PSI - Issue 28

B.W. Williams et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1024–1038 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1032

9

5. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Response 5.1. Quasi-Static Response at Room Temperature

The predicted and measured force versus deflection responses for the quasi-static and dynamic cases at 24 °C are compared in Figure 7. The dynamic prediction shows good agreement with the measured data until about 10 mm of deflection, after which there is an under-prediction of the response. Gesing et al. (2016) suggests that this is possibly due to a larger share of the fracture energy being associated with initiation, and not propagation, in the Charpy test. It might also be attributed to the inability of the MMC model to accurately capture shear lips that form during Charpy testing. Figure 8 shows that no shear lips were captured in the Charpy simulations but rather flat, tunneling fracture.

Figure 7: Predicted vs. measured Charpy responses for TC128B at room temperature; quasi-static and dynamic

Figure 8: Contours of damage predicted in the dynamic, 24 °C Charpy simulation