Influence of the Interaction on Stress Intensity Factor of Semielliptical Surface Cracks

© All Rights Reserved

0 visualizações

Influence of the Interaction on Stress Intensity Factor of Semielliptical Surface Cracks

© All Rights Reserved

- A Review of the Time Dependent Behaviour of Line Pipe Steel
- SICE 2018 Conference_proceedings
- Strut and Tie
- Liftinglug calculator
- A Step by Step Introduction to FEA.docx
- A Quantitative Analysis of the Effect of Interface Delamination on the Fracture Behavior and Toughness of Multilayered Propylene–Ethylene Copolymer_low Density Polyethylene Films by the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF)
- Exam paper RGPV mmpd first sem
- m.tech
- Crack Band model.ppt
- (246538993) ASTM A938
- 1-s2.0-S0029549310001573-main
- Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads.pdf
- Paper Uji Tarik
- Crack Bones
- SFRC
- Fatigue 1
- Fracture Mechanics
- 3-14
- 6guru sharan et al.pdf
- lec 3

Você está na página 1de 7

Semielliptical Surface Cracks

The interaction between multiple surface cracks is an important consideration in the

Masayuki Kamaya cracking behavior due to thermal fatigue and stress corrosion cracking. However, it is

Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Inc., difficult to evaluate the intensity of the interaction quantitatively because there are many

64 Sata, factors, such as the relative position, size, and geometry of the cracks. Furthermore, the

Mihama-cho, Mikata-gun, influence of the interaction differs with the crack tip position along the front. In this study,

Fukui 919-1205, Japan to investigate the intensity of interaction, the stress intensity factor (SIF) of interacting

semielliptical surface cracks was evaluated by the finite element method and finite ele-

ment alternating method. These methods enable us to evaluate the SIF of interacting

cracks for various conditions. The analysis results reveal that the change in the averaged

SIF along the crack front caused by coalescence of two cracks can be estimated from the

change in the area size. The maximum interaction can be estimated by a simple addition

of the area size of two cracks regardless of the loading condition and relative crack size.

To exclude the conservativeness caused by the current combination rule, new criteria are

shown. 关DOI: 10.1115/1.2826424兴

Introduction ing cracks for various conditions, such as relative position, rela-

tive size, aspect ratio, and loading condition. The average of the

The stress intensity factor 共SIF兲 of interacting surface cracks

SIF along the crack front is used as a parameter representing the

has been investigated by numerical analyses, such as the finite intensity of the interaction. Based on the analysis results, the re-

element method 共FEM兲 关1–4兴 and the body force method 关5,6兴, lationship between the magnitude of the interaction and the area

and it was revealed that the SIF is magnified when the cracks size of the interacting cracks is evaluated, and the validity of the

approach each other. Since the enhanced SIF causes the crack current combination rule is discussed together with the proposed

growth to accelerate, it is important to know the change in the SIF one.

due to the interaction. The influence of the interaction on the SIF

is dependent not only on the distance between cracks and on crack

geometry such as the aspect ratio and loading condition, but also Calculation Procedure

on relative size. Furthermore, the magnitude of the change in the Two types of interacting crack models were used for the analy-

SIF is different at each crack tip position along the crack front. At ses, as shown in Fig. 1. The first one consisted of two interacting

interacting surface cracks of the same plane, the increase in the semielliptical cracks in the same plane. The distance between the

SIF due to interaction is larger at the surface point of the neigh- cracks was represented by a parameter S. If the cracks approach

boring side than at the other side and middle position. Therefore, each other, S decreases and finally becomes zero. The other model

it is not easy to evaluate the influence of the interaction on the corresponded to coalesced cracks of which S is zero. These mod-

crack growth behavior. els are referred to as the separated crack model and the combined

In the in-service plants, multiple cracks are often found to be in crack model, respectively. The ratio of crack depth, a1, and half

close proximity to one another 关7兴, so the influences of the inter- crack length at the surface, c1, was set to a1 / c1 = 0.5 and 0.8. The

action on the SIF must be taken into account when evaluating the size of the other crack, a2 and c2, was set to a2 / a1 = 0.3– 1.0, while

crack growth and fracture. In the current fitness-for-service codes, the ratio was kept at a2 / c2 = a1 / c1.

such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 共ASME兲 As shown in Fig. 2, the cracks were located on a plate, of which

Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI 关8兴 or the Japan So- thickness t, half-length B, and half-width of the plate W were

ciety of Mechanical Engineers 共JSME兲 Fitness-for-Service Code t / a1 = 5, B / a1 = 20, and W / a1 = 16. Poisson’s ratio of the material

关9兴, multiple discrete cracks are combined and treated as a single was taken to be 0.3. The plate was subjected to a tensile and

crack if the distance between two cracks satisfies a simple crite- bending stress of magnitude 0.

rion. However, due to the complexity of the interacting phenom- The FEAM was employed for the SIF evaluation of the sepa-

enon, the combination rules were pointed out to be excessively rated crack model, while the conventional FEM was used for the

conservative and so were revised based on evaluations of the SIF combined crack model. The FEAM is an alternating technique in

关10兴. conjunction with the FEM analysis and the analytical solution for

In this study, to investigate the influence of the interaction on an elliptical crack in an infinite solid subject to arbitrary crack-

the growth behavior due to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking, face traction 关11,22兴, and allows us to evaluate precisely the SIF

the SIFs of interacting semielliptical surface cracks were evalu- of interacting surface cracks without a finite element mesh for a

ated by the FEM and finite element alternating method 共FEAM兲 cracked body 关11–21兴. Namely, the SIFs under different S and

关11–21兴. These methods enable us to evaluate the SIF of interact- a2 / a1 conditions can be evaluated using the same finite element

mesh, which is shown in Fig. 3. Fine elements were adopted

around the crack portion for an accurate analysis, although a

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication cracked mesh was not included. The mesh consists of 171,606

in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 4,

2006; final manuscript received October 11, 2006; published online January 30,

eight-noded solid elements. The validity and accuracy of the

2008. Review conducted by Douglas Scarth. Paper presented at the 2005 ASME FEAM for interacting surface cracks were confirmed in a previous

Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference 共PVP2005兲, Denver, CO, July 17–21, 2005. study 关20兴. Figure 4 shows the finite element mesh used for the

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright © 2008 by ASME FEBRUARY 2008, Vol. 130 / 011406-1

Fig. 1 Geometry of interacting surface cracks. „a… S > 0. „b… S

= 0.

were analyzed under S = 0 condition, one quarter of the plate was Fig. 4 Finite element mesh for FEM analyses „for the com-

bined crack model…. „a… Whole view. „b… Magnified view.

for the case shown in Fig. 4. The general-purpose finite element

program ABAQUS, Version 6.3 关23兴 was used for FEM and FEAM

analyses.

Calculation Results

Stress Intensity Factor Along the Crack Front. Figures 5 and

6 show the SIF along the crack front of crack 1 for a tensile and

bending stress, respectively. The SIFs are normalized by the fol-

lowing equation:

KI

F共x兲 = 共1兲

0冑x

where KI denotes the SIF of mode I and x corresponds to a crack

size, which is a1 in these cases. The crack tip position is repre-

sented by p, as defined in Fig. 1. The SIF changes depending on

Fig. 2 Geometry of a plate for interacting cracks the distance S, and the magnitude of the variation is different at

the crack tip position. The SIF of the inner crack tip 共p = 0 deg兲

gets larger as the distance S decreases, while only a slight change

appeared at the outer crack tip 共p = 180 deg兲 and around the deep-

est point 共p = 90 deg兲. The change in the SIF was brought about by

the interaction between two cracks, and the interaction becomes

maximum in the case of S = 0. Although the geometrical profile of

the combined crack model is different from that of the separated

crack model, the distribution of the SIF of the combined crack

seems to be a continuation of the separated cracks. It was pointed

out that the SIF of interacting cracks is almost equivalent to that

of coalesced single cracks when the cracks are close to each other

关24,25兴. This implies that the change in the SIF is dependent on

the distance S rather than on the geometrical condition that the

cracks are coalesced or separated. The intensity of the interaction

is larger in the case of a1 / c1 = 0.8 than in a1 / c1 = 0.5, although the

results obtained under the tensile and bending stress conditions

exhibit a similar tendency.

Fig. 3 Finite element mesh for FEAM analyses „for the sepa- Influence of Relative Position. To evaluate the influence of the

rated crack model…. „a… Whole view. „b… Magnified view. „c… interaction on the SIF, which takes various values along the crack

Sight A. front, the averaged SIF, Fm, was defined as

Fig. 5 Normalized SIFs along the crack front under tensile Fig. 6 Normalized SIFs along the crack front under bending

stress „a1 = a2…. „a… Tension „a1 / c1 = 0.5…. „b… Tension „a1 / c1 stress „a1 = a2…. „a… Bending „a1 / c1 = 0.5…. „b… Bending „a1 / c1

= 0.8…. = 0.8….

Fm共x兲 =

1

T

冕 ⌫

F共x兲dw 共2兲

Normalized Fm共c0兲 decreases as the distance S increases and con-

verges to unity. Namely, there is no interaction when the two

cracks are sufficiently far apart. The case of a1 / c1 = 0.8 shows a

where dw is length of the part of the crack front and ⌫ denotes the

path along the crack front. Here, to exclude the influence of a

particular singularity, F共x兲 at the surface 共p = 0 – 5 deg and

175– 180 deg for the separated crack model and p

= 175– 180 deg for the combined crack model兲 is omitted in the

calculation. The range of the integral in Eq. 共2兲 is p

= 23.6– 175 deg for the combined crack model. T represents the

length of the path calculated by

T= 冕⌫

dw 共3兲

is used for the parameter x:

c20 = a1c1 共4兲

Since the crack growth is dependent on the SIF, the growth length

at each point along the front is different. Therefore, even if the SIF

is large to a particular point, the growth rate of cracks, which has

a small averaged SIF, cannot be large in area size. Then, the in-

crease rate of the area size of the crack has much correlation with

the averaged SIF rather than with SIF at an individual point. The Fig. 7 Change in averaged SIFs Fm with distance between two

relationship between Fm共c0兲 and distance S is shown in Fig. 7. Fm cracks

SIF of the coalesced cracks for a1 / c1 = 0.8 and a1 / c1 = 0.5 ob-

tained under a uniform tensile stress condition together with the

results of semielliptical surface cracks of various aspect ratios and

surface cracks of various front shapes. The SIFs are normalized

according to Eq. 共2兲 using the area size of the crack face, A0. The

length cs is defined by

cs = 冑 2A0

共5兲

Fm共cs兲, is almost constant regardless of the front shape, including

the coalesced cracks; this implies that the magnitude of the SIF of

the surface cracks is dependent on the area size. The horizontal

axis indicates a crack front length normalized by cs and repre-

sents the complexity of the front shape. The averaged SIF along

the crack front tends to decrease as the complexity of the front

increases, although the value remains almost constant.

The change in the averaged SIF due to coalescence of two

cracks can be estimated from the change in the area size. The

Fig. 8 Change in averaged SIFs Fm with relative size of two maximum interaction between multiple cracks can be estimated

cracks

by adding the area size of interacting cracks. A semielliptical

crack, which has the same area as the sum of interacting cracks,

larger interaction than the case of a1 / c1 = 0.5 when S is smaller gives a conservative averaged SIF because the interaction is maxi-

than S / a1 = 0.4, although the reverse is true when S is large. The mum when the distance S becomes zero, as shown in Fig. 7.

bending stress induces a slightly larger interaction than the tensile Intensity of Interaction. As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, the inten-

stress. The amount of increase in the SIF is 1.11 times that of the sity of the interaction is almost identical to that of a coalesced

no-interaction case at the maximum. crack when the cracks are close. The interacting cracks exhibit

Influence of Relative Size. Figure 8 shows the SIFs evaluated enhanced SIF regardless of whether they coalesce. On the other

for various a2 / a1 under a fixed relative position of S = 0.05a1. The hand, the averaged SIF of the coalesced cracks is almost the same

as that of semielliptical cracks of the same area size. Therefore,

relative crack size was changed from a2 / a1 = 0.3 to 1.0 under the

the SIF of the interacting cracks converges to the value of a single

same boundary length condition, which is defined using a1, as

crack having the same area as the sum of individual cracks. There-

shown in Fig. 2. Only the SIFs of the larger crack 共crack 1兲 are

fore, to represent the intensity of the interaction, a new parameter

shown in the figure and are normalized by Fm共c0兲共S=inf兲. The in-

Fm共1+2兲 is defined as

teraction decreases as a2 / a1 decreases, and the normalized SIF

converges to 1. This implies that the interaction is negligible when

the relative crack size a2 / a1 is small enough. Fm共1+2兲 =

1

冑2共T1 + T2兲 冉冕 ⌫1

F共冑A1 + A2兲dw

冕 冊

Discussion

Stress Intensity Factor of Coalesced Crack. In the previous + F共冑A1 + A2兲dw 共6兲

⌫2

study 关26兴, it was suggested that the averaged SIF of surface

cracks that have complex front shapes is almost the same when where Ai, ⌫i, and Ti denote the area size, path, and length of the

the area of the crack face is the same. Figure 9 shows the averaged crack front of crack i, respectively. Therefore, Fm共1+2兲 is identical

to Fm共cs兲 defined by Eq. 共2兲 if the two cracks coalesce. Figures 10

and 11 show the relationship between the distance S and Fm共1+2兲

normalized by Fm共cs兲 of coalesced cracks, which is evaluated us-

ing the combined model and is indicated as Fm共cs兲S=0, for tensile

and bending stresses, respectively. The normalized Fm共1+2兲 in-

creases to 1 as the distance S decreases. The change in Fm共1+2兲

under the condition of a2 / a1 = 0.5 is also shown in the figure,

although the values are normalized by Fm共cs兲S=0 evaluated under

the condition of a2 / a1 = 1. From these results, we can say that

although the magnitude of the interaction is dependent on the

distance between the cracks and is different at each crack tip

position, it can be represented by the scalar value Fm共1+2兲. The

maximum interaction is equivalent to the value of coalesced

cracks, the SIF of which can be evaluated based on the simple

addition of the area size, regardless of the loading condition, as-

pect ratio, and relative crack size.

Change in Area Size Due to Coalescence. In accordance with

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section 关XI兴 关8兴, the

Fitness-for-Service Code of JSME 关9兴, the American Petroleum

Institute 共API兲 关27兴, and the British Standard 共BS兲 关28兴, for crack

growth evaluation, multiple discrete cracks are combined and

Fig. 9 Averaged SIFs of surface cracks having various crack treated as a single crack if the distance between two cracks satis-

front shapes fies the following criteria:

Fig. 10 Change in averaged SIFs Fm„1+2… with distance between

Fig. 11 Change in averaged SIFs Fm„1+2… with distance between

two cracks „tensile stress…

two cracks „bending stress…

S 艋 c1 + c2 共API兲 共8兲

The depth of the combined crack, ac, is the same as that of the

deeper crack, which is a1 in the case of Fig. 1. The surface length

2cc is the sum of the surface lengths of two cracks, and the dis-

tance S is cc = c1 + c2 + S / 2. Figure 12 shows the areas of the com-

bined single crack, which is denoted as Ac共=ccac / 2.0兲, against the

distance S normalized by c1 + c2. Ac is normalized by a simple sum

of the areas of two cracks, A共1+2兲共=c1a1 / 2.0+ c2a2 / 2.0兲. Based on

the previous discussion, replacement of the interacting cracks with

a semielliptical crack that has the same area of the coalesced

cracks leads to a conservative result in an amount of crack growth.

From the mechanical point of view, the current rule provides a

conservative evaluation since the value of Ac is larger than A共1+2兲

in all cases, especially for the case of different crack sizes. Gains

in area size obtained by the combination rule of the API code are

Ac / A共1+2兲 = 1.5 and 1.8 in the cases of a2 / a1 = 1 and a2 / a1 = 0.5,

respectively. On the other hand, there is no gain in area size in the

case of similar crack sizes according to the codes of ASME,

JSME, and BS. As shown in previous figures, the interaction ex-

ists in the condition of S ⬎ 0. To take into account the acceleration

in crack growth due to the interaction before the coalescence of

neighboring cracks, some margin should be included. Namely, the Fig. 12 Relationship between area of combined crack and dis-

current criterion for ASME, JSME, and BS might bring unconser- tance between the cracks „a1 / c1 = a2 / c2 = 0.8…

cs ⫽ equivalent crack size

Fm ⫽ normalized averaged SIF

Fm共1+2兲 ⫽ normalized averaged SIF for combined cracks

KI ⫽ SIF of mode I

p ⫽ crack tip position

S ⫽ distance between two cracks

T ⫽ length of path along the crack front

t ⫽ thickness of the plate

W ⫽ half-width of the plate

0 ⫽ magnitude of applied tensile and bending

stresses

References

关1兴 Yoshimura, S., Lee, J., Yagawa, G., Sugioka, K., and Kawai, T., 1995, “New

Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Approach With Neural Network-Based Crack

Modeling: Its Application to Multiple Cracks Problem,” ASME Pressure Ves-

sel and Piping Conference, PVP-304, pp. 437–442.

关2兴 Kishimoto, K., Soboyejo, W. O., Smith, R. A., and Knott, J. F., 1989, “A

Numerical Investigation of the Interaction and Coalescence of Twin Coplanar

Semi-Elliptical Fatigue Cracks,” Int. J. Fatigue, 11, pp. 91–96.

Fig. 13 Relationship between area of combined crack and 关3兴 Moussa, W. A., Bell, R., and Tan, C. L., 2002, “Investigating the Effect of

relative crack size „a1 / c1 = a2 / c2 = 0.8… Crack Shape on the Interaction Behavior of Noncoplanar Surface Cracks Us-

ing Finite Element Analysis,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 124, pp.

234–238.

关4兴 Kamaya, M., 2002, “Evaluation of Coalescence Criteria for Parallel Cracks,”

vative growth evaluation. To evaluate the influence of relative ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, PVP-438, pp. 181–186.

crack size on the growth evaluation, the change in Ac / A共1+2兲 with 关5兴 Murakami, Y., and Nemat-Nsasser, S., 1982, “Interacting Dissimilar Semi-

relative crack size was evaluated. Figure 13 shows the results for Elliptical Surface Flaws Under Tension and Bending,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 16,

pp. 373–386.

the current criteria in addition to a proposed criterion expressed by 关6兴 Noda, N. A., Kobayashi, K., and Oohashi, T., 2001, “Variation of the Stress

the following equation: Intensity Factor Along the Crack Front of Interacting Semi-Elliptical Surface

Cracks,” Arch. Appl. Mech., 71, pp. 43–52.

a2 关7兴 Okamura, Y., Sakashita, A., Fukuda, T., Yamashita, H., and Futami, T., 2003,

S⬍ 共a1 艌 a2兲 共9兲 “Latest SCC Issues of Core Shroud and Recirculation Piping in Japanese

2

BWRs,” Transactions of 17th International Conference on Structural Mechan-

The area of the combined crack evaluated by this criterion be- ics in Reactor Technology (SMiRT 17), Prague, Paper No. WG01-1.

关8兴 ASME, 2004, “ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI,” New

comes smaller than that obtained by the API criterion and larger York, USA.

than that by ASME, JSME, and BS. Moreover, the change in area 关9兴 JSME, 2002, “Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities: Rules of

size 共Ac / A共1+2兲兲 is larger than 1 except in the case of a2 = 0. Fitness-for-Service for Nuclear Power Plants,” Tokyo, Japan.

关10兴 Hasegawa, K., Shiratori, M., Miyoshi, T., and Seki, N., 2002, “Comparison of

Stress Intensity Factors of Two Flaws and a Combined Flaw due to Combina-

Summary and Conclusions tion Rules,” ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, PVP-439, pp.

The SIFs of interacting semielliptical surface cracks were 307–312.

关11兴 Nishioka, T., and Atluri, S. N., 1983, “An Analytical Solution for Embedded

evaluated by using the FEAM for the separated crack model and Elliptical Cracks, and Finite Element Alternating Method for Elliptical Surface

the FEM for the combined crack model. The influences of the Cracks, Subjected to Arbitrary Loadings,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 17, pp. 247–

distance between two cracks and the relative crack size were dis- 268.

cussed, and the following conclusions were obtained. 关12兴 Nishioka, T., and Atluri, S. N., 1982, “Analysis of Surface Flaw in Pressure

Vessels by a New 3-Dimensional Alternating Method,” ASME J. Pressure

共1兲 The interaction between two cracks becomes large as the Vessel Technol., 104, pp. 299–307.

关13兴 O’Donoghue, P. E., Nishioka, T., and Atluri, S. N., 1984, “Multiple Surface

distance between the cracks and the difference in the size of Cracks in Pressure Vessels,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 20, pp. 545–560.

the cracks become small. 关14兴 Nishioka, T., Tokunaga, T., and Akashi, T., 1994, “Alternating Method for

共2兲 The change of the averaged SIF along the crack front Interaction Analysis of a Group of Micro-Elliptical Cracks,” J. Soc. Mater. Sci.

caused by coalescence of two cracks can be estimated from Jpn., 43, pp. 1271–1277.

关15兴 Nishioka, T., Akashi, T., and Tokunaga, T., 1994, “On the General Solution for

the change in the area size. The maximum interaction can Mixed-Mode Elliptical Cracks and Their Applications,” JSME Int. J., Ser. A,

be estimated by a simple addition of the area size of two 60, pp. 364–371.

cracks regardless of the loading condition and relative 关16兴 Nishioka, T., and Kato, T., 1999, “An Alternating Method Based on the VNA

crack size. Solution for Analysis of Damaged Solid Containing Arbitrarily Distributed

Elliptical Microcracks,” Int. J. Fract., 97, pp. 137–170.

共3兲 In the current combination rule prescribed in ASME, 关17兴 Raju, I. S., Atluri, S. N., and Newman, J. C., Jr., 1989, “Stress-Intensity Fac-

JSME, API, and BS fitness-for-service codes, the safety tors for Small Surface and Corner Cracks in Plates,” Report No. ASTM STP

margin given by the combination of interacting cracks in- 1020, pp. 297–316.

creases with the difference in the crack size. An alternative 关18兴 Krishnamurthy, T., and Raju, I. S., 1990, “A Finite-Element Alternating

Method for Two-Dimensional Mixed-Mode Crack Configurations,” Eng. Fract.

criterion was proposed to consider the interaction before Mech., 36, pp. 297–311.

coalescence. 关19兴 Stonesifer, R. B., Brust, F. W., and Leis, B. N., 1993, “Mixed-mode Stress

Intensity Factors for Interacting Semi-Elliptical Surface Cracks in a Plate,”

Eng. Fract. Mech., 45, pp. 357–380.

Nomenclature 关20兴 Kamaya, M., and Nishioka, T., 2004, “Evaluation of Stress Intensity Factors

Ac ⫽ area size of combined cracks by Finite Element Alternating Method,” ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping

Conference, PVP-481, pp. 113–120.

A共1+2兲 ⫽ sum of the area size of two cracks 关21兴 Kamaya, M., and Nishioka, T., 2005, “Analysis of Surface Crack in Cylinder

ai ⫽ depth of crack i by Finite Element Alternating Method,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol.,

B ⫽ half length of the plate 127, pp. 165–172.

关22兴 Vijayakumar, K., and Atluri, S. N., 1981, “An Embedded Elliptical Crack, in

ci ⫽ half surface length of crack i an Infinite Solid, Subject to Arbitrary Crack-Face Tractions,” ASME J. Appl.

c0 ⫽ crack size 共c20 = a1c1兲 Mech., 48, pp. 88–96.

关23兴 ABAQUS Inc., 2002, “ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual Ver. 6.3,” 关26兴 Kamaya, M., 2004, “Stress Intensity Factors of Surface Crack With Undulated

ABAQUS Inc., USA. Front,” JSME Mechanical Engineering Congress, JSME, Tokyo, Vol. 1, pp.

关24兴 Kamaya, M., and Totsuka, N., 2002, “Influence of Interaction Between Mul- 83–84.

tiple Cracks on Stress Corrosion Crack Propagation,” Corros. Sci., 44, pp. 关27兴 American Petroleum Institute, 2000, “Fitness-for-Service API 579,” Washing-

2333–2352. ton, D.C., USA.

关25兴 Kamaya, M., 2003, “A Crack Growth Evaluation Method for Multiple Inter- 关28兴 British Standards Institution, 2005, “Guide to Methods for Assessing the Ac-

acting Cracks,” JSME Int. J., Ser. A, 46, pp. 15–23. ceptability of Flaws in Metallic Structures BS 7910,” London, UK.

- A Review of the Time Dependent Behaviour of Line Pipe SteelEnviado porPrakhar Deep Kulshreshtha
- SICE 2018 Conference_proceedingsEnviado porMathew John
- Strut and TieEnviado porrajivkannan
- Liftinglug calculatorEnviado porFareedMohmed
- A Step by Step Introduction to FEA.docxEnviado porMas Arman Tewo
- A Quantitative Analysis of the Effect of Interface Delamination on the Fracture Behavior and Toughness of Multilayered Propylene–Ethylene Copolymer_low Density Polyethylene Films by the Essential Work of Fracture (EWF)Enviado porDiego Adalberto Campos
- Exam paper RGPV mmpd first semEnviado pormayuresh_6767
- m.techEnviado porNALLANKI RAJA KUMAR
- Crack Band model.pptEnviado porsorna
- (246538993) ASTM A938Enviado porUziel Noguéz Hernández
- 1-s2.0-S0029549310001573-mainEnviado porKee-Hyeon Cho
- Numerical modelling of masonry wall response to blast loads.pdfEnviado porAnonymous atZc0NC
- Paper Uji TarikEnviado porEdo Destrada
- Crack BonesEnviado porAdel Abdel-ghaffar
- SFRCEnviado porthejaswigowri
- Fatigue 1Enviado porviluk
- Fracture MechanicsEnviado porjvanandh
- 3-14Enviado porpitoulabete
- 6guru sharan et al.pdfEnviado porGuru Sharan
- lec 3Enviado porZaid Yahya
- The Stregth, Fracture Toughnees and Low Cycle 17-4PH.pdfEnviado porLarissa
- - Modelling of Primary Fragmentation in Block Caving Mines Using a FiEnviado porÁlvaro Andrés Pérez Lara
- Karami&Fenner(1986)Enviado porElizabeth Santiago
- 163.fullEnviado poralfierelor
- 1-s2.0-S2214785315004654-mainEnviado porRidzky Ramdhani
- 253Enviado porhossamkamal
- Artigo - Li (1998) - Feasibility Study of a Passive Smart Self-healingEnviado porAdilson Gonçalves
- Simulations of Crack Propagation in Elastic–PlasticEnviado poramir
- 279LAB3Enviado porShahriar Norouzi Zadeh
- A-04-2Enviado porSebastian Alejandro Bazaes

- 0000 Design by Optimization of an Axial-Flux Permanent-Magnet Synchronous MotorEnviado porAnonymous hWj4HKIDOF
- 11783393Enviado pornguyen kien
- 14.Materials Science and Engineering.pdfEnviado pors_manikandan
- Dynamic Roll to RollEnviado porstaticfactory9281
- FE Tech IndiaEnviado porwankash17
- The Impact of Deep Foundations of Building Structures on the Neighbouring Buildings a Static AnalysisEnviado porWendirad Beshada
- Seminar ReportEnviado porNitish Kumar
- Simplified Solution for Elliptical BodiesEnviado pormans2014
- isogrid structuresEnviado porlalagandu
- Design and Construction of CFST in JapanEnviado porReaditReadit
- Structural Analysis of Trailer SkidEnviado porMehul Patel
- Pipe Support Attachment Wrc AnalysisEnviado porkalpeshbnd
- Some Soultions (CH.1-CH4)Enviado portmac011
- Code conversion FEM - XFEMEnviado porjacobess
- Ansys14 Lecture 1 - IntroductionEnviado porbrandon999
- A Transient BEM for Room AcousticsEnviado porLuis de Freitas
- SoilWorks - IntroductionEnviado porMichael Diaz Reyes
- KANNUR UNIVERSITY BTech S8 CE. SyllabusEnviado porManu K M
- AeronauticalEnviado porJustin Lou
- Pde ToolEnviado porAbiola T Obembe
- 3D Analysis of Soft Soil Consolidation Improved by Prefabricated Vertical DrainsEnviado porAnonymous TifDvs9A9
- Lyamin y Sloan, 2002a.pdfEnviado porMarco Antonio Serrano Ortega
- Coupled Structual Thermal Analysis of Disc BrakeEnviado porInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- APEGBC Eng Syllabus Structural (1)Enviado porKenaia Adeleye
- Reddy 3e Chapter 6Enviado porAnonymous ya6gBBwHJF
- ABAQUS Optimization DocumentEnviado porJong Kook Kim
- woyakEnviado porklomps_jr
- Curriculum MTech Mechanical ManufacturingEnviado porYesi Ramirez
- Design of protective structure of operator cabin against falling object (FOPS)Enviado porsaravananjai
- ANSYS- Modeling meshing Workbook JULY 2005Enviado porHakki Aata