An appraisal is made of linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) as a method of fracture-safe assurance for carbon and low-alloy steels. The theoretical advantage of an exact flaw size-stress level relationship offered by LEFM is contrasted with the limitations posed in actual application. These limitations relate to statistical variations in KIc and KId data. The variations considered here are (a) data scatter at a given temperature, and (b) toughness variations between different heats of a given alloy. In an engineering context, LEFM is considered applicable only in the temperature region representing the initial development of the brittle-ductile transition that characterizes low-alloy steels. In this region statistical variations in the data suggest that critical flaw sizes could be significantly smaller than the values calculated on the basis of limited experimental data. The prime objective in determining fracture toughness is for use in evolving a fracture control plan that assures structural integrity under a variety of environmental and loading conditions. Often the exact flaw size is unknown, particularly if the structure has not yet been built. Since the toughness increases sharply in the transition region, a practical solution is to take advantage of this behavior and choose a minimum operation temperature that assures a high fracture toughness such that postulated flaws cannot propagate in an unstable manner. The objective of being able to define the temperature range and statistical distribution of KId curves is met equally by the use of Dynamic Tear (DT) and KId tests. The DT test, as contrasted with LEFM methods, is shown to be an effective engineering tool with which to determine the Fracture Transition Elastic (FTE) temperature; above this temperature, plane strain constraint is lost for the given thickness, and flaws cannot propagate at stress levels less than yield. The determination of a minimum structural operating temperature based on dynamic LEFM values, when modified by conservatisms necessitated by statistical variations in the data and inaccuracies in temperature measurement, is shown to be essentially equivalent to the FTE temperature.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
February 1973
This article was originally published in
Journal of Engineering for Industry
Research Papers
Engineering Significance of Statistical and Temperature-Induced Fracture Mechanics Toughness Variations on Fracture-Safe Assurance
F. J. Loss
F. J. Loss
Metallurgy Division, U. S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.
Search for other works by this author on:
F. J. Loss
Metallurgy Division, U. S. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D. C.
J. Eng. Ind. Feb 1973, 95(1): 137-144
Published Online: February 1, 1973
Article history
Received:
June 8, 1972
Online:
July 15, 2010
Article
Article discussed|
View article
Connected Content
Citation
Loss, F. J. (February 1, 1973). "Engineering Significance of Statistical and Temperature-Induced Fracture Mechanics Toughness Variations on Fracture-Safe Assurance." ASME. J. Eng. Ind. February 1973; 95(1): 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3438088
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
Related Articles
Scaling of Strength of Metal-Composite Joints—Part I: Experimental Investigation
J. Appl. Mech (January,2010)
Application of Fracture Mechanics to Failure in Manatee Rib Bone
J Biomech Eng (June,2006)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Applications of Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics in Section XI, ASME Code Evaluations
Online Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Codes
Introduction and Definitions
Handbook on Stiffness & Damping in Mechanical Design
Section III: Subsections NC and ND — Class 2 and 3 Components
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Volume 1, Fourth Edition