Reserved

1 tayangan

1-s2.0-S0013794400000527-main

© All Rights Reserved

- Specific Fracture Energy Approximation of Dam Concrete
- Best practice for the assessment of defects in dents and gouges.pdf
- SOLID PROPELLANTS FRACTURE CRITERION
- How Inspectors Can Use Fracture Mechanics Roger Cordes
- A Quantitative Analysis of the Effect of Interface Delamination on the Fracture Behavior and Toughness of Multilayered Propylene–Ethylene Copolymer_low Density Polyethylene Films by the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF)
- Advanced Engineering Properties of Steels
- IWSD -Module 2-2_5 Introduction to Fracture Mechanics
- Esdep Lecture Note [Wg2]
- Stress Intensity Factors Handbook
- 1975,Orange, TW - Fracture Testing With Surface Crack Specimens
- TWI Knowledge Summary - Fitness for Purpose
- Analysis of Crack Coalescence in Rock-like Materials
- 1.Analytically - Experimental Study of Damage Tolerance of Aircraft Structures
- Life Assessment of Turbine Components Based on Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedur
- Phased Array AUT Intro(OCIENEERING).ppt
- 0-5798-P2
- scordelis
- Analysis of Small Edge Cracks and Its Implications to Multi Axial Fatigue
- Exploring Methods for Measuring Pipe Weld
- 20170608 StijnHertele Lecture Noord Public

Anda di halaman 1dari 17

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech

Weibull stress approach: signi®cance of parameter calibration

Claudio Ruggieri a, Xaosheng Gao b, Robert H. Dodds Jr. b,*

a

Department of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, University of S~ ao Paulo, S~

ao Paulo, SP 05508-900, Brazil

b

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, 2129 Newmark Laboratory, 205 N. Mathews Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Abstract

This study focuses on the Weibull stress approach to assess the eects of constraint loss on cleavage fracture

toughness (Jc ). The investigation addresses the signi®cance of the Weibull modulus m (which bears direct connection

with parameter calibration schemes) on the correlation of macroscopic fracture toughness for varying crack con®gu-

rations. In particular, we question the ability of current calibration procedures to provide reliable values for the Weibull

parameters (m, ru ) and present arguments that a non-uniqueness arises in the calibrated values, i.e., many pairs of

(m, ru ) provide equally good correlation of critical Weibull stress values with the distribution of measured fracture

toughness values. Our analyses also show a strong sensitivity of corrected Jc -values (LSY ! SSY constraint correction)

on parameter m for several specimen geometries and dierent material ¯ow properties; such results provide compelling

support to introduce an alternative, improved calibration procedure based on a toughness scaling model. Results of a

parameter study suggest typical values of m for a wide range of material ¯ow properties and toughness values. An

example illustrates application of the toughness scaling model to construct Weibull stress based, constraint corrections

for measured Jc -values to provide the Weibull modulus, m, for a structural C±Mn steel (BS 4360 Gr 50D). Ó 2000

Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cleavage fracture; Statistical eects; Weakest link; Local approach; Weibull stress

1. Introduction

The fundamental importance of cleavage fracture behavior in material failure has stimulated a rapidly

increasing amount of research on micromechanics methodologies to assess the integrity of structural

components subjected to various loading and environmental conditions. Such methodologies, collectively

termed local approaches, describe the cleavage process uncoupled from the macroscopic fracture toughness

( Jc , KJc or CTOD) to quantify the impact of defects in load-bearing materials and in-service structures (e.g.,

oshore and nuclear structures). Among these research eorts, the seminal work of Beremin [1] provides the

basis for establishing a relationship between the microregime of fracture and macroscopic crack driving

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-217-333-3276; fax: +1-217-333-9464.

E-mail address: r-dodds@uiuc.edu (R.H. Dodds Jr.).

0013-7944/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 0 1 3 - 7 9 4 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 5 2 - 7

102 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

forces (such as the J-integral) by introducing the Weibull stress (rw ) as a probabilistic fracture parameter. A

key feature of the Beremin approach is that rw follows a two-parameter Weibull distribution [2] in terms of

the Weibull modulus, m, and the scale parameter, ru . When implemented in a ®nite element code, the

Beremin model predicts the evolution of the Weibull stress with applied (macroscopic) load to de®ne

conditions leading to (local) material failure.

Recent developments for transferability models of elastic±plastic fracture toughness values rely on the

notion of the Weibull stress as a crack-tip driving force [3±7]. The central feature in these methodologies

adopts the simple axiom that unstable crack propagation (cleavage) occurs at a critical value of the Weibull

stress; under increased remote loading (as measured by J), dierences in evolution of the Weibull stress

re¯ect the potentially strong variations of near-tip stress ®elds. In this context, the Weibull modulus, m,

plays a major role in the process to correlate eects of constraint loss for varying crack con®gurations and

loading modes (tension vs. bending). Consequently, robust schemes to calibrate the Weibull parameters

(m, ru ) become a key element in fracture assessment procedures based upon rw .

A number of studies have demonstrated the potential capability of Weibull stress based approaches to

predict constraint and ductile tearing eects on measured distributions of Jc -values and CTOD-values for

structural steels [3,8±10]. The apparent success of these research eorts has prevented, until recently, a more

active pursuit of improved schemes to calibrate the micromechanical parameters (m, ru ). In spite of the

promise evident in those works, diculties still persist in the calibration of Weibull stress parameters under

speci®c testing conditions (small-scale vs. large-scale yielding conditions). In particular, details of the

analysis procedures (e.g. ®nite strain plasticity, 2-D vs. 3-D, etc.) and the mesh re®nement adopted to

compute the stress ®elds become critical in the calibration process using fracture specimens. Large m-values

accentuate the small dierences in computed stresses ahead of a blunting crack tip with corresponding

eects on the calibrated value. The collective evidence at present from a wide range of researchers reveals an

uncertain picture of the calibration process; some studies obtain similar m-values for dierent specimen

types while others show surprisingly large dierences. Reported values of m for common structural and

pressure vessel steels range from 10 to 50.

This study addresses the signi®cance of parameter calibration for the transferability model of elastic±

plastic fracture toughness using the Weibull stress approach. The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2

reviews brie¯y the probabilistic models (macroscopic and microscopic) for cleavage fracture. Section 3

outlines the conventional procedure to calibrate the Weibull stress parameters, followed by discussions of

the non-uniqueness issue that arises of this widely adopted procedure. Section 4 summarizes the compu-

tational procedures and the ®nite element models for the crack con®gurations considered in this study.

Section 5 describes the Weibull stress based, constraint correction method for fracture toughness values,

which leads to the proposal for a new scheme to calibrate the Weibull parameters (m, ru ). The results of a

parameter study reveal values of m for a wide range of material ¯ow properties and toughness values.

Section 6 provides a speci®c example illustrating the application of the new calibration scheme for a

structural C±Mn steel (BS 4360 Gr 50D) using deep-notch SE(B) specimens with dierent sizes.

Experimental studies consistently reveal large scatter in the measured values of cleavage fracture

toughness for ferritic steels tested in the DBT region (see Refs. [8,9,11±14] for illustrative data and the

experimental results presented in Section 6). Connections between the local (cleavage) fracture process and

extreme value statistics play the key role in describing the scatter of fracture toughness values. A continuous

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 103

probability function derived from weakest link statistics conveniently characterizes the distribution of

toughness values in the form [2,13,15]:

a

Jc ÿ Jmin

F
Jc 1 ÿ exp ÿ ;
1a

J0 ÿ Jmin

which is a three-parameter Weibull distribution with parameters (a; J0 ; Jmin ). Here, a denotes the Weibull

modulus (shape parameter), J0 de®nes the characteristic toughness (scale parameter) and Jmin is the

threshold fracture toughness. Often, the threshold fracture toughness is set equal to zero so that the Weibull

function given by Eq. (1a) assumes its more familiar two-parameter form

a

Jc

F
Jc 1 ÿ exp ÿ :
1b

J0

The above limiting distribution remains applicable for other measures of fracture toughness, such as KJc

or CTOD. A central feature emerging from the probabilistic treatment of brittle fracture based upon the

weakest link model is that, under small scale yielding conditions, the scatter of cleavage fracture toughness

data is characterized by a 2 for Jc -distributions or a 4 for KJc -distributions [9,12,13].

To extend the previous methodology to multiaxially stressed, 3-D crack con®gurations, research eorts

have focused on probabilistic models which couple the micromechanical features of the fracture process

(such as the inherent random nature of cleavage fracture) with the inhomogeneous character of the near-tip

stress ®elds. Motivated by the speci®c micromechanism of transgranular cleavage, a number of such models

(most often referred to as local approaches) employ weakest link arguments to describe the failure event.

The overall fracture resistance is thus controlled by the largest fracture-triggering particle that is sampled in

the fracture process zone ahead of crack front. Introduction of the Weibull stress (rw ), a term coined by the

Beremin group [1], provides the basis for generalizing the concept of a probabilistic fracture parameter and

supports the development of procedures that unify toughness measures across dierent crack con®gura-

tions/loading modes. In the local approach to cleavage fracture, the probability distribution for the fracture

stress of a cracked solid follows a two-parameter Weibull distribution [1,3,5,9],

Z m m

1 r1 rw

F
rw 1 ÿ exp ÿ dV 1 ÿ exp ÿ ;
2

V0 V ru ru

where V denotes the volume of the (near-tip) fracture process zone, V0 is a reference volume and r1 is the

maximum principal stress acting on material points inside the fracture process zone de®ned by the loci

r1 P kr0 , with k 2 [6,9]. Parameters m and ru appearing in Eq. (2) denote the Weibull modulus and the

scale parameter of the Weibull distribution. Following Beremin [1], the Weibull stress is de®ned as the stress

integral

Z 1=m

1

rw rm1 dV :
3

V0 V

In the context of probabilistic fracture mechanics, the Weibull stress, rw , thus emerges as a near-tip

fracture parameter to describe the coupling of remote loading with a micromechanics model which in-

corporates the statistics of microcracks (weakest link philosophy).

104 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

Previously developed procedures to calibrate the parameters (m, ru ) (see Refs. [1,3±5,9] for additional

details) employ measured toughness data for cleavage fracture (such as Jc -values) to de®ne corresponding

values of the Weibull stress at fracture, rw;c ; these values form the basis to estimate the Weibull parameters

for the material without making recourse to detailed metallographic measurements. This widely adopted

methodology builds upon an iterative procedure incorporating a ®nite element description of the crack-tip

stress ®elds and measured values of fracture toughness.

The ``standard'' process [1,3±5,9] begins by ®nding the material dependent value for the Weibull mod-

ulus, m. The method seeks to determine the parameters {m, ru } of the probability distribution given by Eq.

(2) that satis®es the identity F
Jc F
rw;c , where F
Jc is the probability distribution for fracture

toughness given by Eq. (1b) and F
rw;c is the probability distribution for the Weibull stress given by Eq.

(2). Now, let Ffem
rw and Fexp
rw denote the distributions of rw corresponding to the stress state obtained

through a ®nite element analysis and the one obtained through fracture toughness testing, respectively. By

postulating that Ffem
rw and Fexp
rw have identical distributions, the calibration process becomes one of

determining a set of parameters {m, ru } which satis®es this condition. The algorithm starts by determining

rw fem H
J ; m for an initial estimate of m, denoted as m0 , where H
J ; m denotes the computed

functional relationship between J in the ®nite element model and the Weibull stress for the speci®ed value of

m. The experimental Weibull stress,
rw exp , corresponding to each experimental toughness value, Jc , is

found by substituting Jc and H
J ; m. By applying a standard statistical analysis (such as the maximum

likelihood method [15]) to these
rw exp values, the estimates fm ^ 1 ;
^

ru 1 g are found for the distribution

^ 1 , the process starts a new with the distribution Ffem
rw computed for m m

Fexp
rw . If m0 6 m ^1.

A fundamental assumption underlying the above calibration procedure is that each toughness value (Jc )

of the data set de®nes a corresponding rw;c -value for a ®xed m as illustrated in Fig. 1. Consequently, the

associated identity F
Jc F
rw;c coupled with Eq. (1b) and Eq. (2) permits generalizing a relationship

between J and rw in the form

m a

rw J

:
4

ru J0

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 105

However, a major point of criticism of the calibration process described above is that the identity

F
Jc F
rw;c and Eq. (4) are always satis®ed for any value of the parameter m. The non-uniqueness

results from the fact that two free parameters (m and ru ) are involved in only one equation. Consider the

data set for toughness values (J) shown as solid symbols in Fig. 1 and its equivalent data set of rw -values for

two arbitrary m-values, m m1 and m m2 . Now, consider the two-parameter Weibull distribution given

by Eq. (1b) which describes the J-values with ®xed parameters (a, J0 ). Each J-value uniquely de®nes a

failure probability for the cracked con®guration, F
Jk . Let again H
J ; m denote the computed functional

relationship between J in the ®nite element model and the Weibull stress for the speci®ed value of m.

Because each J-value is transformed into corresponding Weibull stress values, rmw;k 1

or rmw;k

2

, through H
J ; m,

m1 m2

it becomes clear that F
Jk F
rw;k F
rw;k . Here, there exists no strict requirements to assume SSY or

LSY conditions so long as Eq. (4) remains valid. In other words, because F
J and F
rw are coupled

distributions, a non-uniqueness of the parameter m holds true so long as there exists a Weibull distribution

describing the measured toughness values and the associated Weibull distribution for rw (see Fig. 1).

Consequently, it is not possible to calibrate parameters (m, ru ) using the procedure previously outlined.

Further examination reveals that this iteration scheme to determine parameter m merely re¯ects, at best, the

variations in crack-tip ®elds that emerge in numerical analyses of fracture specimens due to meshing re-

®nement, element behavior, integration schemes, etc.

The non-uniqueness of the Weibull parameters arising from the calibration procedure using only a single

set of measured toughness values remains for other (macroscopic) parameters to describe crack front de-

formation, such as the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD). Here, both J and CMOD increase

strongly with continued deformation well after attainment of a plastic hinge (which invalidates the mea-

sured load as a parameter). Eqs. (1) and (4) remain valid, for example, if we substitute J J
CMOD into

them.

Following the work of Gao, Ruggieri and Dodds (GRD) [16], we now examine the non-uniqueness

calibration of the Weibull stress parameters (m, ru ) using the conventional procedure and crack con®gu-

rations (stationary) under mode I, plane-strain conditions. The Weibull stress for plane-strain conditions is

derived from Eq. (3) by using polar coordinates centered at the (blunted) crack tip as

Z 2p Z q0 1=m

BJ 2

rw rm1 q dq dh ;
5

V0 r20 0 0

where integration extends over the area of the cleavage fracture process zone (plastic zone), B denotes a

reference thickness, rp is the radius of the plastic zone and r1 is the maximum principle stress. Here, q, is the

non-dimensional radius given by r q
J =r0 and q0 de®nes a non-dimensional radius for the plastic zone

expressed as rp q0
J =r0 .

At load levels suciently small so that the size of the zone where inelastic eects prevail remains small

compared to other geometrical dimensions (e.g., crack length, crack ligament and thickness), the elastic±

plastic near-tip ®elds can be expressed in separable form analagous to the HRR ®eld as

where f and g are non-dimensional functions, E is the Young's modulus of the material, m is the Poisson's

ratio, n is the strain hardening exponent and T is the non-singular elastic stress acting parallel to the crack

[17,18].

106 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

After substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (5) and working out the resulting terms, the Weibull stress may be

written as

BXr0mÿ2 2

rmw J
7

V0

with

Z 2p Z q0

m

X
fg q dq dh;
8

0 0

which is a function of material ¯ow properties, speci®ed constraint level
T =r0 and m; but X is independent

of the applied loading, J.

Now, substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (4) with a 2, leads to

2 m

J rw BXr0mÿ2

J 2:
9

J0 ru V0 rmu

Consequently, J0 is related to the Weibull stress parameters by

V0 rmu

J02 :
10

BXr0mÿ2

Eq. (10) indicates that for ®xed values m of and ru , the eect of material ¯ow properties and/or con-

straint level on toughness levels (T =r0 ) on toughness levels (J0 ) arises only through the corresponding X-

values which are independent of J.

Alternatively, the ru ±m relationship can be obtained by solving Eq. (10) for ru ,

1=m

BXJ02

ru r0 ;
11

V0 r20

which indicates that is ru an exponential function of 1=m. In this expression, r0 , B and V0 are ®xed con-

stants, X is given by Eq. (8) and J0 is a speci®ed level of material toughness. Unfortunately, Eq. (11) does

not permit solution for m and ru since there is only one equation for two unknowns. For a speci®ed Weibull

exponent a 2 on J and known J0 from test data in Eq. (1b), many (m, ru ) pairs can be found such that Eq.

(9) holds. For a given value of m, Eq. (11) yields the corresponding ru and vice versa. For all the (m, ru )

pairs which satisfy Eq. (11), the predicted failure probability from Eq. (2) will be the same as the predicted

failure probability from Eq. (1b). Therefore, it is not possible to calibrate a unique (m, ru ) pair using only a

single data set of measured fracture toughness data under SSY (T =r0 constant).

To overcome this inherent limitation of previously developed procedures, the present work proposes a

new scheme to calibrate parameters (m, ru ). Section 5 illustrates the process which uses a scaling meth-

odology to correct measured toughness distributions for dierent crack con®gurations.

The 3-D computations reported here are generated using the research code WARP3D [19]: (1) imple-

ments a Mises constitutive models in a ®nite-strain framework, (2) solves the equilibrium equations at each

iteration using a linear pre-conditioned conjugate gradient (LPCG) method implemented within an ele-

ment-by-element (EBE) software architecture, (3) evaluates the J-integral using a convenient domain in-

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 107

tegral procedure and (4) analyzes fracture models constructed with 3-D, 8-node tri-linear hexahedral ele-

ments.

The ®nite element computations employ a domain integral procedure [20] for numerical evaluation of

the J-integral. A thickness average value for J is computed over domains de®ned outside material having

the highly non-proportional histories of the near-tip ®elds and thus retains a strong domain (path) inde-

pendence. Such J-values agree with estimation schemes based upon eta-factors for deformation plasticity.

They provide a convenient parameter to characterize the average intensity of far ®eld loading on the crack

front.

The elastic±plastic material employed in the analyses follows a J2 ¯ow theory with conventional Mises

plasticity. The uniaxial true stress-logarithmic strain curve obeys a simple power-law hardening model,

n

r r

; 6 0 ; ; > 0 ;
12

0 r0 0 r0

where r0 and 0 are the reference (yield) stress and strain, and n is the strain hardening exponent.

Section 5 describes numerical solutions for the SSY boundary-layer model with T 0 and standard

0:5
T , 1
T and 2
T SE(B) specimens with a=W 0:5. These ®nite element analyses consider material

¯ow properties covering most structural and pressure vessel steels: n 5
E=r0 800, 10
E=r0 500

and 20
E=r0 300 with E 206 GPa and m 0:3; these ranges of properties also re¯ect the upward

trend in yield stress with the decrease in strain hardening exponent characteristic of ferritic steels. For the

SE(B) specimens used in the fracture testing described in Section 6, we generate numerical solutions that

utilize a piecewise linear approximation to the measured tensile response for the material at the test tem-

perature, T ÿ120°C given in Ref. [10].

3-D ®nite element analyses are described for plane-side deep notch
a=W 0:5 SE(B) specimens. Here,

a denotes the crack length and W the specimen width. The analysis matrix includes a conventional geometry

W =B 2 with varying thickness B 12:5 mm 0:5
T , B 25 mm 1
T and B 50 mm 2
T .

Fracture toughness tests at dierent lower transition temperatures for a structural steel (BS 4360 Grade

50D) [10] were performed on the 3-point SE(B) specimens with size 0:5
T and 2
T . Fig. 2(a) shows the

geometry and dimensions of the SE(B) specimens employed in the analyses.

Fig. 2(b) shows a typical ®nite element model constructed for analyses of the 1
T SE(B) specimen. All

other crack models have very similar features. A conventional mesh con®guration having a focused ring of

elements surrounding the crack front is used with a small key-hole at the crack tip; the radius of the key-

hole, q0 , is 10 lm (0.01 mm). Symmetry conditions enable analyses using one-quarter of the 3-D models

with appropriate constraints imposed on the symmetry planes. The mesh has 14 variable thickness layers

de®ned over the half-thickness (B=2); the thickest layer is de®ned at Z 0 with thinner layers de®ned near

the free surface (Z B=2) to accommodate strong Z variations in the stress distribution. The quarter-

symmetric, 3-D models for the SE(B) specimens typically have 18,500 nodes and 16,000 elements. These

®nite element models are loaded by displacement increments imposed on the center-plane nodes for the

outermost two layers of elements. A typical solution to load the specimen to J 100 kJ/m2 uses 100 load

increments and requires 10 CPU hours on a CRAY J-90 computer.

Numerical solutions for a stationary crack under well-de®ned SSY conditions (with the T -stress term [17]

set to zero, i.e., T 0) are generated by imposing displacements of the elastic, mode I singular ®eld on the

outer circular boundary (r R) which encloses the crack

108 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

Fig. 2. SE(B) specimens with a=W 0:5 employed in the analyses (all units in mm).

r

1m R h

u
R; h KI cos
3 ÿ 4m ÿ cos h;
13

E 2p 2

r

1m R h

v
R; h KI sin
3 ÿ 4m ÿ cos h:
14

E 2p 2

Here, r and h are polar coordinates centered at the crack tip with h 0 corresponding to a line ahead of

the crack, KI EJ =
1 ÿ m2 1=2 , E is the Young's modulus, m is the Poisson's ratio.

Evaluation of the Weibull stress requires integration over the process zone, including the region as

r ! 0. The SSY and all other crack models previously described have a small initial root radius at the crack

front (blunt tip) which provides two numerical bene®ts: (1) it accelerates convergence of the ®nite-strain

plasticity algorithms during the initial stage of blunting, and (2) it minimizes numerical problems during

computation of the Weibull stress over material incident on the crack tip. To maintain consistency with the

®nite element models for the SE(B) specimens used to construct the JLSY ! JSSY corrections, the SSY model

has the same mesh con®guration at the crack tip as the SE(B) models. The SSY model has one thickness

layer of 2065 8-node, 3-D elements with plane-strain constraints imposed on all nodes.

This section describes the results of detailed numerical analyses employing the MBL model and 3-D

®nite element analyses for the standard SE(B) specimens with size 0:5
T , 1
T and 2
T to assess eects of

constraint loss on individual fracture toughness values for dierent material properties and specimen

con®gurations. The objective is to demonstrate the strong eect of parameter m (Weibull modulus) on

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 109

Fig. 3. Toughness scaling model used to construct JLSY ! JSSY corrections, where the SSY model has the same thickness as the SE(B)

specimen (LSY).

JLSY ! JSSY corrections. These results serve to introduce the framework to construct an alternative pa-

rameter calibration scheme presented in the next section.

Fig. 3 illustrates the procedure to assess the eects of constraint loss on fracture toughness needed

to construct JLSY vs. JSSY trajectories. Very detailed, non-linear 3-D ®nite element analyses provide the

functional relationship between the Weibull stress (rw ) and the applied loading (J ) for a speci®ed value of

the Weibull modulus, m. Based on the argument of the Weibull stress as the crack driving force, the scaling

model requires the attainment of equal values for rw to trigger cleavage fracture across dierent specimen

geometries even though J-values may vary widely due to constraint loss. Fig. 3 shows curves of rw vs. J for

a standard fracture specimen (the present work employs only deep notch SE(B) specimens) and for a plane-

strain, SSY reference solution (T =r0 0) with the same thickness of the fracture specimen. Such curves are

constructed for a ®xed, representative value of the Weibull modulus, m, for each set of ¯ow properties (the

normalizing volume for the Weibull stress, V0 , is assigned the value of 1 mm3 for convenience). JLSY values

computed from the domain integral procedures in the ®nite element analyses of the SE(B) specimens

represent thickness average values, which are consistent with experimental (average) values de®ned using a

plastic eta-factor and the measured areas under the load vs. load line displacement curve. For the plane-

strain SSY model, JSSY becomes simply the J value at the crack tip. Given the JLSY value for the fracture

specimen, the lines shown on Fig. 3 readily illustrate the technique used to determine JSSY . Toughness

values are often normalized by br0 to provide a set of curves (JSSY =br0 vs. JLSY =br0 applicable for geo-

metrically scaled specimens, i.e., all SE(B)s with a=W 0:5, W B, S 4W .

Figs. 4±6 provides the constraint corrections (LSY ! SSY) for the 0:5
T , 1
T and 2
T SE(B) speci-

mens with dierent material properties (n 5 with E=r0 800; n 10 with E=r0 500; n 20 with

E=r0 300) and for varying Weibull moduli, m. The present computations consider values of m 10, 15,

20, 25 and 30 to assess the sensitivity of constraint corrections on the speci®ed Weibull modulus. These m-

values are consistent with previously reported values for structural steels. Each curve provides pairs of J-

values, JLSY in the SE(B) specimen and JSSY in SSY, that produce the same rw (and thus the same failure

probability). Reference lines are shown which de®ne a constant ratio of ``constraint loss'', e.g., Javg 1:2J0

which implies that the SE(B) average J must be 20% greater than the SSY value to generate the same

Weibull stress. For each value of the Weibull modulus, the SE(B) and SSY curves agree very well early in

the loading history while the SE(B) specimen maintains near SSY conditions across the crack front (recall

that computation of rw in the SE(B) specimens considers the entire crack front). Once near-front stresses

deviate from the (plane-strain) SSY levels, the rw curves for the SE(B) specimens fail to increase at the

same rate with further loading. These results illustrate clearly the gradual nature of constraint loss in the

110 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

Fig. 4. JLSY ! JSSY correction using a scaling methodology based upon the Weibull stress with varying Weibull moduli for plane-sided

0:5
T SE(B) specimens.

Fig. 5. JLSY ! JSSY correction using a scaling methodology based upon the Weibull stress with varying Weibull moduli for plane-sided

1
T SE(B) specimens.

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 111

Fig. 6. JLSY ! JSSY correction using a scaling methodology based upon the Weibull stress with varying Weibull moduli for plane-sided

2
T SE(B) specimens.

deep-notch SE(B) specimens, especially for moderate to low hardening materials. The Weibull modulus

does have an appreciable aect on predictions of constraint loss; increasing m values indicate a higher load

level at the onset of constraint loss and a reduced rate of constraint loss under further loading. The larger m

values, in eect, assign a greater weight factor to stresses at locations very near the crack front. The bending

®eld, which impinges on the crack front, aects the smaller m curves more readily.

The previous results exhibit the essential features of Weibull stress based, constraint corrections for some

key specimen geometries. Each SSY toughness value corrected from its corresponding LSY value re¯ects

both the eects of stressed near-tip volume and of the strong changes in the character of the near-tip stress

®elds due to constraint loss. Further, in the context of probabilistic fracture mechanics, each pair (JSSY ,

JLSY ) on a given m-curve de®nes equal failure probabilities for cleavage fracture.

Motivated by the above observations, we propose an alternative parameter calibration scheme that uses

the scaling methodology previously outlined to correct measured toughness distributions for dierent crack

con®gurations. The procedure extends previous work by GRD [16] to calibrate parameter (m, ru ) using

high constraint (SSY) and low constraint (LSY) fracture toughness data measured at the same temperature

and loading rate. Here, we use the quantitative eect of constraint loss for dierent specimen thickness and

crack ligament to calibrate m while GRD provide similar procedure employing same size specimen with

dierent a=W ratios. Because each measured JLSY value is corrected to its equivalent JSSY value, the sta-

tistical (Weibull) distribution of JLSY values is also corrected to an equivalent statistical (Weibull) distri-

bution of JSSY values. Consequently, our scheme de®nes the calibrated value of m for the material as the

value that corrects the characteristic toughness J0LSY (i.e., the scale parameter of Eq. (1b), see Section 2.1) to

112 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

its equivalent J0SSY . Because parameter m is assumed independent of specimen geometry (as long as the

framework upon which the Weibull stress is based remains valid), the scheme remains equally applicable

when two sets of fracture toughness data from dierent crack con®gurations, but with sucient dierences

in the evolution of rw vs. J, are used (e.g., 1
T SE(B) specimens with a=W 0:5 and a=W 0:15).

The following steps describe the key procedures in the proposed calibration scheme which slightly

simpli®es the methodology described by GRD [16]. Section 6 illustrates application of the process for a

ferritic structural steel (BS 4360 Gr 50D).

Step 1

Test two sets of specimens with dierent crack con®gurations (A and B) in the ductile-to-brittle tran-

sition region to generate two distributions of fracture toughness data. Select the specimen geometries and

the common test temperature to insure dierent evolutions of constraint levels for the two con®gurations.

No ductile tearing should develop prior to cleavage fracture in either sets of tests. Several alternatives to

obtain the two sets of toughness values at the same test temperature include

(1.1) Test high constraint deep-notch SE(B)s or C
T s as con®guration A. To insure SSY conditions at

fracture, set the specimen size so that Jc 6 brys =M for each specimen, with M conservatively set to 75±100

[21]. For con®guration B, use similar size SE(B) specimens but with shallow-notches, i.e., a=W 0:15.

These will undergo signi®cant constraint loss when the deep-notch values just satisfy the suggested de-

formation limit.

(1.2) Test large (A) and small (B) deep-notch SE(B) specimens having the same a=W P 0:5 ratio. Set the

large specimen size to provide high constraint conditions. Set the small specimen size to insure sucient loss

of constraint at fracture for most specimens.

Step 2

Perform detailed, 3-D ®nite element analyses for the tested specimen geometries. The mesh re®nements

must be sucient to insure converged rw vs. J histories for the expected range of m-values and loading

levels.

Step 3

(3.1) Assume an m-value. Compute the rw vs. J history for con®gurations A and B to construct the

toughness scaling model relative to both con®gurations.

(3.2) Constraint correct J0B to its equivalent J0;m

A

(i.e., the corrected value of the scale parameter for the

A

assumed m-value). De®ne the error of toughness scaling as R
m
J0;m ÿ J0A =J0A . If R
m 6 0, repeat 3.1±

3.2 for additional m-values.

(3.3) Plot R
m vs. m. The calibrated Weibull modulus makes R
m 0 within a small tolerance.

Step 4

Compute the ru -value. After m is determined, ru is obtained easily from the rw vs. J history for the

calibrated m-value. ru equals the Weibull stress value at J J0A or J J0B in the corresponding con®gu-

ration.

This section examines the eect of strain hardening on the calibrated Weibull modulus, m, using the

procedure outlined in Section 5.2. We consider a parameter study adopting a 0:5
T SE(B) specimen with

material properties: n 5 with E=r0 800; n 10 with E=r0 500 and n 20 with E=r0 300. These

are typical for ferritic steels. Moreover, because measured toughness distributions are not available, we

adopt J0SSY 60 kJ/m2 for materials with n 5 and 10, and J0SSY 90 kJ/m2 for the material with n 20.

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 113

Fig. 7. Dependence of Weibull modulus, m, on materialÕs strain hardening exponent and characteristic toughness.

In the present study, we set the toughness change for the material due to constraint loss as J0LSY =J0SSY 1:5,

1.75 and 2 (i.e., J0LSY 90, 105 and 120 kJ/m2 for materials with n 5 and 10, and J0LSY 135, 158 and 180

kJ/m2 for the material with n 20). The calibrated value of m for the material becomes the value that

corrects each characteristic toughness J0LSY to its equivalent J0SSY (speci®ed).

Fig. 7 shows the dependence of parameter m on strain hardening exponent, n. The upward trend of

increased m-values with increased strain hardening exponents (decreased hardening) is evident. For a given

material, the Weibull modulus m decreases with increased toughness changes as measured by the ratio

J0LSY =J0SSY ; such eect arises from the more severe constraint loss in the specimen for higher levels of

toughness changes J0LSY =J0SSY which requires smaller m-values to predict the more pronounced J0 shift

between LSY and SSY conditions. This brief parameter study illustrates the expected value for m for a

typical range of material ¯ow properties and toughness levels. For the material properties considered here,

the calibrated m-values lie in the range of 10±25.

Wiesner and Goldthorpe [10] provide cleavage fracture toughness values at dierent lower transition

temperatures obtained from testing of 3-point SE(B) specimens (plane-sided) with ®xed crack length to

width ratio, a=W 0:5, and varying specimen thickness, B. The specimens have B 12:5 and 50 mm with

width W 2B and span S 8B (refer to Fig. 2). The material is a ferritic C±Mn steel (BS 4360 Grade 50D)

with high strain hardening (rut =rys 1:53). Mechanical tensile test data for this material is presented in

Ref. [10].

Fig. 8 provides a Weibull diagram of the measured toughness values for the test temperature

T ÿ120°C. The open symbols in the plots indicate the experimental fracture toughness data for the SE(B)

specimens. Values of cumulative probability, F , are obtained by ordering the Jc -values and using F

i ÿ 0:5=N , where i denotes the rank number and N de®nes the total number of experimental toughness

values. The straight lines indicate the two-parameter Weibull distribution obtained by a maximum like-

lihood analysis of the data set. The maximum likelihood estimates (^ a, J^0 ) for each data set are: (1.5, 44.3)

for the 0:5
T specimen and (1.4, 29.3) for the 2
T specimen.

114 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

Fig. 8. Weibull plots of toughness values for two sets of SE(B) specimens at T ÿ120°C.

The procedure used here to calibrate the Weibull stress parameters for the C±Mn steel follows the

proposed scheme outlined in Section 5.2. In the present application, we calibrate parameters (m, ru ) by

scaling the measured toughness distribution for the 0:5
T SE(B) specimen to an equivalent toughness

distribution for the 2
T SE(B) specimen. Very detailed ®nite element computations of these specimens

enable construction of the J0:5
T ! J2
T correction shown in Fig. 9. The calibration process simply becomes

0:5
T 2
T

one of determining an m-value that corrects J0 to its equivalent J0 .

A key feature of this methodology also lies in the choice of parameter a describing the scatter of the

toughness distribution. We propose to adopt the ®xed theoretical value a 2 to describe the distribution of

Jc -values, which makes contact with the probabilistic treatment of fracture under SSY conditions based

on weakest link statistics described in Section 2.1. Such an approach is also consistent with the so-called

``master curve'' approach [22] where it is recognized that measured values of a depend strongly on the

sample size. An important question to resolve with this approach concerns the variation of the charac-

teristic toughness
J0 , i.e., the scale parameter of the two-parameter Weibull distribution, when parameter

a is ®xed. Fortunately, statistical analyses of the experimentally measured Jc -values based upon the max-

Fig. 9. J0:5
T ! J2
T correction using a scaling methodology based upon the Weibull stress with varying Weibull moduli for the tested

structural steel BS4360 Gr50. The lines on the plot indicates the calibration process to determine the Weibull modulus m.

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 115

Fig. 10. Predicted Weibull distribution for the 2
T SE(B) specimen at T ÿ120°C from the toughness data of the 0:5
T SE(B)

specimen using the toughness scaling model with m 15.

imum likelihood method with a ®xed value of a reveal a weak dependence of J0 on a. For the SE(B)

0:5
T

specimens with B 12:5 mm at T ÿ120°C, the maximum likelihood estimate of J0 with a 2 is 49.3

kJ/m2 and diers by 11% from the previous value of 44.3 kJ/m2 (recall the large deviations of the Weibull

modulus from a 2 for this data set). Similarly, for the SE(B) specimens with B 50 mm at T ÿ120°C,

2
T

the maximum likelihood estimate of J0 with a 2 is 34.0 kJ/m2 and diers by 12% from the previous

value of 29.3 kJ/m2 .

With the introduction of a ®xed value a 2, our calibration procedure yields m 15 for the steel tested

at T ÿ120°C. Fig. 9 illustrates the graphical procedure to determine parameter m. Fig. 10 shows the

Weibull distribution for the 2
T SE(B) specimen as predicted from the toughness data for the 0:5
T SE(B)

specimen using the toughness scaling methodology with the calibrated m-value. To generate this plot, we (1)

compute the rw vs. J relationships for both 0:5
T and 2
T specimens using the calibrated value of Weibull

modulus (m 15); (2) scale the toughness data for 0:5
T specimen to its 2
T equivalent value based on

equal rw -values; (3) plot the corrected toughness data in a Weibull diagram. While the lower and upper tails

of the predicted curve (solid line) lie somewhat higher than the 2
T experimental data (symbols), generally

good agreement exists between the predicted distribution and the experimental data.

In this study, we adopt the original two-parameter Weibull stress model, (2), to describe the cumulative

failure probability and use experimental data obtained from two sets of deep notch SE(B) specimens with

dierent absolute sizes to calibrate the Weibull modulus, m. Alternatively, specimens with the same size but

having dierent a=W ratios or specimens subjected to dierent loading modes (bending vs. tension) can be

used to calibrate m according to the procedures described in Section 5.2 [16,23]. For some materials, it may

be possible to achieve suciently dierent constraint conditions to enable calibration by testing the same

type/size of specimens at two dierent temperatures, i.e., one temperature near the lower-shelf to generate

toughness values under SSY and another temperature well-up in transition to generate toughness values

under LSY conditions. Two issues arise with this approach: (1) the specimens tested under LSY conditions

should not experience ductile tearing prior to fracture and (2) the calibration process as described previ-

ously must assume that the Weibull modulus, m, remains identical over the temperature range. The tem-

perature (and loading rate) dependence of the Weibull modulus, m, remain under active investigation. A

slight variation of this approach employs the ``master curve'' [22] to determine the material's reference

temperature, T0 , using the low temperature, SSY toughness values. The master curve enables estimation of

the characteristic toughness value (K0 or J0 ) at the temperature of the LSY tests. This estimated value of K0

(or J0 ) and the measured LSY toughness distribution provide the toughness data (at high and low

constraint levels) needed for the calibration of Weibull parameters. This modi®cation eliminates the

116 C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117

requirement to assume m remains unchanged with temperature (only the material ¯ow properties at the

higher temperature are need to support the ®nite element analysis).

Recently, Gao et al. [16] modify the expression for the failure probability to introduce a threshold value

rwÿmin for cleavage fracture which re¯ects an approximate model for the conditional failure probability.

The value of
rwÿmin ties directly with Kmin (minimum toughness value for ferritic steels) of ASTM E-1921

[22]. The introduction of
rwÿmin in the expression for failure probability brings numerical predictions of

the scatter in fracture toughness data into better agreement with experiments (especially the tails of the

toughness distribution) [16,23].

7. Concluding remarks

Our extensive numerical analyses to assess constraint loss due to absolute size eects (LSY ! SSY) for

standard, deep notch SE(B) specimens demonstrate the strong in¯uence of the Weibull stress parameter m

(Weibull modulus) on JLSY ! JSSY corrections. These analyses provide support to introduce alternative,

improved procedure based on a toughness scaling model to calibrate the Weibull stress parameters, (m, ru ).

Results of a parameter study reveal values of m for a wide range of material ¯ow properties and toughness

values. The toughness scaling model enables construction of Weibull stress based constraint corrections for

experimentally measured Jc -values to provide the Weibull parameters for a structural C±Mn steel (BS 4360

Grade 50D). Further work is in progress to validate the proposed procedure as a more general and robust

scheme to calibrate the Weibull stress parameters for several crack con®gurations and its implication on

predictions of toughness distributions.

Acknowledgements

This investigation was supported by grants principally from the Scienti®c Foundation of the State of S~ao

Paulo (FAPESP) under Grant 95/9898-0. XG and RHD are funded by US Nuclear Regulatory Com-

mission, Oce of Regulatory Research and from the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division.

Access to the Cray J-90 at the High Performance Computing Center (LCCA) of the University of S~ao

Paulo is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are indebted to Dr. Christoph S. Wiesner and Dr. Martin R.

Goldthorpe (TWI) for the useful discussions.

References

[1] Beremin FM. A local criterion for cleavage fracture of a nuclear pressure vessel steel. Metallur Trans 1983;14A:2277±87.

[2] Weibull W. The phenomenon of rupture in solids. Ingeniors Vetenskaps Akademien Handlingar 1939;153:55.

[3] Ruggieri C, Dodds RH. A transferability model for brittle fracture including constraint and ductile tearing eects: a probabilistic

approach. Int J Fract 1996;79:309±40.

[4] Ruggieri C, Dodds RH. Probabilistic modeling of brittle fracture including 3-D eects on constraint loss and ductile tearing.

In: Proceedings of the First European Mechanics of Materials Conference on Local Approach to Fracture (1986±1996),

Fontainbleau, France, September 9±11, 1996.

[5] Ruggieri C, Dodds RH. WSTRESS Release 1.0: Numerical computation of probabilistic fracture parameters for 3-D cracked

solids, BT-PNV-30 (Technical Report), EPUSP, University of S~ ao Paulo, 1997.

[6] Ruggieri C, Dodds RH. Numerical computation of probabilistic fracture parameters using WSTRESS. Engng Computat

1998;15:49±73.

[7] Ruggieri C, Dodds RH, Wallin K. Constraints eects on reference temperature T0 for ferritic steels in the transition region.

Engng Fract Mech 1998;60:19±36.

C. Ruggieri et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 67 (2000) 101±117 117

[8] Bakker A, Koers RWJ. Prediction of cleavage fracture events in the brittle-ductile transition region of a ferritic steel. In: J.G.

Blauel, K.H. Schwalbe, editors. Defect assessment in components ± fundamentals and applications. ESIS/EG9, Mechanical

Engineering Publications, London, 1991. p. 613±32.

[9] Minami F, Br uckner-Foit A, Munz D, Trolldenier B. Estimation procedure for the Weibull parameters used in the local approach.

Int J Fract 1992;54:197±210.

[10] Wiesner CS, Goldthorpe MR. The eect of temperature and specimen geometry on the parameters of the local approach to

cleavage fracture. International Conference on Local Approach to Fracture (MECAMAT 96), Fontainebleau, France, 1996, 9.

C6-295±304.

[11] Ruggieri C, Minami F, Toyoda M. A statistical approach for fracture of brittle materials based on the chain-of-bundles model.

J Appl Mech 1995;62:320±8.

[12] Wallin K. The scatter in KIc results. Engng Fract Mech 1984;19:1085±93.

[13] Wallin K. Statistical aspects of constraint with emphasis on testing and analysis of laboratory specimens in the transition region.

In: E.M. Hackett, K.H. Schwalbe, R.H. Dodds, editors. Constraint eects in fracture, ASTM STP 1171, American Society for

Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1993. p. 264±88.

[14] Sorem WA, Dodds RH, Rolfe ST. Eects of crack depth on elastic plastic fracture toughness. Int J Fract 1991;47:105±26.

[15] Mann NR, Schafer RE, Singpurwalla ND. Methods for statistical analysis of reliability and life data. New York: Wiley; 1974.

[16] Gao X, Ruggieri C, Dodds RH. Calibration of Weibull stress parameters using fracture toughness data. Int J Fract 1998;92:

175±200.

[17] Williams ML. On the stress distribution at the base of a stationary crack. J Appl Mech 1957;24:109±14.

[18] Larsson SG, Carlsson AJ. In¯uence of non-singular stress terms and specimen geometry on small scale yielding at crack-tips in

elastic±plastic materials. J Mech Phys Solids 1973;21:447±73.

[19] Koppenhoefer K, Gullerud A, Ruggieri C, Dodds R, Healy B. WARP3D: dynamic nonlinear analysis of solids using a

preconditioned conjugate gradient software architecture, Structural Research Series (SRS) 596, UILU-ENG-94-2017, University

of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1994.

[20] Moran B, Shih CF. A general treatment of crack tip contour integrals. Int J Fract 1987;35:295±310.

[21] Nevalainen M, Dodds RH. Numerical investigation of 3-D constraint eects on brittle fracture in SE(B) and C(T) specimens. Int

J Fract 1995;74:131±61.

[22] Test method for the determination of reference temperature, T0 , for ferritic steels in the transition range (ASTM E-1921),

American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1998.

[23] Gao X, Dodds RH, Tregoning RL, Joyce JA, Link RE. A Weibull stress model to predict cleavage fracture in plates containing

surface cracks. Fatig Fract Engng Mater Struct 1999;22:481±94.

- Specific Fracture Energy Approximation of Dam ConcreteDiunggah olehdyc123
- Best practice for the assessment of defects in dents and gouges.pdfDiunggah olehSharbel Wg
- SOLID PROPELLANTS FRACTURE CRITERIONDiunggah olehBernard SCHAEFFER
- How Inspectors Can Use Fracture Mechanics Roger CordesDiunggah olehBrighton John
- A Quantitative Analysis of the Effect of Interface Delamination on the Fracture Behavior and Toughness of Multilayered Propylene–Ethylene Copolymer_low Density Polyethylene Films by the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF)Diunggah olehDiego Adalberto Campos
- Advanced Engineering Properties of SteelsDiunggah olehMihajloDjurdjevic
- IWSD -Module 2-2_5 Introduction to Fracture MechanicsDiunggah olehPourya Noury
- Esdep Lecture Note [Wg2]Diunggah olehc_a_lindbergh
- Stress Intensity Factors HandbookDiunggah olehJad Antonios Jelwan
- 1975,Orange, TW - Fracture Testing With Surface Crack SpecimensDiunggah olehnicolascages
- TWI Knowledge Summary - Fitness for PurposeDiunggah olehdhurusha
- Analysis of Crack Coalescence in Rock-like MaterialsDiunggah olehZhao Xingdong
- 1.Analytically - Experimental Study of Damage Tolerance of Aircraft StructuresDiunggah olehPrajeesh Raj
- Life Assessment of Turbine Components Based on Deterministic and Probabilistic ProcedurDiunggah olehPeerasak Arun
- Phased Array AUT Intro(OCIENEERING).pptDiunggah olehLương Hồ Vũ
- 0-5798-P2Diunggah olehJiying Yu
- scordelisDiunggah olehrahul vaish
- Analysis of Small Edge Cracks and Its Implications to Multi Axial FatigueDiunggah olehCheng Pang
- Exploring Methods for Measuring Pipe WeldDiunggah olehBrim Ernesto
- 20170608 StijnHertele Lecture Noord PublicDiunggah oleh66apenlullen
- Fracture Mechanics NotesDiunggah olehHossam M ALrohily
- 1-s2.0-S026382231200150X-mainDiunggah olehVictor Daniel Waas
- EPM CLASE 3.pdfDiunggah olehJORGE FREJA MACIAS
- Front PageDiunggah olehsnvijayan
- kanvinde2016Diunggah olehBach Do
- Fracture Mechanics Midterm TestDiunggah olehBagus S Setiawan
- 113.pdfDiunggah olehnicu1212
- 772Diunggah olehNgoc Ha Dao
- 2 FaultingDiunggah olehgalvaone
- FracTura dinamicasDiunggah olehManolo Ericson Guti

- 3 - Vector CalculusDiunggah olehamd mhm
- 2 - Matrices and TensorsDiunggah olehamd mhm
- 1 - VectorsDiunggah olehamd mhm
- PVP2013-97431Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Anderson DarlingDiunggah olehthepadrino
- MSU.CAVS.CMD.2009-R0010Diunggah olehamd mhm
- 67-110-1-PBDiunggah olehamd mhm
- 2.2paperDiunggah olehamd mhm
- EN234FEA Tutorial 2017Diunggah olehamd mhm
- wp_4430.pdfDiunggah olehamd mhm
- 2_paper_1948Diunggah olehamd mhm
- 08 Plasticity 02 Stress Analysis[1]Diunggah olehAvijit Dey
- 08_Plasticity_01_Introduction.pdfDiunggah olehAmmar A. Ali
- Danes Hi an 2013Diunggah olehamd mhm
- LS DYNA Glass ModelDiunggah olehalexrem
- Defects in CrystalsDiunggah olehSaravana_Kumar_4984
- fplrp493Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Exploration Network Chapter 1Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Discovery_Home_SB_Chapter_ 0.pptDiunggah olehamd mhm
- Discovery Home SB Chapter 0Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Application of Numerical Method Eng'NgDiunggah olehjamal_jmy
- Num Tech DiffDiunggah olehamd mhm
- Us 20140332577Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Us 20030019100Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Us 7574795Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Us 7497361Diunggah olehamd mhm
- Us 7299716Diunggah olehamd mhm
- A metallographic examination of fracture splitting C70S6 steel used in connecting rodsDiunggah olehSujay Nahalde

- FLORES-JOHNSON Numerical Analysis of the Effect of Weld-Induced 2012 06Diunggah olehhdf
- Structural IntegrityDiunggah olehadeshinexx
- Transfusion de Sangre English 30 IV 09Diunggah olehrubenguz
- Good Governance CompleteDiunggah olehKaleem Marwat
- Progress_Test_2.pdfDiunggah olehAngelly Leon
- 1 Cs208 Principles of Database Design - Model QpDiunggah olehAtherin
- Timken Practical Data for MetallurgistsDiunggah olehrtgeorge
- CHAPTER 4 SolutionDiunggah olehNaira Classified
- Petrolera Zuata, Petrozuata caseDiunggah olehAndy Vibgyor
- STRUCTURAL DESIGN.pdfDiunggah olehHeronijosh Dg
- Chapter 4 Stereotypes Prejudices RacismDiunggah olehfitri
- An Enhanced Routing Method With Dijkstra Algorithm and AHP Analysis in GIS-Based Emergency PlanDiunggah olehBharadwaj K Bardi
- Writer Guidelines 11111Diunggah olehBiljana Petrusevska
- resume 2016Diunggah olehapi-336183993
- 5523-12636-1-PBDiunggah olehfelix
- Character Reference Letters for Court AppearancesDiunggah olehglossymogul887
- Soal UAS Bahasa Inggris Kelas 8 - GuruDiunggah olehFiqih Nur Hakiki
- ASTD Learning Organization ques.docxDiunggah olehPriyanka Singh
- Fuel and Emissions SystemsDiunggah olehmkisa70
- GST 101Diunggah olehEmmanuel Adewale Sanda
- 201654107-Apollo-Nashik-Plans.pdfDiunggah olehAaquib Mahfuz
- 05_N020_28800.docDiunggah olehEndang Setiawati
- worth and status worksheet ecd 438Diunggah olehapi-330730297
- emiter stabillizedDiunggah olehSatriyoAriez
- 2014 Doctor of Ministry Thesis ManualDiunggah oleh행정팀
- Business Studies and Economics Catalogue 2011Diunggah olehPearson Schools
- Letter for ConsultantDiunggah olehlemuelbassig
- business-benchmark-pre-intermediate-croatian-wordlist.xlsDiunggah olehBiserka Biserčić
- Ho-Verbs in Patterns of Complex Transitive ComplementationDiunggah olehbiganatfo
- The meaning of online problematic situation for childrenDiunggah olehanca_v