Link Nikbin Fatigue & Fracture Mechanics: 35th Volume Fatigue & Fracture Mechanics 35th Volume Richard E Link Kamran M Nikbin Editors STP 1480 www.astm.org Stock # STP1480 ISBN 978-0-8031-3406-5 STP 1480 108376 ASTM OUTSIDE 1/4" HT PMS 3015 up on 20 x 26 STP 1480 Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 35th Volume Richard E Link and Kamran M Nikbin, editors ASTM Stock Number: STP1480 ASTM International 100 Barr Harbor Drive PO Box C700 West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 Printed in the U.S.A Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN: 978-0-8031-3406-5 ISBN: 0-8031-3406-1 Symposium on Beryllium Sampling and Analysis (2005 : Reno, Nev.) Beryllium : sampling and analysis / Kevin Ashley ISBN-13: 978-0-8031-3499-7 ISBN-10: 0-8031-3499-1 p ; cm — (STP ; 1473) "Contains papers presented at the Symposium on Beryllium Sampling and Analysis, which was held in Reno, NV (USA) on 21-22 April, 2005 [DNLM: Beryllium isolation & purification Congresses Beryllium—analysis—Congresses QV 275 S989b 2006] QD181.B4S96 2006 615.9'25391—dc22 2006022213 Copyright © 2007 AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL, West Conshohocken, PA All rights reserved This material may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or in part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other distribution and storage media, without the written consent of the publisher Photocopy Rights Authorization to photocopy items for internal, personal, or educational classroom use, or the internal, personal, or educational classroom use of specific clients, is granted by the American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM) provided that the appropriate fee is paid to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; Tel: 978-750-8400; online: http://www.copyright.com/ Peer Review Policy Each paper published in this volume was evaluated by two peer reviewers and at least one editor The authors addressed all of the reviewers’ comments to the satisfaction of both the technical editor(s) and the ASTM International Committee on Publications The quality of the papers in this publication reflects not only the obvious efforts of the authors and the technical editor(s), but also the work of the peer reviewers In keeping with long-standing publication practices, ASTM International maintains the anonymity of the peer reviewers The ASTM International Committee on Publications acknowledges with appreciation their dedication and contribution of time and effort on behalf of ASTM International Printed in Mayfield, PA January, 200 Foreword The Fifth International ASTM/ESIS Symposium on Fatigue and Fracture (35th ASTM National Symposium on Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics) was held in Reno, Nevada on 18-20 May 2005 ASTM International Committee E08 on Fatigue and Fracture and the European Structural Integrity Society (ESIS) served as sponsors The symposium chairmen and co-editors of this volume were Richard E Link, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD and Kamran Nikbin, Imperial College, London, England Kamran Nikbin Imperial College Richard Link United States Naval Academy iii Contents Overview vii SEDLOW LECTURE Trends in High Temperature Structural Integrity Assessment— G A WEBSTER CREEP ASSESSMENT European Code of Practice for Creep Crack Initiation and Growth Testing of Industrially Relevant Specimens—B DOGAN, U CEYHAN, K M NIKBIN, B PETROVSKI, AND D W DEAN 23 Creep Crack Growth Predictions in Component Using a Damage Based Approach—M YATOMI AND K M NIKBIN 43 Modelling the Redistribution of Residual Stresses at Elevated Temperature in Components—H LEE AND K M NIKBIN 54 CREEP MODELING Probabilistic Analysis of the Creep Crack Growth Rate of Type 316LN Stainless Steel by the Monte Carlo Simulation—W G KIM, S J KIM, W S RYU, AND S N YOON 71 Mechanistic Studies of High-Temperature Crack Initiation in Single Crystal Materials—E P BUSSO, N P O’DOWD, AND L G ZHAO 81 Creep Crack Growth Analysis of Welded Joints for High Cr Hear Resisting Steel— M TABUCHI, H HONGO, T WATANABE, AND A T YOKOBORI, JR 93 v vi CONTENTS Prediction of Scatter in Creep Crack Growth Data from Creep Failure Strain Properties—K WASMER, K M NIKBIN, AND G A WEBSTER 102 Analysis of Creep Crack Initiation and Growth in Different Geometries for 316H and Carbon Maganese Steels—C M DAVIES, F MUELLER, K M NIKBIN, N P O’DOWD, AND G A WEBSTER 115 FATIGUE DAMAGE AND ANALYSIS Fatigue Strength in Presence of Inhomogeneities: Influence of Constraint— S BERETTA, M CARBONI, AND M MADIA 137 Detection of Crack Initiation by Observations of Free Surface-Condition— K GOMI, K FUKUDA, K TANIUCHI, AND S S YOSHIDA 148 Volumetric and Surface Position Annihilation Studies of Fatigue Damage Accumulation in a Steel Alloy—C D GLANCEY AND R R STEPHENS 158 Elasto-Viscoplastic Behavior of the Ferritic Stainless Steel AISI 441-EN 1.4509 from Room Temperature to 850 Degree Celsius—P O SANTACREU, L BUCHER, A KOSTER, AND L REMY 168 Life Prediction of Fretting Fatigue of Ti-6AI-4V—O JIN, J CALCATERRA, AND S MALL 174 Verification of the Analytical Models in a Fracture Mechanics Based Approach to Modeling Fretting Fatigue—S A POST-DOMASKY, L BROOKS, AND N YOUNG 185 The Effect of Large Strain Cycling on the Fatigue Strength of Welded Joint— K OKUYA AND Y KONDO 195 A Robust Structural Stress Parameter for Evaluation of Multiaxial Fatigue of Weldments—P DONG AND J K HONG 206 FATIGUE CRACK GROWTH Observations on Photo-Emission and the Process Zone of a Fatigue Crack— E A PATTERSON, F A DIAZ, AND J R YATES 225 Simulation on the Decrease in Threshold Stress Intensity Factor (SIF) Range due to High Maximum SIF—T MESHII, K ISHIHARA, AND T ASAKURA 234 Anomalous Fatigue Crack Growth Data Generated Using the ASTM Standards— S C FORTH, J C NEWMAN, JR., AND R G FORMAN 244 Development of a Circumferentially Throughwall Cracked Tube Specimen for Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Tests—B A YOUNG, W A VAN DER SLUYS, AND P J KING 256 CONTENTS vii ENVIRONMENTAL FRACTURE Effect of Microstructure on Pit-to-Crack Transition of 7075-T6 Aluminum Alloy— K JONES AND D HOEPPNER 271 The Role of Applied Potential on Environment-Assisted Cracking of Zirconium Alloys—A K ROY, U VALLIYIL, AND E GOVINDARAJ 281 FRACTURE MECHANICS ANALYSIS Elastic T-Stress Solutions of Embedded Elliptical Cracks Subjected to Uniaxial and Biaxial Loadings—J QU AND X WANG 295 Asymptotic Stress Fields for Thermomechanically Loaded Cracks in FGMs— N JAIN, R CHONA, AND A SHUKLA 309 Experimental Evaluation of the J or C Parameter for a Range of Crack Geometries— C M DAVIES, M KOURMPETIS, N P O’DOWD, AND K M NIKBIN 321 FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND CONSTRAINT An Experimental and Numerical Study on the Fracture Strength Of Welded Structural Hollow Section X-Joints—T BJORK, G MARQUIS, V PELLIKKA, AND R ILVONEN 343 Constraint Corrected J-R Curve and Its Application to Fracture Assessment for X80 Pipelines—X K ZHU AND B N LEIS 357 Use of Miniaturized Compact Tension Specimens for Fracture Toughness Measurements in the Upper Shelf Regime—E LUCON, M SCIBETTA, R CHAOUADI, AND E VAN WALLE, 374 An Investigation of Specimen Geometry Effects on the Fracture Behavior of a Polytetrafluoroethylene Polymer—J A JOYCE AND P J JOYCE 390 Surface Roughness, Quasi-Static Fracture, and Cyclic Fatigue Effects on GFRP and CFRP-Concrete Bonded Interfaces—T O LAWRENCE AND D BOYAJIAN 407 DUCTILE-BRITTLE TRANSITION Temperature Dependence and Variability of Fracture Toughness in theTransition Regime for A508 Grade 4N Pressure Vessel Steel—T R LEAX 425 Application of the Reference Temperature to the Evaluation of Cleavage Fracture in HSLA-100 Steel—S M GRAHAM, G P MERCIER, AND B P L’HEUREUX 445 Prediction of the Shape of the KJ Ductile-to-Ductile Transition Temperature Curve for Ferritic Pressure Vessel Steels Using the Material’s Resistance to Crack Extension KJ versus ⌬a Curve—G WARDLE AND W GEARY 457 viii CONTENTS DYNAMIC FRACTURE Finite Element Simulation of Dynamic Crack Propagation for Complex Geometries without Remeshing—F R BIGLARI, A REZAEINASAB, K NIKBIN, AND I SATTARIFAR 469 Analysis of Dynamic Fracture and Crack Arrest of an HSLA Steel in an SE(T) Specimen—R E LINK 485 Application of the Normalization Method to Dynamic Fracture Toughness Testing of Alloy 718—S M GRAHAM 511 Overview This book is a presentation of work of several authors at the Fifth International ASTM/ESIS Symposium on Fatigue and Fracture, May 18–20, 2005, Reno, NV Fatigue and fracture methodologies depend upon robust and accurate models of the damage accumulation and failure mechanisms that operate within the structures as well as an accurate characterization of the material response to the combined effects of loading, loading rate and environmental conditions The combination of competing failure mechanisms and varying environmental conditions during the operational life of a component can make it a challenge to accurately predict its life Hence the scope for this symposium captures the latest research covering state of the art work on fracture mechanics related topics such as fracture, fatigue, residual stress, creep, creep/fatigue, constraint and stress corrosion and links them to concepts used in structural integrity assessment Furthermore the subject does not restrict itself to metallic materials but is applicable to polymers, composites as well as inhomogeneous materials Papers and presentations delivered by nationally and internationally recognized authors were chosen to cover the general areas of modelling, testing and validation in crack dominant related research It is felt that improvements in life assessment methods will only come about when validated fracture mechanics models are developed to produce verifiable predictions Hence an emphasis on linking experimental and modelling techniques in the papers published in this volume should lead to the development of more accurate life assessment methods The papers contained in this publication represent the commitment of the ASTM Committee E-08 to providing the latest research information in the wide-ranging fracture mechanics field The themes in the papers cover experimental results coupled to modelling techniques of linear, non-linear, time independent and dependant behaviour of cracked geometries of a range of materials Papers relating to residual stress, crack tip constraint and probabilistic methods of analyses also highlight the importance of developing these fields for future improvements in life assessment methods Kamran Nikbin Imperial College Richard Link United States Naval Academy ix Sedlow Lecture GRAHAM ET AL ON TESTING OF ALLOY 718 517 FIG 6—Normalized load-displacement data for dynamic test of F1-7 compared with plasticity function from quasi-static test of F2-5 and the anchor point, the less accurate the plasticity function will be In this study two approaches were used to improve the estimation of the plasticity function, particularly when the test ended in instability or when there was large crack extension The first approach involved incorporating the anchor points from similar stable tests where crack extension was not too large and could be accurately measured There is a limit to the effectiveness of this approach because the plasticity function will not necessarily be the same, even for two specimens that are identical in all outward respects The second approach involved using the plasticity function from a quasi-static test to analyze a dynamic test The plasticity function from a quasi-static test can be determined very accurately because the load, displacement, and crack length are known at each unload in the test This approach is only valid when the flow properties are not sensitive to loading rate Results for Analysis of Dynamic Tests Using the Normalization Method—The dynamic tests of the AMS 5662 heat treat of the forging and the rod 共F1-6, F1-7, and R1-9兲, ended with unstable crack growth after one or two impacts Consequently, the crack length at instability could not be measured This caused uncertainty in the location of the anchor point in the normalization analysis Also, crack growth in these specimens occurred with very little plasticity 共maximum plN 0.0011 to 0.0028兲, and it appeared that crack extension occurred well before maximum load These two factors made it difficult to obtain the plasticity function from the dynamic data These tests were analyzed using plasticity functions derived from the quasi-static unloading compliance data The assumption was made that the plasticity function was not significantly affected by loading rate This assumption was supported by the data, as evidenced by the good correlation between the quasi-static plasticity function for F2-5 and the normalized dynamic loaddisplacement data for F1-7 共see Fig 6兲 and the fact that the tensile tests did not show a large rate effect The results of the normalization analysis are summarized in Table and the J-R curves are given in Fig Comparison with the results in Table reveals that, for both product forms, the initiation toughness for the AMS 5662 heat treatment exhibited an increase with loading rate Crack growth in three out of five dynamic tests of the AMS 5664 forging specimens remained stable and there was enough plasticity that anchor points could be determined and plasticity functions could be obtained The tests of specimens XF1-3 and XF1-8 went unstable on the last impact, thereby making it TABLE 3—Results from single or double-impact dynamic fracture toughness tests for AMS 5662 heat treatment at −2 ° C Product/ Heat Treat Forging Rod Orientation L-T L-T L-R Specimen ID F1-6 F1-7 R1-9 JId kJ/ m2 共lb/in.兲 74.3 共424兲 63.9 共365兲 114.5 共654兲 518 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS FIG 7—Dynamic J-R curves from normalization analysis of F1-6, F1-7, and R1-9 difficult to determine the anchor points In an effort to improve the plasticity functions, the anchor points for the three stable tests 共XF1-5, XF1-10, and XF2-1兲 were added to the normalized data for the unstable tests and plasticity function fits were performed using the E 1820 functional form for the plasticity function This approach worked so well that these anchor points were also added to the stable test data to further improve the determination of the plasticity functions The resulting plasticity functions are compared with each other, and with the quasi-static plasticity function, in Fig The J-R curves for these five specimens are compared with the quasi-static J-R curve in Fig Crack growth in the three dynamic tests of the AMS 5664 rod specimens remained stable and there was enough plasticity that anchor points could be determined and plasticity functions could be obtained Based on the success of using anchor points to supplement the normalized data and improve the plasticity functions for the previous forging tests, the same approach was used in the analysis of these rod tests The resulting plasticity functions are compared with each other, and with the quasi-static plasticity function, in Fig 10 The J-R curves for these five specimens are compared with the quasi-static J-R curve in Fig 11 The results from the normalization analysis of the dynamic tests are summarized in Table Comparing these results with the quasi-static results in Table reveals that there is no clear effect on rate on initiation toughness for the AMS 5664 heat treatment at −2 ° C Results for Analysis of Dynamic Interrupted Load Tests Using Compliance For the forging and rod specimens where it was possible to obtain multiple impacts, compliance was also used to determine crack extension and generate dynamic J-R curves A typically multiple-impact test FIG 8—Comparison of plasticity functions for AMS 5664 forging tests (XF) GRAHAM ET AL ON TESTING OF ALLOY 718 519 FIG 9—Comparison of quasi-static and dynamic J-R curves for forging with AMS 5664 heat treatment record from the test of XF1-8 共Forging, AMS 5664兲 is shown in Fig 12 The crack growth went unstable on the fifth impact, as evidenced by the large deflection and drop in load The unload and subsequent reload after each impact were used to measure compliance and thereby determine crack extension The resulting J-R curve is compared with the normalization J-R curve in Fig 13 The same procedure was used to analyze the multi-impact tests of XF1-10, XR2-7, and XR4-1 The results for these tests are compared with the normalization J-R curves in Figs 14–16 and the dynamic initiation toughnesses are compared in Table The J-R curves from the compliance and normalization analyses compare pretty well for three of the four specimens The exception is specimen XR4-1, where they agree pretty well in the initial part of the J-R curve, but then the normalization curve rises much higher than the trend implied by the compliance points at large crack extension The high tearing resistance on the last impact is confirmed by the elevated load-displacement record after maximum load for this specimen Apparently there were microstructural features in this specimen that led to higher tearing resistance FIG 10—Comparison of plasticity functions for AMS 5664 rod tests (XR) 520 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS FIG 11—Comparison of quasi-static and dynamic J-R curves for rod with AMS 5664 heat treatment Discussion The fit of the plasticity function to the normalized load-displacement data is strongly influenced by the gap between the point of tangency and the anchor point If the gap is large, the fitting function tends to take the TABLE 4—Results from dynamic fracture toughness tests for AMS 5664 heat treatment at −2 ° C Product/ Heat Treat Forging/ AMS 5664 Rod/ AMS 5664 Orientation L-T L-T L-T L-T L-S L-R L-R L-R Specimen ID XF1-3 XF1-5 XF1-8 XF1-10 XF2-1 XR2-7 XR2-9 XR4-1 JId kJ/ m2共lb/in.兲 178共1017兲 241共1376兲 151 共860兲 135 共768兲 203 共1158兲 251共1433兲 206 共1175兲 274共1567兲 FIG 12—Load-displacement records for multi-impact test of XF1-8 GRAHAM ET AL ON TESTING OF ALLOY 718 521 FIG 13—Comparison of compliance and normalization J-R curves for dynamic test of XF1-8 shortest route between the two points, thereby possibly depressing the plasticity function An example of this is shown in Fig 17 The net effect of this is to reduce crack extension and thereby raise the J-R curve The resulting initiation toughness is then nonconservative By conducting tests to different amounts of ductile crack extension, it is possible to obtain anchor points that fill in the gap For the example shown, the additional anchor point at a normalized plastic displacement of about 0.004 reveals that the plasticity function should rise higher, and that crack growth started before the tangency point Moving the tangency point back and adding the anchor points results in the higher plasticity function The resulting J-R curve is considerably lower, as is the initiation toughness FIG 14—Comparison of compliance and normalization J-R curves for dynamic test of specimen XF1-10 FIG 15—Comparison of compliance and normalization J-R curves for dynamic test of specimen XR2-7 522 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS FIG 16—Comparison of compliance and normalization J-R curves for dynamic test of specimen XR4-1 The results from the dynamic tests show that there appears to be a depression of the tearing resistance curve due to damage induced by plastic work at the crack tip each time the specimen is completely unloaded This can be seen by comparing J-R curves for the same heat treatment and product Referring to the test results for the forging in Fig 9, the two single-impact tests have the highest J-R curves As the number of impacts increases, the tearing resistance decreases, particularly at low crack extension where the most damage is occurring For the tests with five and seven impacts, the tearing resistance drops below the quasi-static curve for about the first 1.25 mm 共0.050 in 兲 of crack extension The final impact resulted in considerably larger crack extension, which allowed the crack to grow out of the damage zone from the previous impact and elevated the J-R curve, although not as high as the single-impact tests Similar behavior can be seen in the test results for the rod, shown in Fig 11, although the J-R curve for XR4-1 exhibits a considerably larger tearing resistance after the last impact than any of the other specimens Once again note that the multiple impact J-R curves fall near or below the quasi-static curves right in the vicinity TABLE 5—Comparison of JId values from compliance and normalization for dynamic fracture toughness tests at −2 ° C Product/ Heat Treat Forging, AMS 5664 Rod, AMS 5664 Orientation L-T L-T L-R L-R Specimen ID XF1-8 XF1-10 XR2-7 XR4-1 Compliance JId kJ/ m2 共lb/in.兲 147 共838兲 150 共856兲 229共1310兲 224共1281兲 Normalization JId kJ/ m2 共lb/in.兲 150 共860兲 135 共768兲 251共1433兲 274共1567兲 FIG 17—Influence of additional anchor points on plasticity function fit GRAHAM ET AL ON TESTING OF ALLOY 718 523 of crack growth initiation This has important implications for dynamic loading applications where there may be more than one load excursion during the dynamic event Conclusions Alloy 718 is prone to unstable fracture under compliant loading conditions This was particularly true for the AMS 5662 heat treatment, but also occurred to a lesser extent with AMS 5664 For the two product forms and heat treatments evaluated, the rod has higher fracture toughness than the forging, and AMS 5664 more than doubles the fracture toughness compared with AMS 5662 For both product forms the initiation toughness for the AMS 5662 heat treatment was elevated at high rates of loading However, there was no clear effect of rate on initiation toughness for the AMS 5664 heat treatment at −2 ° C In the application of the Normalization method, care must be taken in determining the plasticity function If there is a large gap before the anchor point, this can lead to under-estimating crack extension and over-estimating the initiation toughness By conducting tests to different amounts of ductile crack extension, it is possible to obtain anchor points that fill in the gap and improve the crack extension estimates In this study the J-R curves from compliance and normalization analyses compared pretty well, thereby lending confidence in this approach The results from the multiple-impact dynamic tests showed that there is a depression of the tearing resistance curve due to damage induced by plastic work at the crack tip each time the specimen is completely unloaded This has important implications for dynamic loading applications where there may be more than one load excursion during the dynamic event The results from this investigation confirm that heat treatment and the resulting microstructure have a significant effect on the fracture toughness and tearing resistance of Alloy 718 The higher temperature solution anneal exhibited superior fracture toughness for both product forms Loading rate did not have a consistent effect on fracture toughness or tearing resistance There was also no consistent effect of orientation on fracture properties for the forging References 关1兴 Aerospace Structural Metals Handbook, Volume 4, 1996 Edition, William F Brown, Jr., Harold Mindlin and C Y Ho, Eds., CINDAS/USAF CRDA Handbooks Operation, Purdue University, Code 4103, p 61 关2兴 Mills, W J., “The Effect of Heat Treatment on the Room Temperature and Elevated Temperature Fracture Toughness Response of Alloy 718,” ASME J Eng Mater Technol., Vol 102, 1980, pp 118–126 关3兴 Mills, W J and Blackburn, L D., “Fracture Toughness Variations in Alloy 718,” ASME J Eng Mater Technol., Vol 110, 1988, pp 286–293 关4兴 Mills, W J and Blackburn, L D., “Variations in Fracture Toughness for Alloy 718 Given a Modified Heat Treatment,” ASME J Eng Mater Technol., Vol 112, 1990, pp 116–123 关5兴 Graham, S M., “Fracture Toughness of Alloy 718 Bar and Forging for ASDS Transit Latch Assembly,” NSWCCD-TR-61-1999/06⫹CR, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, May 2003 关6兴 Joyce, J A., Ernst, H., and Paris, P C., “Direct Evaluation of J-Resistance Curves from Load Displacement Records,” Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1980, pp 222–236 关7兴 Paris, P C., Ernst, H., and Turner, C E., “A J-Integral Approach to Development of -Factors,” Fracture Mechanics: Twelfth Conference, ASTM STP 700, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1980, pp 338–351 关8兴 Ernst, H A., Paris, P C., and Landes, J D., “Estimations on J-Integral and Tearing Modulus T from a Single Specimen Test Record,” Fracture Mechanics: Thirteenth Conference, ASTM STP 743, Richard Roberts, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1981, pp 476–502 关9兴 Herrera, R and Landes, J D., “A Direct J-R Curve Analysis of Fracture Toughness Tests,” J Test Eval., Vol 16, No 5, 1988, pp 427–449 关10兴 Herrera, R and Landes, J D., “Direct J-R Curve Analysis: A Guide to the Methodology,” Fracture Mechanics: 21st Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J P Gudas, J A Joyce, and E M Hackett, Eds., 524 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990, pp 24–43 关11兴 Zhou, Z., Lee, K., Herrera, R., and Landes, J D., “Normalization: An Experimental Method for Developing J-R Curves,” Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User’s Experience (2nd Volume), ASTM STP 1114, J A Joyce, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1991, pp 42–56 关12兴 Orange, T W., “Method and Models for R-curve Instability Calculations,” Fracture Mechanics: 21st Symposium, ASTM STP 1074, J P Gudas, J A Joyce, and E M Hackett, Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1990, pp 545–559 关13兴 Landes, J D., Zhou, Z., Lee, K., and Herrera, R., “Normalization Method for Developing J-R Curves with the LMN Function,” J Test Eval., Vol 19, No 4, 1991, pp 305–311 关14兴 Donoso, J R and Landes, J D., “Common Format for Developing Calibration Curves in ElasticPlastic Fracture Mechanics,” Eng Fract Mech., Vol 47, No 5, 1994, pp 619–628 关15兴 Donoso, J R and Landes, J D., “The Common Format Equation Approach for Developing Calibrations Functions for Two-Dimensional Fracture Specimens from Tensile Data,” Eng Fract Mech., Vol 54, No 4, 1996, pp 499–512 关16兴 Sharobeam, M H and Landes, J D., “The Load Separation Criterion and Methodology in Ductile Fracture Mechanics,” Int J Fract Mech., Vol 47, 1991, pp 81–104 关17兴 Sharobeam, M H and Landes, J D., “The Load Separation and pl Development in Precracked Specimen Test Records,” Int J Fract Mech., Vol 59, 1993, pp 213–226 关18兴 Ernst, H., Paris, P C., Rossow, M., and Hutchinson, J W., “Analysis of Load-Displacement Relationship to Determine J-R Curve and Tearing Instability Material Properties,” Fracture Mechanics, ASTM STP 677, C W Smith, Ed., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1979, pp 581–599 STP1480-EB/Jan 2008 Govindaraj, Elumalai, 281 Graham, Stephen M., 445, 511 AUTHOR INDEX A H Asakura, Toshiyuki, 234 B Beretta, Stefano, 137 Biglari, Farid Reza, 469 Bjork, Timo, 343 Boyajian, David M., 407 Brooks, Craig L., 185 Bucher, Laurent, 168 Busso, E P., 81 Hoeppner, David W., 271 Hong, J K., 206 Hongo, H., 93 I Ichinose, Kensuke, 148 Ilvonen, Reijo, 343 Ishihara, Kenichi, 234 Ishii, Hideyuki, 148 J C Calcaterra, Jeffrey Ronald, 174 Carboni, Michele, 137 Ceyhan, U., 23 Chona, Ravinder, 309 Chaouadi, Rachid, 374 Jain, Nitesh, 309 Jin, Ohchang, 174 Jones, Kimerbli, 271 Joyce, J A., 390 Joyce, P J., 390 K D Davies, C M., 115, 321 Dean, D W., 23 Diaz, Francisco A., 225 Dogan, B., 23 Dong, P., 206 Kim, Seon-Jin, 71 Kim, Woo-Gon, 71 King, Peter J., 256 Kondo, Yoshiyuki, 195 Köster, Alain, 168 Kourmpetis, M., 321 F L Forman, R G., 244 Forth, S C., 244 Fukuda, Katsumi, 148 G Geary, W., 457 Glancey, Christopher D., 158 Gomi, Kenji, 148 Lawrence, Timothy O., 407 Leax, T R., 425 Lee, Hyeong-Yeon, 54 Leis, Brian N., 357 L'Heureux, Brian P., 445 Link, Richard E., 485 Lucon, Enrico, 374 525 Copyright © 2008 by ASTM International www.astm.org 526 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS M Madia, Maruo, 137 Mall, Shankar, 174 Marquis, Gary, 343 Mercier, Gerard P., 445 Meshii, Toshiyuki, 234 Mueller, F., 115 Shukla, Arun, 309 Stephens, Robert R., 158 T Tabuchi, M., 93 Taniuchi, Kiyoshi, 148 V N Newman, J C., Jr., 244 Nikbin, Kamran M., 23, 43, 54, 81, 102, 321, 469 Valliyil, Unnikrishnan, 281 Van Der Sluys, W Alan, 256 115,van Walle, Eric, 374 W O O'Dowd, N P., 81, 115, 321 Okuya, Kazuhiko, 195 P Patterson, Eann A., 225 Pellikka, Veli, 343 Petroski, B., 23 Prost-Domasky, Scott A., 185 Q Qu, Jie, 295 R Rezaeinasab, Alireza, 469 Remy, L., 168 Roy, Ajit K., 281 Ryu, Woo-Seog, 71 S Santacreu, Pierre-Olivier, 168 Sattarifar, Iradj, 469 Scibetta, Marc, 374 Wang, Xin, 295 Wardle, G., 457 Wasmer, K., 102 Watanabe, T., 93 Webster, George A., 3, 102, 115 Y Yates, John R., 225 Yatomi, Masataka, 43 Yi, Won, 71 Yokobori, A T., Jr., 93 Yoon, Song-Nam, 71 Yoshida, Sanichiro, 148 Young, Bruce A., 256 Young, Nichole, 185 Z Zhu, Xian-Kui, 357 STP1480-EB/Jan 2008 corrections, 390 creep, 3, 23, 43, 71, 93, 102, 115, 321 fatigue, 234, 244 300M steel, 158 rate, 43, 71, 256 Crack initiation, 148 A creep, 23, 115 high-temperature, 81 AISI 441, 158 Type IV, 93 Alloy 718, 511 Crack mouth opening displacement, 321 Aluminum alloys, 174, 234, 271 Crack propagation, 256 ASTM E 647, 244 dynamic, 469 ASTM E 1457, 23, 115, 321 Cracked tube, 256 ASTM E 1820, 390, 511 Crack tip, 309 ASTM E 1921, 445, 457 Creep, 43, 54, 81, 93 Austenitic stainless steel, 23, 71, 102, 115 deformation, ductility, 102 B structure, 93 Creep fracture parameter, 3, 23, 43, 102, 115, Behavior model, 168 321 Biaxial loading, 295 Creep properties, uniaxial, 102 Brittle crack initiation, 485 Creep stress relaxation rate, 54 Brittle fracture, 343 CRETE, 23 BS 7910, 54 Cyclic large strain, 195 Cyclic loading, 225, 407 C Cyclic stress-strain diagram, 148 Carbon fiber reinforced polymer-concrete, 407 Cyclic temperature fluctuation, 225 Carbon-manganese steel, 23, 43, 115 D Carbon steel, 234 Charpy testing, 374, 445 Data scatter, 425 Cleavage fracture, 445 Defect shape,137 Code of Practice, 23, 115 Differential thermography, 225 Compact tension specimen, 23, 43, 321 Double edge notch specimen, 321 miniature, 374 Ductile fracture, 343, 374 Constraint effects, 295, 357 Ductile tearing initiation, 374 Constraint factor, 137 Ductile-to-brittle transition, 457 Corrosion cracking, 281 Dynamic fracture, 485 Corrosion fatigue, 271 Dynamic tear energies, 445 Crack arrest, 485 Crack closure, 115, 195, 244 E Crack extension ductile, 309 Earthquakes, 195 resistance, 457 Edge crack, 185 Crack growth SUBJECT INDEX 527 Copyright © 2008 by ASTM International www.astm.org 528 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS Elastic-plastic-creep analysis, 43, 54 Elastic-plastic fracture, 321, 390 Elastic T-stress, 295 Embedded elliptical crack, 295 Elasto-viscoplastic behavior, 168 EN 1.4509, 168 Eta factor, 321 F Failure assessment, 357 Fatigue crack , 225, 256 growth, 244 nucleation, 158 Fatigue damage, 148 Fatigue life, 158 Fatigue limit, 195 Fatigue strength, 147, 195 Fatigue thresholds, 137 Ferritic stainless steel, 168 Finite element analysis, 43, 81, 93, 185, 206, 321, 469, 485 three-dimensional, 295 Fracture, 81, 407 Type IV, 93 Fracture mechanics, 3, 23, 43, 115, 185, 234, 445, 485 linear, 195 Fracture toughness, 357, 425, 445, 457 dynamic, 485, 511 measurement, 374 Fretting fatigue, 174, 185 Functionally graded materials, 309 G Genetic algorithm, 234 Geometry effects, 390 Glass fiber reinforced polymer-concrete, 407 H Heat affected zone, 93 High Cr heat resisting steel, 93 High strength low alloy steel, 445, 485 High temperature, 43 redistribution of residual stresses, 54 structural integrity assessment, Holistic models, 185 I Incubation period, Inhomogeneities, 137 Isochromatics, 309 J J-integral, 374, 390 J-Q theory, 357 J-R curve, 357, 374 K Kitagawa diagram, 137 L Least square fitting method, 71 Life prediction, 174 Lifetime assessment, Linear elastic fracture mechanics, 256, 469 Loss of constraint, 374 Low cycle fatigue, 148 Lüder band, 148 M Master Curve, 425, 457 Maximum energy release rate, 469 Mean value method, 71 Mesh-insensitive structural stress method, 206 Microcracks, 81 Micro-notches, 137 Microstructure, 271 Modified Gough's ellipse, 206 Monte Carlo simulation, 71 SUBJECT INDEX 529 Multiaxial fatigue, 43, 206 N Nickel base superalloy, 81 Node releasing, 469 Nondestructive evaluation, 158 Normalization method, 390, 511 O Orange peel, 148 Overload, 54 P Photo-emission, 225 Pipe, 43, 357 Pitting corrosion, 271 Plastic deformation, 195 Plastic zone, 225 Polytetrafluoroethylene, 390 Pop-in behavior, 390 Positron annihilation, 158 Potential, applied, 281 Potential drop, 256 Pre-crack, 195 Pressure vessel steels, 457 Pressurized water reactor, 256, 374, 425 Probabilistic methods, 71, 102 Process zone, 225 R R6, 54 Reference stress, 43 Reference temperature, 445 Redistribution, 54 Residual stress, 3, 54 Resistance curve, 457 S Scanning electron microscopy, 271 Seismic loading, 195 Sensitivity analysis, 54 Side grooves, 390 Simulation, 234 Single contoured cantilever beam, 407 Single crystal materials, 81 Single edge notched specimens, 321, 357, 485 Specimen geometry, 115, 256, 321 Static fracture mode, 234 Strain energy density, 469 Stress corrosion cracking testing, 281 Stress fields, asymptotic, 309 Stress intensity equation, 256 Stress intensity factors, 54, 295 Mode I, 185 threshold range, 234 Structural hollow section, 343 Structural integrity assessment, high temperature, Structural stress parameter, 206 Surface condition, 148 Surface diffusion, 81 Surface roughness, 407 T Thermoelasticity, 225 Thermomechanical fatigue, 168 Thermomechanical loading, 309 Titanium alloys, 174, 234 T-plate, 54 Transition curve shape, 457 Transition regime 425 Tubular T-joint, 54 Type IV fracture, 93 U Uniaxial loading, 295 W Welded joint, 3, 93, 195, 206, 343 530 FATIGUE AND FRACTURE MECHANICS Work hardening, 374 X X80 steel, 357 X-joint, 343 Z Zirconium alloy, 281 Link Nikbin Fatigue & Fracture Mechanics: 35th Volume Fatigue & Fracture Mechanics 35th Volume Richard E Link Kamran M Nikbin Editors STP 1480 www.astm.org Stock # STP1480 ISBN 978-0-8031-3406-5 STP 1480 108376 ASTM OUTSIDE 1/4" HT PMS 3015 up on 20 x 26