PSI - Issue 5

Yoichi Kayamori et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 5 (2017) 279–285 Yoichi Kayamori et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2017) 000 – 000

284

6

In addition, m was slightly changed with  /  y and  /  y c . Accordingly, the relation between Y/T and the range of m was investigated, and a linear regression line was given by the following equation, as shown in Fig.3.

m 3.4 1.6 /   

Y T

(10)

Another Y/T vs. m line for small scale yielding (2014) was also written in the figure. Eq.(10) widely gave closer m values to the analytically obtained m range than the line for small scale yielding.  was finally calculated by using the design curve of Eqs.(9a) and (9b), where m was given by Eq.(10). The relationships between  /  y c and  /  y are shown in Fig.4, in which analytical results by FEA are also shown for reference. Estimated plots of  /  y c vs.  /  y by the design curve were closely located to their analytically obtained plots by FEA, which were affected by Y/T .

Fig. 3 Relationship between the dimensionless constraint factor, m , and the yield to tensile ratio, Y/T .

Fig. 4 Relationship between the non-dimensional CTOD,  /  y c , and the local strain ratio,  /  y .