Micromechanical Analysis of In-Plane Constraint Effect on Local Fracture Behavior of Cracks in the Weakest Locations of Dissimilar Metal Welded Joint

doi:10.1007/s40195-017-0599-y

Abstract

Abstract:

In this work, a set of GTN (Gurson-Tvergaard-Needleman) parameters of the Alloy52M dissimilar metal welded joint (DMWJ) have been calibrated, and a micromechanical analysis of in-plane constraint effects on the local fracture behavior of two cracks, which located in the weakest regions of the DMWJ, has been investigated by the local approach based on the GTN damage model. The results show that the partition of the material and the variation of the q₂ parameter make the J-resistance curves obtained by numerical simulations close to the experimental values. The numerical J-resistance curves and crack growth paths are consistent with the experiment results, which show that the GTN damage model can incorporate the in-plane constraint effect. Furthermore, after the stress, strain and damage fields at the crack tip during the crack propagation process have been calculated, and the change of the J-resistance curves, crack growth paths and fracture mechanism with in-plane constraint have been analyzed.

Key words: Micromechanical analysis, In-plane constraint, Fracture behavior, Dissimilar metal welded joint, GTN (Gurson–Tvergaard–Needleman) damage model

Jie Yang. Micromechanical Analysis of In-Plane Constraint Effect on Local Fracture Behavior of Cracks in the Weakest Locations of Dissimilar Metal Welded Joint[J]. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters), 2017, 30(9): 840-850.

Figures/Tables 16

Fig. 1 Development of constraint parameter. Single-parameter: K, CTOD, J; two-parameter: K-T, J-T, J-Q, J-A2, J-TZ; three-parameter: K-T-TZ, J-Q-TZ, J-Q-M; unified parameter: βT, φ, Ap

Fig. 2 Materials of the DMWJ and the initial crack positions [8, 13]

Table 1 Chemical compositions of the materials used for fabrication of the DMWJ (wt%)

	C	S	P	Si	Mn	Ni	Cr	Mo	Cu	Al	Ti	Co	Fe	Nb
A508	0.20	0.001	0.005	0.20	1.36	0.96	0.17	0.47	-	-	-	-	Balance	-
52Mb	0.02	<0.001	0.003	0.14	0.25	60.39	28.91	0.01	0.01	0.67	0.56	0.01	9.03	<0.01
52 Mw	0.025	0.001	0.004	0.18	0.24	58	29.18	0.01	0.02	0.75	0.53	0.02	10.23	<0.01
316L	0.025	0.001	0.005	0.52	1.73	11.69	17.89	2.43	-	-	-	-	Balance	-

Table 2 Mechanical property data of the four materials at room temperature [25]

Material	Young’s modulus, E (MPa)	Poisson’s ratio, ν	Yield stress, σ₀ (MPa)
A508	202,410	0.3	514
Alloy52Mb	178,130	0.3	495
Alloy52 Mw	178,130	0.3	511
316L	156,150	0.3	311

Fig. 3 True stress-strain curves of the four materials at room temperature [25]

Fig. 4 Loading configuration and geometry of the SENB specimen (for the crack 2 specimen)

Fig. 5 Multi-material zones in the A508/52Mb interface region

Fig. 6 True stress-strain curves of the multi-materials [6]

Table 3 GTN damage parameters

	A508	HAZ	FZ	IAZ	52Mb	52 Mw	316L
q₁	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
q₂	1	1	1	1	Variable	1	Variable
q₃	2.25	2.25	2.25	2.25	2.25	2.25	2.25
ε_Ν	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3
S_N	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1
f_N	0.002	0.002	0.008	0.002	0.002	0.002	0.002
f₀	0.00008	0.00015	0.0008	0.00004	0.000001	0.00015	0.000001
f_C	0.04	0.04	0.01	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04
f_F	0.25	0.25	0.15	0.25	0.25	0.25	0.25

Fig. 7 Distributions of q2 along the distance L from crack tip: a 52Mb, b 316L

Fig. 8 Meshes of the whole model a, meshes along the crack growth area b

Fig. 9 Comparison of the experimental and numerical J-resistance curves for the specimens with different in-plane constraints: a crack 2, b crack 3

Fig. 10 Crack growth paths obtained from the numerical simulations a, c, e and the experiments b, d, f for crack 2 specimens with a/W = 0.2 a, b, a/W = 0.5 c, da/W = 0.7 e, f

Fig. 11 Crack growth paths obtained from the numerical simulations a, c, e and the experiments b, d, f for crack 3 specimens with a/W = 0.2 a, b, a/W = 0.5 c, da/W = 0.7 e, f

Fig. 12 PEEQ, VVF, TRIAX and S of crack 2 specimen with a/W = 0.2 a, d, g, j, a/W = 0.5 b, e, h, k, a/W = 0.7 c, f, i, l at J = 200 kJ/m2

Fig. 13 PEEQ, VVF, TRIAX and S of the crack 2 specimen with a/W = 0.5 at J = 200 kJ/m2a, d, g, j, J = 500 kJ/m2b, e, h, k and J = 1200 kJ/m2c, f, i, l

References

[1]	A.R. Mcllree, in PWR Material Reliability Project, Part 1: Alloy82/182 Pipe Butt Welds#/magtechI#, EPRI Report TP-1001491 (2001)
[2]	R. Celin, F. Tehovnik, 151 (2011
[3]	A. Jenssen, K. Norrgard, J. Lagerstron, Assessment of Cracking in Dissimilar Metal Welds. Paper presented at the 10th international symposium on environmental degradation of materials in nuclear power systems-water reactors, USA (2001)
[4]	S. Farley, 6-9 Sept 2004
[5]	International Atomic Energy Agency, Laea. Vienna, Austria (2009)
[6]	H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, C.J. Liu, S.T. Tu, A 568, 108 (2013)
[7]	Y. Wu, Y. Cai, H. Wang, S.J. Shi, X.M. Hua, Y.X. Wu, Mater. Des. 87, 567(2015)
[8]	H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Eng. Fail. Anal. 28, 134(2013)
[9]	W. Brocks, W. Schmitt, The second parameter in J-R curves: constraint or triaxiality. ASTM STP1244 (1995). doi:10.1520/STP14637S
[10]	M.K. Samal, K. Balani, M. Seidenfuss, E. Roos, P. I. MECH. ENG. C-J. MEC. 223, 1507(2009)
[11]	C. Faidy, 25-29 July 2004
[12]	H. Xue, K. Ogawa, T. Shoji, Nucl. Eng. Des. 239, 628(2009)
[13]	H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Mater. Des. 44, 179(2013)
[14]	M.K. Samal, M. Seidenfuss, E. Roos, K. Balani, Eng. Fail. Anal. 18, 999(2011)
[15]	K. Fan, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Eng. Fract. Mech. 136, 279(2015)
[16]	R. Chhibber, N. Arora, S.R. Gupta, B.K. Dutta, P. I. MECH. ENG. C-J. MEC. 220, 1121(2006)
[17]	A. Laukkanen, P. Nevasmaa, U. Ehrnsten, R. Rintamaa, Nucl. Eng. Des. 237, 1(2007)
[18]	Y.B. Shang, H.J. Shi, Z.X. Wang, G.D. Zhang, Mater. Des. 88, 598(2015)
[19]	H. Keinanen, E. Keim, K.R. Paivi, S. Blasset, P.Gilles, T. Nicak, 19-23 July 2015
[20]	A. Blouin, S. Chapuliot, S. Marie, C. Niclaeys, J.M. Bergheau, Eng. Fract. Mech. 131, 58(2013)
[21]	H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, Nucl. Eng. Des. 241, 3234(2011)
[22]	J. Yang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, C.J. Liu, Mater. Des. 53, 611(2014)
[23]	J. Yang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, S.T. Tu, C.J. Liu, Mater. Des. 55, 542(2014)
[24]	E. ?stby, C. Thaulow, Z.L. Zhang, Eng. Fract. Mech. 74, 1771(2007)
[25]	H.T. Wang, G.Z. Wang, F.Z. Xuan, C.J. Liu, S.T. Tu, Adv. Mater. Res. 509, 103(2012)
[26]	N. Benseddiq, A. Imad, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85, 219(2008)
[27]	I. Penuelas, C. Betegon, C. Rodr?guez, Eng. Fract. Mech. 73, 2756(2006)
[28]	B.K. Dutta, S. Guin, Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip. 85, 199(2008)
[29]	Y.G. Deng, H.S. Di, J.C. Zhang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 28, 1141(2015)
[30]	Z.J. Yan, X.S. Liu, H.Y. Fang, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 29, 1161(2016)
[31]	G.Z. Wang, J.H. Chen, J.G. Wang, Int. J. Fract. 118, 211(2002)
[32]	J.H. Chen, Q. Wang, G.Z. Wang, Z. Li, Acta Mater. 51, 1841(2003)
[33]	G.Z. Wang, Y.L. Wang, Int. J. Fract. 146, 105(2007)
[34]	F. Wang, W.C. Cui, Acta Metall. Sin. (Engl. Lett.) 1, 41(2010)