Objective comparison of the Unified Curve and Master Curve methods

Kim Wallin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Unified Curve and the Master Curve are two popular cleavage fracture toughness assessment engineering methods. The methods are very similar. They basically differ only in the assumed fracture toughness temperature dependence. The standard Master Curve approximates the temperature dependence as being fixed, whereas the Unified Curve assumes that the shape changes as a function of transition temperature. The shape difference becomes significant only for highly brittle steels. Previous comparisons of the two methods have applied a procedure that may cause a bias on the comparison when assessing censored data sets. Here, a fully objective comparison using the censored likelihood, have been made for 50 large data sets with transition temperatures in the range +8 °C ... +179 °C. The standard Master Curve shows overall a trend of higher likelihood than the Unified Curve. It is also shown that, because of shortages connected to the use of the Prometey probabilistic cleavage fracture model, the Unified Curve cannot be considered universally applicable.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-40
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
Volume122
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Superconducting transition temperature
Fracture toughness
Steel
Temperature

Keywords

  • master curve method
  • unified curve method
  • brittle fractures
  • WST model
  • Prometey model

Cite this

@article{454063c425714002b2d95be0ae67e13a,
title = "Objective comparison of the Unified Curve and Master Curve methods",
abstract = "The Unified Curve and the Master Curve are two popular cleavage fracture toughness assessment engineering methods. The methods are very similar. They basically differ only in the assumed fracture toughness temperature dependence. The standard Master Curve approximates the temperature dependence as being fixed, whereas the Unified Curve assumes that the shape changes as a function of transition temperature. The shape difference becomes significant only for highly brittle steels. Previous comparisons of the two methods have applied a procedure that may cause a bias on the comparison when assessing censored data sets. Here, a fully objective comparison using the censored likelihood, have been made for 50 large data sets with transition temperatures in the range +8 °C ... +179 °C. The standard Master Curve shows overall a trend of higher likelihood than the Unified Curve. It is also shown that, because of shortages connected to the use of the Prometey probabilistic cleavage fracture model, the Unified Curve cannot be considered universally applicable.",
keywords = "master curve method, unified curve method, brittle fractures, WST model, Prometey model",
author = "Kim Wallin",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.07.008",
language = "English",
volume = "122",
pages = "31--40",
journal = "International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping",
issn = "0308-0161",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Objective comparison of the Unified Curve and Master Curve methods. / Wallin, Kim.

In: International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, Vol. 122, 2014, p. 31-40.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Objective comparison of the Unified Curve and Master Curve methods

AU - Wallin, Kim

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The Unified Curve and the Master Curve are two popular cleavage fracture toughness assessment engineering methods. The methods are very similar. They basically differ only in the assumed fracture toughness temperature dependence. The standard Master Curve approximates the temperature dependence as being fixed, whereas the Unified Curve assumes that the shape changes as a function of transition temperature. The shape difference becomes significant only for highly brittle steels. Previous comparisons of the two methods have applied a procedure that may cause a bias on the comparison when assessing censored data sets. Here, a fully objective comparison using the censored likelihood, have been made for 50 large data sets with transition temperatures in the range +8 °C ... +179 °C. The standard Master Curve shows overall a trend of higher likelihood than the Unified Curve. It is also shown that, because of shortages connected to the use of the Prometey probabilistic cleavage fracture model, the Unified Curve cannot be considered universally applicable.

AB - The Unified Curve and the Master Curve are two popular cleavage fracture toughness assessment engineering methods. The methods are very similar. They basically differ only in the assumed fracture toughness temperature dependence. The standard Master Curve approximates the temperature dependence as being fixed, whereas the Unified Curve assumes that the shape changes as a function of transition temperature. The shape difference becomes significant only for highly brittle steels. Previous comparisons of the two methods have applied a procedure that may cause a bias on the comparison when assessing censored data sets. Here, a fully objective comparison using the censored likelihood, have been made for 50 large data sets with transition temperatures in the range +8 °C ... +179 °C. The standard Master Curve shows overall a trend of higher likelihood than the Unified Curve. It is also shown that, because of shortages connected to the use of the Prometey probabilistic cleavage fracture model, the Unified Curve cannot be considered universally applicable.

KW - master curve method

KW - unified curve method

KW - brittle fractures

KW - WST model

KW - Prometey model

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.07.008

DO - 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2014.07.008

M3 - Article

VL - 122

SP - 31

EP - 40

JO - International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

JF - International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping

SN - 0308-0161

ER -