Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Critical Flaw Size in ARES I-X Flange-to-Skin Welds

摘要

NASA's Ares 1 Upper Stage Simulator (USS) is being fabricated from welded A516 steel. In order to insure the structural integrity of these welds it is of interest to calculate the critical initial flaw size (CIFS) to establish rational inspection requirements. The CIFS is in turn dependent on the critical final flaw size (CFS), as well as fatigue flaw growth resulting from transportation, handling and service-induced loading. These calculations were made using linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM), which are thought to be conservative because they are based on a lower bound, so called elastic, fracture toughness determined from tests that displayed significant plasticity. Nevertheless, there was still concern that the yield magnitude stresses generated in the flange-to-skin weld by the combination of axial stresses due to axial forces, fit-up stresses, and weld residual stresses, could give rise to significant flaw-tip plasticity, which might render the LEFM results to be non-conservative. The objective of the present study was to employ Elastic Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) to determine CFS values, and then compare these values to CFS values evaluated using LEFM. CFS values were calculated for twelve cases involving surface and embedded flaws, EPFM analyses with and without plastic shakedown of the stresses, LEFM analyses, and various welding residual stress distributions. For the cases examined, the computed CFS values based on elastic analyses were the smallest in all instances where the failures were predicted to be controlled by the fracture toughness. However, in certain cases, the CFS values predicted by the elastic-plastic analyses were smaller than those predicted by the elastic analyses; in these cases the failure criteria were determined by a breakdown in stress intensity factor validity limits for deep flaws (a greater than 0.90t), rather than by the fracture toughness. Plastic relaxation of stresses accompanying shakedown always increases the calculated CFS values compared to the CFS values determined without shakedown. Thus, it is conservative to ignore shakedown effects.