PSI - Issue 2_A

I Varfolomeev et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 2 (2016) 761–768 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2016) 000–000

766

6

1.6

2.5

uncorrected m = 5

1.4

m = 10 m = 15

2.0

1.2

1.0

1.5

0.8

K r [-]

K r [-]

1.0

0.6

T = -120 °C

0.4

0° 90°

0.5

0.2

m=5, correct ed, max value m=10, correct ed, max value

T = -90 °C

0.0

0.0

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

L r [-]

L r [-]

(a) (b) Fig. 1. Application of the R6/FITNET method to two sets of fracture test data while varying Weibull modulus. (a) M(T) specimens ( ܽȀܹ ൌ ͲǤͷ ), material 22NiMoCr3-7, test temperatures -120°C and -90°C, data from Hohe et al. (2007); (b) SC(T) specimens, material D6AC, room temperature, data from ESA-TRP (2011-2012).

2.5

2.0

uncorrected R6/FITNET IST

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

K r [-]

K r [-]

1.0

uncorrect ed, R6/FITNET uncorrect ed, IST R6/FITNET, m = 10 IST, m = 10

0.5

T = -120 °C

0.5

T = -90 °C

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

L r [-]

L r [-]

(a) (b) Fig. 2. Comparison of the R6/FITNET and IST methods at ݉ ൌ ͳͲ : (a) M(T) specimens ( ܽȀܹ ൌ ͲǤͷ ), material 22NiMoCr3-7, data from Hohe et al. (2007); (b) example according to Cicero et al. (2010): SC(T) specimens, steel SR355JR, test temperature -90°C. Fig. 2(b) shows the application of both methods to the fracture test data reported in Cicero et al. (2010). This example demonstrates, in particular, the effect of the crack front length which is currently differently treated within R6 (2013), FITNET (2008) and ISO 27306 (2009). For the semi-elliptical crack with the depth of ܽ ൌ ͷ mm and