A combination rule for multiple surface cracks based on fatigue crack growth life

Jian-Feng Wen; Yong Zhan; Shan-Tung Tu; Fu-Zhen Xuan; Jian-Feng Wen; Yong Zhan; Shan-Tung Tu; Fu-Zhen Xuan

doi:10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1649

AIMS Materials Science

2016, Volume 3, Issue 4: 1649-1664. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1649

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A combination rule for multiple surface cracks based on fatigue crack growth life

1.
Key Laboratory of Pressure Systems and Safety (Ministry of Education), School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, East China University of Science and Technology, Shanghai 200237, China
2.
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

Received: 26 September 2016 Accepted: 21 November 2016 Published: 28 November 2016

A plate under cyclic loading, containing two coplanar surface flaws with both identical and dissimilar sizes, is considered in the present study. By conducting detailed step-by-step finite element analyses, the conservatism contained in different combination rules for multiple coplanar flaws provided by fitness-for-service codes (ASME, BS7910, API579 and GB/T19624) have been quantitatively assessed for the fatigue failure mode. The findings show that the re-characterization guideline provided by ASME and BS7910 may cause non-conservative estimations when two crack sizes are similar, whereas API579 and GB/T19624 lead to excessively pessimistic predictions for almost all the cases. Based on the fatigue crack growth life, we suggest a new combination rule and conclude that it always yields a reasonable estimation with necessary conservatism, for various initial crack depths, material constants and relative sizes of two cracks.
- crack combination rule; fatigue crack growth; finite element analysis; flaw characterization
Citation: Jian-Feng Wen, Yong Zhan, Shan-Tung Tu, Fu-Zhen Xuan. A combination rule for multiple surface cracks based on fatigue crack growth life[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(4): 1649-1664. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1649

Related Papers:

Abstract

A plate under cyclic loading, containing two coplanar surface flaws with both identical and dissimilar sizes, is considered in the present study. By conducting detailed step-by-step finite element analyses, the conservatism contained in different combination rules for multiple coplanar flaws provided by fitness-for-service codes (ASME, BS7910, API579 and GB/T19624) have been quantitatively assessed for the fatigue failure mode. The findings show that the re-characterization guideline provided by ASME and BS7910 may cause non-conservative estimations when two crack sizes are similar, whereas API579 and GB/T19624 lead to excessively pessimistic predictions for almost all the cases. Based on the fatigue crack growth life, we suggest a new combination rule and conclude that it always yields a reasonable estimation with necessary conservatism, for various initial crack depths, material constants and relative sizes of two cracks.

References

[1]	Zheng Z, Yuan S, Sun T, et al. (2015) Fractographic study of fatigue cracks in a steel car wheel. Eng Fail Anal 47: 199–207.
[2]	Lei X, Niu J, Zhang J, et al. (2014) Failure analysis of weld cracking in a thick-walled 2.25Cr-1Mo steel pressure vessel. J Mater Eng Perform 23: 1231–1239.
[3]	Chávez J, Valencia J, Jaramillo G, et al. (2015) Failure analysis of a Pelton impeller. Eng Fail Anal 48: 297–307. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2014.08.012
[4]	Hasegawa K, Miyazaki K, Saito K (2011) Plastic collapse loads for flat plates with dissimilar Non-aligned through-wall cracks. ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Baltimore, USA 475–479.
[5]	Hasegawa K, Miyazaki K, Kanno S (2001) Interaction criteria for multiple flaws on the basis of stress intensity factors. ASME 2001 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Atlanta, USA 23–30.
[6]	Bezensek B, Sharples J, Hadley I, et al. (2011) The History of BS 7910 Flaw Interaction Criteria. ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Baltimore, USA 837–843.
[7]	Bezensek B, Hancock JW (2004) The re-characterisation of complex defects: Part I: Fatigue and ductile tearing. Eng Fract Mech 71: 981–1000. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00155-3
[8]	Iida K, Ando K, Hirata T (1980) An evaluation technique for fatigue life of multiple surface cracks (Part 1): A problem of multilple series surface cracks. J Soc Nav Archit Jpn 148: 284–293.
[9]	ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI: Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components. (2005) New York, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineering.
[10]	BS7910: Guidance to Methods for Assessing the Acceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures. (2013) London: British Standards Institution.
[11]	API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Fitness-for-Service, Section 9. (2007) American Petroleum Institute.
[12]	GB/T 19624. Safety Assessment for In-Service Pressure Vessels Containing Defects. (2004) Beijing: Chinese Standards.
[13]	Hasegawa K, Bezensek B, Scarth DA (2016) Global Harmonization of Flaw Modeling/Characterization. Global Applications of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, ASME Press.
[14]	Soboyejo W, Knott J, Walsh M, et al. (1990) Fatigue crack propagation of coplanar semi-elliptical cracks in pure bending. Eng Fract Mech 37: 323–340. doi: 10.1016/0013-7944(90)90044-H
[15]	Tu ST, Dai SH (1994) An engineering assessment of fatigue crack growth of irregularly oriented multiple cracks. Fatigue Fract Eng M 17: 1235–1246. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2695.1994.tb01412.x
[16]	Kamaya M (2008) Growth evaluation of multiple interacting surface cracks. Part I: Experiments and simulation of coalesced crack. Eng Fract Mech 75: 1336–1349.
[17]	Leek T, Howard I (1994) Rules for the assessment of interacting surface cracks under mode I load. Int J Pres Ves Pip 60: 323–339. doi: 10.1016/0308-0161(94)90131-7
[18]	Carpinteri A, Brighenti R, Vantadori S (2004) A numerical analysis on the interaction of twin coplanar flaws. Eng Fract Mech 71: 485–499. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7944(03)00040-7
[19]	Nishioka T, Zhou G, Fujimoto T (2011) Verification of the combination rules of multiple flaws in ASME B & PV Code Section XI: a case study of two adjacent surface planar flaws. J Press Vess Tech 133: 021101. doi: 10.1115/1.4001917
[20]	Coules H (2016) Stress intensity interaction between dissimilar semi-elliptical surface cracks. Int J Pres Ves Pip 146: 55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.07.011
[21]	Lin XB, Smith RA (1997) Fatigue growth analysis of interacting and coalescing surface defects. Int J Fract 85: 283–299. doi: 10.1023/A:1007476729339
[22]	ZENCRACK. Version 7.8. (2013) London: Zentech International Limited.
[23]	ABAQUS. Version 6.12. (2012) Providence: Dassault Systèmes.
[24]	Wen JF, Tu ST, Xuan FZ (2013) Numerical analyses of interaction behavior of multiple surface cracks using a modified creep-damage model and fracture mechanics approach. ASME 2013 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference, Paris, France.
[25]	Newman JC, Raju IS (1981) An empirical stress-intensity factor equation for the surface crack. Eng Fract Mech 15: 185–192. doi: 10.1016/0013-7944(81)90116-8
[26]	Tu ST (1988) A Study of Effect of Irregular Crack Like Defects on the Engineering Structural Integrit [Ph.D Thesis]. Nanjing Institute of Chemical Technology, Nanjing, China.
[27]	Anderson TL (2005) Fracture mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications, Boca Raton: CRC Press.
[28]	Kamaya M, Sassa T, Kikuchi M (2013) Crack growth prediction method considering interaction between multiple cracks. Assessment procedure for multiple surface cracks of dissimilar size. Nippon Kikai Gakkai Ronbunshu, A Hen 79: 1382–1395.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2016 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)