¤¤¤åºK­n¡G

¥»¬ã¨s¥D¦®¦b±´°Q¨ü¤ºÀ£®e¾¹©Îºc¥óªºJ­È¦ôºâ¤èªk¡A¥H¨ãªí­±µõÁ_¨üÂù¶b©Ô¤O¥­ªO¬°¬ã¨s¼Ò«¬¡Aµû¦ô¥H°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤O¸Ñ¬°°ò¦ªºJ­È¦ôºâ¼Ò¦¡ªº¾A¥Î©Ê¡C¤ñ¸û¨Ã§ä¥X¾A·íªº°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤O¸Ñ¡A°t¦X¦³¨t²Îªº¤Tºû¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªRªºÅçÃÒ¡A­«·s­×¥¿°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤O¸Ñ¥H²Å¦X¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªRµ²ªG¡C¨Ã±´°Q°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤Oªk¦ô­pJ­È®Éªº¾A¥Î½d³ò¤Î¦U°Ñ¼Æ(¦p¨ü¤O¤ñ£f¡BµõÁ_²`«×¤ña/t¡BµõÁ_§Îª¬°Ñ¼Æa/c¡BµõÁ_«e½t¦ì¸m¹ïÀ³ªº¨¤«×£pµ¥)¹ï¨ä¦ô­p·Ç½T©Êªº¼vÅT¡C

¬ã¨sµ²ªGÅã¥Ü¤£¦PªºÂù¶b¨ü¤O¤ñ(£f)·|¼vÅT°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤O¸Ñ»P¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªR¸Ñªº²Å¦Xµ{«×¡A»Ý­×¥¿°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤O¸Ñ¡C¥»¬ã¨s´£¥X¹ï£f=0.5¤Î1.0¤§Âù¶b¦V¨ü¤O­×¥¿¦]¼Æ£b¡A¸g­×¥¿«á¤GªÌ±o¨ì¨}¦nªº¤@­P©Ê¡C¥t¥Ñ¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªRµ²ªGµo²{¡AÀHµÛ­t²ü¤ñ¼W¥[¡A¤£¦PµõÁ_´X¦ó°Ñ¼Æ²Õ¦X¤UªºJ/Je­È³vº¥Â÷´²¡AµõÁ_§Îª¬°Ñ¼Æa/c­È¬O³y¦¨Â÷´²ªº­ì¦]¡A¦Ó­t²ü¤ñ»P§÷®Æµw¤Æ«ü¼Æ(n)ªº¼W¥[¡AÂX¤j¤FÂ÷´²ªº´T«×¡C¾ãÅé¦Ó¨¥©ó­t²ü¤ñ¡Ø1.25®É»P¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªR­È³Ì¤j®t²§¶q¤£¶W¹L20%¡C

¹ïªí­±µõÁ_¦Ó¨¥¡AµõÁ_«e½t¦U¦ì¸m¤§J­È§¡¤£¬Û¦P¡A°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤Oªk¹ïªñªí­±ÂI»PµõÁ_«e½t¦U¦ì¸mªºJ­È¦ôºâ¥ç¯à»P¦³­­¤¸¯À¤ÀªRµ²ªG§k¦X¡A¦ý¹ï©óªí­±ÂI(£p=0o)¦ì¸m¡AŲ©óªí­±ÂI¤O³õªº½ÆÂø©Ê¡A°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤Oªk¨Ã¤£¾A¥Î©óªí­±ÂIJ­Èªº¦ôºâ¡C

¸g¬ã¨sµ²ªGÃÒ¹ê°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤Oªk¥iÀ³¥Î©ó¤£¦PÀ³Åܵw¤Æ«ü¼Æªº§÷®Æ¡A°Ñ¦ÒÀ³¤Oªk±NJ­È¦ôºâ¹Lµ{²¤Æ¦¨¼Æ­Ó¤èµ{¦¡¡A¤£»Ý¨Ï¥Î¦±½uÂà¤Æ¤Î¬dªí¤º´¡µ¥©ö²£¥Í»~®tªº¹Bºâ¡A¬O¥i¼sªx¨Ï¥Î¥B²«KªºJ­È¦ôºâ¤u¨ã¡C

 


Abstract¡G

In this study, different J-estimation methods for a surface-cracked plate under biaxial tension are compared and the applicability of the reference stress approach is also evaluated. Systematic 3-D finite element analyses (FEAs) are performed for determining the best reference stress solution and providing the guidance for modification of the reference stress approach. The limit of the application for the reference stress approach was investigated and the effects of the parameters such as biaxial ratio (£f), relative crack depth (a/t), aspect ratio (a/c), and the angle related to the position along the semi-elliptical crack front (£p) are discussed.

Results showed that the biaxial ratio has certain effects on the agreement between the reference stress approach predictions and FEA results. After being modified by a modification factor £b,ƒnthe reference stress approach showed much better estimates of the J value. The FEA results indicated that the estimated value of J/Je scattered as the load ratio increased. The scattering was attributed to the effects of aspect ratio (a/c) and enlarged with increasing load ratio and strain-hardening exponent. However, for all cases considered, the differences between the reference stress approach and FEA in J-estimation are less than 20% for load ratios below 1.25.

For surface-cracked component, the non-linear J distribution along the crack front may be different. The proposed reference stress approach in this study provided good estimations of the J-integral not only at the near surface point but also at an arbitrary point along the crack front. Due to the complication of crack tip stress field at the surface point (£p = 0), the J-estimation approach proposed here was considered as unsuitable for the surface point.

Results showed the proposed reference stress approach of J-estimation were also applicable to the cracked components with different strain hardening exponent values. The reference stress approach provided the J estimates in closed-form equations without using the curve-fitting process or interpolation. Apparently, such an approach provides a simplified and comprehensive engineering tool for J-estimation.