Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes

The purpose of this article is to compare two predictive methods of <i>J</i> integral assessments for center-cracked plates, single-edge cracked plates and double-edge cracked plates produced from X52 and X70 steels, and a longitudinally cracked pipe produced from X70 steel. The two meth...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ľubomír Gajdoš, Martin Šperl, Jan Bayer, Jiří Kuželka
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-08-01
Series:Materials
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/15/4324
id doaj-7ba3e4435ecf4f75a9186ae895300d53
record_format Article
spelling doaj-7ba3e4435ecf4f75a9186ae895300d532021-08-06T15:28:05ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442021-08-01144324432410.3390/ma14154324Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and PipesĽubomír Gajdoš0Martin Šperl1Jan Bayer2Jiří Kuželka3Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, v. v. i. Prosecká 809/76, 190 00 Prague, Czech RepublicInstitute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, v. v. i. Prosecká 809/76, 190 00 Prague, Czech RepublicInstitute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, v. v. i. Prosecká 809/76, 190 00 Prague, Czech RepublicFaculty of Mechanical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 4, 166 07 Prague, Czech RepublicThe purpose of this article is to compare two predictive methods of <i>J</i> integral assessments for center-cracked plates, single-edge cracked plates and double-edge cracked plates produced from X52 and X70 steels, and a longitudinally cracked pipe produced from X70 steel. The two methods examined are: the GSM method and the <i>J<sub>s</sub></i> procedure of the French RCC-MR construction code, designated here as the FC method. The accuracy of <i>J</i> integral predictions by these methods is visualized by comparing the results obtained with the “reference” values calculated by the EPRI method. The main results showed that both methods yielded similar <i>J</i> integral values, although in most cases, the GSM predictions were slightly more conservative than the FC predictions. In comparison with the “reference” values of the <i>J</i> integral, both methods provided conservative results for most crack configurations, although the estimates for cracks of a relative length smaller than 1/8 were not found to be so conservative. The prediction of burst pressures for external longitudinal semielliptical part-through cracks in X70 steel pipe showed that the magnitudes of predicted burst pressures came very close to each other, and were conservative compared to FEM (finite element method) calculations and experimentally determined burst pressures.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/15/4324crackstress intensity factor<i>J</i> integralstress concentrationstrain energy densityRamberg–Osgood relation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ľubomír Gajdoš
Martin Šperl
Jan Bayer
Jiří Kuželka
spellingShingle Ľubomír Gajdoš
Martin Šperl
Jan Bayer
Jiří Kuželka
Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
Materials
crack
stress intensity factor
<i>J</i> integral
stress concentration
strain energy density
Ramberg–Osgood relation
author_facet Ľubomír Gajdoš
Martin Šperl
Jan Bayer
Jiří Kuželka
author_sort Ľubomír Gajdoš
title Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
title_short Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
title_full Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
title_fullStr Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of <i>J</i> Integral Assessments for Cracked Plates and Pipes
title_sort comparison of <i>j</i> integral assessments for cracked plates and pipes
publisher MDPI AG
series Materials
issn 1996-1944
publishDate 2021-08-01
description The purpose of this article is to compare two predictive methods of <i>J</i> integral assessments for center-cracked plates, single-edge cracked plates and double-edge cracked plates produced from X52 and X70 steels, and a longitudinally cracked pipe produced from X70 steel. The two methods examined are: the GSM method and the <i>J<sub>s</sub></i> procedure of the French RCC-MR construction code, designated here as the FC method. The accuracy of <i>J</i> integral predictions by these methods is visualized by comparing the results obtained with the “reference” values calculated by the EPRI method. The main results showed that both methods yielded similar <i>J</i> integral values, although in most cases, the GSM predictions were slightly more conservative than the FC predictions. In comparison with the “reference” values of the <i>J</i> integral, both methods provided conservative results for most crack configurations, although the estimates for cracks of a relative length smaller than 1/8 were not found to be so conservative. The prediction of burst pressures for external longitudinal semielliptical part-through cracks in X70 steel pipe showed that the magnitudes of predicted burst pressures came very close to each other, and were conservative compared to FEM (finite element method) calculations and experimentally determined burst pressures.
topic crack
stress intensity factor
<i>J</i> integral
stress concentration
strain energy density
Ramberg–Osgood relation
url https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/14/15/4324
work_keys_str_mv AT lubomirgajdos comparisonofijiintegralassessmentsforcrackedplatesandpipes
AT martinsperl comparisonofijiintegralassessmentsforcrackedplatesandpipes
AT janbayer comparisonofijiintegralassessmentsforcrackedplatesandpipes
AT jirikuzelka comparisonofijiintegralassessmentsforcrackedplatesandpipes
_version_ 1721217934970322944