DUCTILE FRACTURE INITIATION PARAMETERS BASED ON BS AND ASTM APPROACHES M.F. Moreira1, M.V. Pereira2 and F.A.

Darwish3 Petrobrs, Rua Visconde de Duprat s/n, Rio de Janeiro / RJ, 20211-230, Brazil 2 Depto of Materials Engineering / PUC-Rio, Rua Marqus de So Vicente 225, Rio de Janeiro / RJ, 22453-900, Brazil 3 Depto of Civil Engineering / UFF, Rua Passo da Ptria 156, Niteri / RJ, 24210-240, Brazil
1

ABSTRACT CTOD values of the ASTM A516 Gr. 70 steel were obtained according to the BS7448-4 and ASTM E1290 standards. The experimental results were adopted for determining the fracture parameters associated with the a resistance curves. In sequence, the CTOD values were extrapolated to their corresponding J values adopting the methodologies proposed by Shih and ASTM E1820 and used for determining the Ja resistance curves as well as the corresponding fracture parameters. Moreover, the fracture initiation parameters based on were also extrapolated to the respective J parameters making use of the same methodologies. The results showed that ASTM E1290 standard implies in more conservative values of the fracture resistance than that obtained by BS7448-4 standard. Further, the comparison between the J values also reiterated the more conservative character of the American standard in relation to the British standard. The J parameters obtained by the E1820, whether determined by the J-R curves or directly from the values, were found to be lower and, hence, more conservative than those extrapolated by the Shih methodology. KEYWORDS CTOD, J-Integral, resistance curves, Shih methodology INTRODUCTION A fundamental activity both in the design as well as during service lifetime of equipments refers to the evaluation of the structural integrity of their components. In this context, the methodologies for such evaluation have also been adopted to extend the functionality of equipments for long duration, maintaining a good margin of safety against critical and subcritical fracture. Various world scientific organizations have been involved in publishing standard procedures for measuring fracture toughness parameters, and although the published standards are different from one organization to another, the proposed fracture toughness tests have various characteristics in common. For example, the test specimen configurations are similar and precracks are generally introduced by fatigue loading, however with a loading scheme that can vary from one standard to another. The basic instrumentation required for load and displacement measuring is common to all fracture mechanics testing. The purpose of the present work was to analyze the results of fracture resistance tests performed by applying the BS7448-4 [1], ASTM E1290 [2] and ASTM E1820 [3]

methodologies, using an ASTM A516 structural steel, widely adopted in the construction of pressure vessels for the oil industry. MATERIAL AND EXPERIMENTAL The material used for this investigation was an ASTM A516 Grade 70 steel fabricated in Brazil by USIMINAS and supplied in the form of rolled plates. The steel had yield stress and ultimate strength of 340 and 530 MPa, respectively. SENB specimens with thickness, B, and width, W, of 18.4 and 36.8 mm, respectively, were machined from the rolled plates according to the L-T orientation [1, 2]. Mechanical notches were introduced in the specimens by machining to a depth of 18.4 mm. The specimens were polished on one side in order to facilitate following precracking along a minimum distance of 4 mm from the notch tip. A magnifying glass was used to accompany closely the nucleation and growth of the fatigue precracks. Fatigue precracking was carried out in accordance with the loading scheme recommended by both methodologies [1, 2]. That is, precrack initiation followed ASTM E1290 and final propagation followed BS7448-4, thus adopting initially 4.3 kN as a minimum load, which was later reduced to 1.5 kN during the final 1.3 mm growth. The precracked specimens were submitted to COD controlled monotonic loading in three point bending. CTOD values were determined and then used to establish the R curve for the steel in question. This was achieved adopting the multiple specimen technique as specified by the BS7448-4 [1] and ASTM E1290 [2] standards. Crack length measurements were also made according to both standards. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The R curves were plotted using the experimental CTOD data generated in accordance with the BS7448-4 [1], Fig. 1, and ASTM E1820 [3], Fig. 2.

0,5 0,45 0,4 0,35 (mm) 0,3 0,25 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 a (m m ) 2,5 3 3,5 4

= 0,2391a

0,4488 Blunting Line Exclusion Line (a max) Line 0,1 mm CTOD R-Curve 0,2 Line Exclusion Line (max) 0,2 BL Line 0,3 BL Line 0,5 BL Line

Fig. 1: R curve according to BS7448-4

0,70 0,60 CTOD 0,50 (mm) 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 a (m m ) 2,5 3 3,5 a max max Construction Line 0,15 mm Exclusion Line 1.5 Exclusion Line 0,5mm Offset Line 0,2 mm Offset Line R-Curve a limit a min 0,2 mm Line

= 0,1445a

0,3935

Fig. 2: R curve according to ASTM E1820 The experimental CTOD values obtained on the basis of BS7448-4 were used to calculate the corresponding J integral values, adopting the methodologies proposed by ASTM E1820 [3] and Shih [4]. The values calculated by both methodologies were used for determining the J-R curves presented in Fig. 3. The experimental CTOD data, obtained via ASTM E1290, were also extrapolated to their corresponding J values using the same two methodologies and the resulting J-R curves are shown in Fig. 4.

J-R Curves (BS7448-4)

450 400 350 300 J (kN/m) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 0,5 1 a (m m ) 1,5 R-Curve Shih

J = 258,01a0,3328
0,2 Line

0,2 BL Line

J = 152,38a

0,3337

R-Curve E1820

Fig. 3: JR curves extrapolated, using Shihs and ASTM E1820 methodologies, from values obtained according to BS7448-4

Fig. 4: JR J curves extrapolate ed, using Sh hihs and AS STM E1820 0 methodolo ogies, from values o obtained ac ccording to ASTM A E129 90 ertinent frac cture param meters determined from m the expe erimental R curve Table 1 depicts pe shed by the e BS7448-4 standard d. J fracture paramete ers determined from the J-R establis curves extrapolated e d using AST TM and Shi ih methodologies are also a listed in n the same table. Cu urve R (J R)Shih (J R) R ASTM 0.2 (mm) ) 0.116 0.2 2BL (mm) 0 0.127 J0.2 (kN N/m) 151.0 0 89.1 1 J0.2BL (kN/m) ) 170.1 95.8

Table 1: Fracture resistance r p parameters based on th he BS7448-4 standard d Conside ering the J data in the above table, one can observe th hat both J0.2 and J0.2BL obtained o adopting g Shihs methodology m y are highe er than their corresponding coun nterparts ca alculated using th he ASTM methodolog m y. This is seen s to be consistent t with the f fact that the e CTOD values converted c b Shih to th by heir corresp ponding J values were significantly higher tha an those converte ed by ASTM M E1820. Pertinen nt fracture parameters s determine ed from the e experimen ntal R cu urve established on the bas sis of ASTM M E1820 rec commendation are pre esented in Table 2. Th he same ta able also shows the t J fracture paramete ers obtaine ed from the J-R curves extrapolate ed, from R, using the Shih h and ASTM M methodo ologies. Her re, again, one can see e that the J parameters due to to ASTM E1820 Shihs methodolo ogy are higher h than n those obtained o a according recomm mendation.

Curve R (J R)Shih (J R)ASTM

P (mm) 0.077

Q (mm) 0.085

JP (kN/m) 89.9 49.6

JQ (kN/m) 112.9 57.8

Table 2: Fracture resistance parameters based on the ASTM E1820 standard Comparing Tables 1 and 2, one can conclude that fracture resistance parameters determined adopting BS7448-4 recommendation are invariably higher than their corresponding counterparts obtained following ASTM standard. CONCLUDING REMARKS The present study had the objective of characterizing the fracture resistance of an ASTM A516 Grade 70 structural steel following recent technical recommendations. From the obtained results, one can draw the following conclusions: The use of ASTM E1820 methodology leads to more conservative estimates of the materials toughness in comparison with those obtained using BS7448-4 standard. The extrapolation of CTOD toughness parameters to their corresponding J values using Shihs methodology implies in toughness levels that are higher than those obtained by adopting ASTM E1820 proposal, indicating that the former is less conservative than the latter. REFERENCES [1] Bristish Standards Institute: Fracture Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests Part 4: method for determination of fracture resistance curves and initiation values for stable crack extension in metallic materials BSI BS7448-4 (1997) American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard Test Method for Crack-Tip Opening Displacement (CTOD) Fracture Toughness Measurement ASTM E1290 08e1(2008) American Society for Testing and Materials: Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness ASTM E1820 09 (2009) Shih, C. F.: Relationship between the J-integral and the Crack Opening Displacement for Stationary and Extending Cracks Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids 29 (1981), pp.305-326

[2]

[3] [4]

Corresponding author: marcospe@puc-rio.br