Comparison of potential drop and unloading compliance methods in determining ductile crack extension

Kim Wallin, Timo Saario, Pertti Auerkari, Heikki Saarelma, Kari Törrönen

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter or book articleScientificpeer-review

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Two different methods, the unloading compliance and the AC-potential drop method have been applied simultaneously for crack length measurement during ductile crack extension in J-R curve determinations. The materials used in the comparison of the two test methods were a pressure vessel steel A533B C1.1 (Unified Numbering System [UNI] K12539), a comparable weldment, and a carbon-manganese steel OX522D weld. Specimen geometries used were 25-mm compact tension (ITCT) and 15-mm three-point bend (3PB), respectively.

    The two methods applied give consistent results for the amount of crack extension. However, the location of the potential minimum is dependent upon material, specimen geometry, temperature, frequency and current. This leads to the conclusion that the ACPD method fails to indicate the initiation of ductile crack extension correctly. Reasons for this are discussed.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationElastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods
    Subtitle of host publicationThe User's Experience
    EditorsE.T. Wessel, F.J. Loss
    Place of PublicationPhiladelphia
    PublisherAmerican Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
    Pages363-374
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1985
    MoE publication typeA3 Part of a book or another research book

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of potential drop and unloading compliance methods in determining ductile crack extension'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this