1

THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONSTRAINT CORRECTION

by Christian Thaulowa, Erling stbyb, Brd Nyhusb, Vigdis Oldenb and Zhiliang Zhangb

Abstract The Failure Assessment Diagrams (FAD) used in BS 7910:1999 (Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures) represent high structural constraint applications. The standard gives literature references for constraint correction methods, based on T and Q, but none of these are included in the standard. There is evidently a need to present a framework for a practical application of constraint corrections. The paper presents constraint correction parameters and demonstrates the JQM Approach with reference to a 690-steel. With the increased use of FE calculations in the industry, a method for direct calculations, with high accuracy and low costs, is presented.

presented at 2nd International Symposium on High Strength Steel 23-24 April 2002, Stiklestad, Norway

a The Norwegian University of Science and Technology b SINTEF Materials technology

Cracks All materials will contain cracks or defects. The question is: When will cracks be of practical interest? Under which conditions will cracks influence upon the behaviour of structures and components? When can we ignore the existence of cracks? Structural engineers normally judges the capacity or ultimate strength of a structure on the basis of a load-deflection diagram, where the maximum load or plastic collapse load is considered as the limit. The next step then is to impose a partial safety factor on this limit load combined with minimum tensile eleongation requirements. If we now introduce cracks in the structure, this can influence the load bearing capacity, Figure 1, either by brittle fracture, ductile tearing, plastic collapse or combinations of these failure modes. Traditional structural design compares the design stress with the flow properties of the material, which is normally taken to some fraction of the yield stress. A material is assumed to be adequate if its strength is greater than the expected applied stress. In fracture mechanics there are two structural variables, design stress and flaw size, and fracture toughness replaces strength as the material resistance property. Fracture mechanics quantifies the critical combination of these three variables. In fabrication with steel and aluminium, the welded joints represents the most critical region. This is where cracks normally appears and regions of the weld metal or the heat affected zone can have low toughness. The weld metal, heat affected zone and the base material will have different material properties, and this mismatch in strength will influence the failure conditions. The effect of material mismatch on fracture depends upon the crack size, the location of the crack, the strength mismatch and the fracture toughness. For cracks located at the fusion line in steel weldments, weld metal overmatch is recommended if ductile behaviour can be guaranteed. If, however, brittle fracture can occur, evenmatch seems most favourable in order to avoid brittle fracture initiation from the heat affected zone Thaulow et al (7, 8). In the welding of high strength steels, the probability of even- or undermatch increases, Figure 2, and it will be of importance to quantify the effects of mismatch. In this paper we first shortly introduce the principle of constraint and transferability. We the presents the JQM Approach and show how the approach can be applied for the 690-steel investigated in the PRESS project. At the end we introduce effective ways of applying constraint corrections, and the new company LINKftr. Constraint The starting point in fracture mechanics analysis is to consider a crack of a certain size located in a component or specimen. An external load is applied and the component is loaded until it fails. During loading a plastic zone develops from the

3 crack tip, and at a certain load net section yielding occurs as the plastic zone reaches the through thickness surface. As long as the plastic zone at the crack tip is limited compared with the geometry of the component or specimen, socalled small scale yielding, a single parameter fracture mechanics approach can be applied. K, J or CTOD characterizes the crack tip conditions and can be used as geometry independent fracture criterion. The geometry dependence under linear elastic conditions for five standard fracture mechanics geometries are plotted in Figure 3. The pure tensile specimens, DENT and CCT, have the lowest constraint , while specimens dominated by bending have the highest constraint. Standard fracture mechanics testing procedures are based on the specimens with high constraintin order to reproduce the worst case conditions. However, the single parameter fracture mechanics breaks down in the presence of excessive plasticity, and fracture toughness will now depend on the size, geometry and mode of loading. McClintock (1) was one of the first to examine the near crack tip stress field under fully plastic conditions for various specimen geometries and non-hardening materials, Figure 4. For small scale yielding, the maximum stress is approximately three times the yield stress, while a centre cracked panel under tension is incapable of maintaining significant triaxiality. These effects are, however, less severe when strain hardening is taken into account. We notice that the DENT specimen, with low constraint under linear elastic conditions, Figure 3, now reach high stresses because of the interference between the two fields of deformation. The history of constraint is how to deal with crack tip stresses under fully plastic conditons. The aim is to find a parameter that characterize the stress-strain fields, so that results from one test geometry can be transferred to another geometry. One approach has been to restrict the application of fracture mechanics to high constraint since single-parameter fracture mechanics may be approximately valid in the presence of significantly plasticity, provided the specimens maintains a relatively high level of triaxiality. Most laboratory fracture mechanics specimens, as three-point bending and compact tension, represent this high triaxiality conditions. A more basic approach has been to define the crack tip triaxialtity as the ratio between the hydrostatic stress, or first invariant of the stress tensor, which does not cause any plastic deformation, and the Mises effective stress, which is the square root of the second invariant of the deviatoric stress being responsible for plastic flow. This parameter has been extensively applied to describe ductile crack initiation and growth. There are a number of mathematical models for void growth and coalescence, where the two most widely referenced models were published by Rice and Tracy (2) and Gurson (3). They found an exponential dependence of the void growth rate on the stress triaxiality, s h / s 0 . Here s h is the hydrostatic stress, and s 0 is the yield stress. The yield stress has later, Needleman and Tvergaard (4), been substituted with s e , the Mises effective stress.

4 Brocks and Schmitt (5) has intoduced the parameter h for the ratio, and proposed this h = s h /s e as the second parameter needed, in addition to J, to quantify the geometry dependence of ductile crack growth. They also argue that the obvious disadvantage, that it is a field quantity and requires 3D elastic-plastic FE-solutions, can be overcome by extrapolation schemes and inexpencive computer power. Another constraint parameter is the T-stress, Larsson and Carlsson (9), Du and Hancock (10). This is a non-singular linear elastic stress component parallell to the crack. The T-stress charcterizes the local crack tip stress field for linear elastic material, and the global in-plane constraint of a specimen with respect to predominantly local small scale yielding conditions. It has however been argued that the T-stress also can be applied under plastic conditions, Betegon and hancock (11). T increases or lower the hydrostatic stress by sh = KI 1 f (f ) + T 3 2pr

The idea of adding a second term has been taken over in elastic-plastic fracture mechanics by defining the so-called Q parameter, O`Dowd and Shih (12, 13)
Q= s yy - (s yy )T =0 s0

The solution for s yy is obtained by FE calculations. The Q parameter, like the T stress, is supposed to characterize the geometry dependent constraint. Both quantities affect the hydrostatic stress in the same way, i.e. negative values lower, positive values raise the hydrostatic stress. The Failure Assessment Diagrams (FAD) used in BS 7910:1999 (Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion welded structures) represent high structural constraint applications. The standard gives litterature references for constraint correction methods, based on T and Q, but none of these are included in the standard: "The FADs represent high structural constraint applications. When toughness is measured using standard procedures, it is possible to modify the FAD to account for lower constraint. Alternatively, it is possible to maintain the use of a high constraint FAD and account for lower structural constraints using appropriate test geometries." There is evidently a need to present a framework for a practical application of constraint corrections.

JQM-Approach The JQM Approach quantifies the crack tip stress fields in dependence of geometry (size, crack depth, global geometry and mode of loading), the Q parameter, and material (yield strength and hardening exponent), called M, Figure 5, Zhang et al (14), Thaulow et al (15). The Approach is based on the exsisting J-Q theory and the RKR brittle failure criterion , but is further developed to take material mismatch into account. The stress field is expressed with three terms
M s ij s ij =0 ,T =0 + Qs 0 _ 1 f ijQ (q ) + Ms 0 _ 1 f ijM (q + 12 b )

where b =0 for mismatch ratio m= s 0 _ 2 s 0 _1 1 (weld metal overmatch), and b =1 for m<1, s0_ 1 is the yield stress of the reference material and f ijM represent the angular functions of the difference fields, which depend only on the properties of the reference material. The first term sets the size scale of the local deformation, with reference to the validity range of one-parameter fracture mechanics. The effect of geometry and mismatch is scaled by the other two terms, Figure 6. The constraint of the different fracture mechanics specimens can now be presented as J vs Q+M, Figure 7. The fracture toughness obtained under standarised high constraint conditions ( Q 0 ) can be transferred to more structural relevant lower constraint conditions. The methodology will now be presented with reference to the 690-steel investigated in the PRESS-project. JQM constraint correction for 690 steel The material data for the 690-steel are presented in Figure 8. Notched tensile testing was applied to derive the stress-strain input data, Olden et al (16). Three specimen geometries were selected, Figure 9. The idea was to cover a large variation in constraint with as simple test specimens as possible. The shallow notched SENT specimen has been extensively used the last year, and the testing methodology is now well established, Nyhus et al (17). We have to distinguish between the crack driving force (expressed as J) induced at the crack tip because of loading and mismatch (applied J), and the material resistance (expressed as fracture toughness J).

6 The evolution of constraint for the three test specimens as function of applied J, is presented in Figure 10. When we add the mismatch effect, for cracks located at the fusion line, the constraint increases with weld metal overmatch, Figure 11. At a certain load ductile crack growth can be experienced. The effect of limited ductile crack growth has been examined, stby et al (18), and an increase in constraint is observed, Figure 12. The constraint effect on ductile crack growth, J-R curves, has been further evaluated, Zhang et al (19) and Nyhus et al (20). In order to establish material resistance curves, a large testing program has been performed, Nyhus et al (21). The lower bound toughness results from the heat affected zone shows that the toughness increases significantly as the constraint is reduced, Figure 13. The M parameter is not included in this calculation because it is close to evenmatch conditions. By comparing the applied- and resistance curves, Figure 14, we can now determine the critical conditions for brittle fracture. We can now select a structural component of interest, introduce a crack, and calculate the constraint and check if brittle fracture will take place. Discussion At present stage FE calculations are needed in order to calculate the constraint. But two approaches have been suggested to make the calculations simpler, more effective and less time consuming. The first is an engineering or simplified approach where the need for calculations is reduced to a minimum. Polynoms for a range of typical stress-strain curves are calculated in beforehand and presented for practical use. The other approach is the so-called direct calculations. The 3D crack geometry is represented by a so-called linespring FE element. This element is introduced in a shell FE analysis of a structure at critical locations. A new company, named LINKftr as, has been established with the aim to develop software for direct calculations. The LINKftr concept is to link detailed crack tip calculations with the structural response, with the linespring as the transfer-element, Figure 15. The introduction of linespring elements will not influence on the calculation capacity for the shell element geometry; hence, high accuracy can be obtained at low costs, Figure 16. And not to forget: the routines will be easy to use. Acknowledgement This work is a part of the research project PRESS (Prediction of Structural Behavior on the Basis of Small Scale Testing), with financial support from the Norwegian Research Council and EU. The authors wish to thank colleagues from industry and research institutes for the close cooperation.

Conclusions Single-parameter fracture mechanics breaks down in the presence of excessive plasticity, and a second term has to be added to the standard K, J or CTOD in order to quantify the constraint. The J-Q-M Approach quantifies the crack tip stress fields in dependence of geometry (size, crack depth, global geometry and mode of loading), the Q parameter, and material (yield strength and hardening exponent), called M. Three simple specimen geometries have been selected to cover a wide range of constraint: SENB (a/W=0.5), SENB (a/W=0.2) and SENT (a/W=0.2). Both calculations and test results reveal that the specimens are good candidates for future standardization with respect to constraint corrections. The constraint correction procedures must be easy to perform, have high accuracy and low costs. A new company, LINKftr, has been established with the aim to develop software for direct calculations.

References (1) McClintock, F.A. "Plasticity Aspects of Fracture." Fracture: An Advanced Treatise, Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1971, pp.47-225 (2) Rice, J.R. and Tracy, D.M. "On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields." Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 17, 1969, pp.201-217 (3) Gurson, A.L. "Continuum Theory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth: Part 1-Yield Criteria and Flow Rules for Porous Ductile Media." Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 99, 1977, pp.2-15 (4) Needleman, A. and Tvergaard, V. "An Analysis of Ductile Rupture in Notched Bars." Journal of Mechanics and Physics of Solids, Vol. 32, 1984, pp.461-490. (5) Brocks, W. and Schmitt, W. "The Second Parameter in J-R Curves: Constraint or Triaxiality?" Second Symposium on Constraint Effects, ASTM STP 1244, 1994 (6) Anderson, t.L. "Fracture mechanics. Fundamentals and applications" 2nd edition, 1995, CRC Press, Florida, USA. (7) Thaulow,C. Effect of weld metal over- and undermatch on fracture resistance of pipeline girth welds. Open seminar on Deep Water Pipelines and Flowlines, , 21 October 1999, Trondheim, Norway

(8) Thaulow,C., Hauge, M, Zhang,Z.L.,Ranestad,. and Fattorini,F.: On the interrelationship between fracture toughness and material mismatch for cracks located at the fusion line of weldments. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 64 (1999) pp.367382. (9) S.G. Larsson, A.J. Carlsson, Influence of non-singular stress terms and specimen geometry on small-scale yielding, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 21 (1973) 263-277 (10) Z.Z. Du, J. W. Hancock, The effect of non-singular stresses on crack-tip constraint, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 39 (1991) 555-567 (11) C. Betegn, J.W. Hancock, Two-parameter charaterisation of elastic-plastic crack-tip fields, Journal of Applied Mechanics 58 (1991) 23-43 (12) ODowd N. P. and Shih C. F., Family of crack-tip fields characterised by a triaxility parameter: Part I - Structure of fields. J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 39, 9891015, (1991). (13) ODowd N. P. & Shih C. F., Family of crack tip fields characterised by a triaxility parameter-Part II. Fracture applications, J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 40, 939-963 (1992). (14) Zhang, Z.L., Hauge, M. and Thaulow, C.: "Two Parameter Characterisation of the Near Tip Stress Fields for a Bi-Material Elastic-Plastic Interface Crack", Int. Journal of Fracture, 79:65-83, 1996. (15) Thaulow, C., Zhang, Z.L., Ranestad, . and Hauge,M., J-Q-M approach for failure assessment of fusion line cracks: two material and three material models. ASTM STP 1360, Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics: 30th Volume. St.Louis. June 1998. (16) Olden, V. "Notch tensile testing og high strength steel weldments." 2nd International Symposium on High Strength Steel, 23-24 April, 2002, Verdal, Norway (17) Nyhus, B., Polanco, M., Knagenhjelm, H.O. and hauge, M. "A more efficient engineering critical assessment for pipes based on testing of single edge notch tension specimens." 6th International Pipeline Conference&Exhibition, Merida, Mexico, November, 2001 (18) stby, E , Nyhus, B, Thaulow, C, Olden, V. and Zhang,Z.L. "The effect of geometry and ductile crack growth on the near-tip constraint level." 2nd International Symposium on High Strength Steel, 23-24 April, 2002, Verdal, Norway (19) Zhang Z.L.,Thaulow,C. and degrd J.A Complete Gurson Model Approach for Ductile Fracture. Engineering Fracture Mechanics. 67, 155-168, 2000

9 (20) Nyhus,B., Zhang, Z.L. and Thaulow, C. "Normalisation of Material Crack Resistance Curves by the T Stress." 2nd International Symposium on High Strength Steel, 23-24 April, 2002, Verdal, Norway (21) Nyhus, B and stby, E. "SENT Testing of High Strength Steel." 2nd International Symposium on High Strength Steel, 23-24 April, 2002, Verdal, Norway (22) Chiesa, M., Nyhus, B., Skallerud, B. and Thaulow, C "Efficient Fracture Assessment of Pipelines. A Constraint Corrected SENT Specimen Approach", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 68, 527-547, 2001 (23) Chiesa, M., Skallerud, B. and Thaulow, C. "Line spring elements in a yield strength mismatch situation with application to welded wide plates", Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 68, No 8, 2001

10

No-crack assumption Global load With possible cracks Brittle fracture ?

Global displacement

Figure 1 Load vs displacement of a structural component. The normal structural design (no-crack assumption) is schematically compared when cracks are included (brittle fracture, ductile tearing, plastic collapse).

BM 450

WM

BM

WM

690MP

Figure 2 Distribution of yield strength for base material (BM) and weld metal (WM) for two classes of steel.

11

High constraint

Low constraint

Figure 3 Linear elastic solutions for standard fracture mechanics test specimens. The figure is based upon Anderson (6)

12

Figure 4 Plastic deformation pattern in small scale yielding (a) and slip line patterns under fully plastic conditions in three fracture mechanics test geometries. The estimated local stresses are based on the slip line analyses of McClintock (1), and apply only to non-hardening materials. From Anderson (6).

13

Geometry specimen t i t

crack loading

Mismatch strength t i t

hardening general

J-Q theory

BM or HAZ

J-M th

WM

J-Q-M theory
Figure 5 The JQM theory

Japplied, Q, M

Jref, Q=0, M=0

Same failure condition

Figure 6 The JQM theory. The actual geometry and mismatch is always compared with a reference solution, representing small scale yielding and homogeneous material.

14

Fracture Toughness

Constraint Q+M

Figure 7 Fracture toughness as a function of the constraint

15

690 MPa steel

Notched tensile testing
1.0 mm

Stress-strain curves

FL

Chemical composition
C .16
(.17)

Si Mn P S Al N Cu Mo .430 1.20 .013 .001 .039 .008 .035 .31

(.36) (1.35) (.015) (.003) (-) (.008) (.037) (.43)

Ni .34
(1.00)

Cr V Nb Ti B .425 .043 .026 .003 .0002

(1.00) (-) (-) (-) (-)

Figure 8 Chemical composition and mechanical data for the 690-steel investigated in the PRESS project.

SENT clamped (a/W=0.2)

SENB (a/W = 0.2) FRACTURE TOUGHNESS [J, K, CTOD]

SENB (a/W = 0.5)

GEOMETRY / CONSTRAINT

[Q]

Figure 9 The three standard test specimen geometries examined in the PRESS project

16

Figure 10

Evolution of constraint in the three test specimens

Figure 11 The effect of mismatch on the constraint. m=1.3 represents 30% weld metal overmatch when HAZ is considered as the critical material (or reference material, Figure 6).

17

Increase in local crack tip constraint due to ductile crack growth

Ductile crack growth initiation

Figure 12 Effect of ductile crack growth on the crack tip stress and the constraint.

Figure 13 Lower bound fracture toughness for the 690-steel with the crack located at the fusion line.

18

Figure 14 Comparison between the crack driving force and the fracture toughness test results for the three specimen test geometries

19

LINKftr
THE LINK BETWEEN LOCAL FAILURE AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

LINKfailure

LINKtransfer

LINKrespons

D11 D 21 D31 D41

D12 D22 D32 D42

D13 D23 D33 D43

D14 q1A Q1A D24 q2A Q2A = D34 q1B Q1B B B D44 q2 Q2
Line Spring Tangent stiffness matrix Generalized displacements at nodes A and B Generalized Force at nodes A and B, in tension and in bending ( N,M),

a ( Dijep) ( ) h qiA,B Qi

Figure 15 The LINKftr concept. Detailed crack tip calculations are linked to the structural response with linespring as the transfer-element.

3D FE calculations Accuracy

Shell elements FE calculations with line spring

Analytical equations (CrackWise) Costs Accuracy

Costs

Figure 16 Application of direct fracture calculations based on linespring elements. Procedures are developed by LINKftr.