A comparison of various fracture toughness testing methods

✍ Scribed by Susil K. Putatunda

• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Year: 1986
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 971 KB
• Volume: 25
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0013-7944
• DOI: 10.1016/0013-7944(86)90257-2

✦ Synopsis

comparative study of the various fracture toughness test methods and estimation procedures has been carried out. The fracture toughness of AISI 4340 steel has been determined by several methods, i.e. (i) JR curve, (ii) 6, curve, (iii) K, curve, (iv) stretch zone size measurements (v) non-linear energy method of Poulose et al. and by (vi) a new procedure proposed recently by Banerjee. Compact tension specimens with TL orientation have been used. All the specimens used satisfied the ASTM E813 test size requirements. Applicability of various fracture toughness estimation procedures like (i) Hanhn and Rosenfield, (ii) Rolfe and Barsom and (iii) equivalent energy rate method of Bucci et al. have been examined. These values have been compared with true fracture toughness of the material obtained by ASTM E399 test procedure. Comparison of various conventional test methods indicate multiple specimen 6, curve method gives most consistent results and these values are within + 15% of the true fracture toughness value. Out of all estimation procedures

Rolfe and Barsom's method appears to be best, giving &. number within +8% of the true fracture toughness value. Non-linear energy method was found to give a fracture toughness value consistent with true fracture toughness of the material.