International Journal of Fracture

, Volume 88, Issue 2, pp 129–152 | Cite as

Development of residual strength evaluation tool based on stress-strain approximation

  • Petar Agatonovic


To allow for a safe design of metallic structures, it must be considered that, as a result of the manufacturing and processing operations, cracks or flaws below the NDI (Non-Destructive Inspection) detectability level always exist in the component after inspection. Further problems originate from the defect geometry. Failure of engineering structural components and structures have been mostly traced to surface cracks. Especially for a surface crack containing structure that is thin, the limit collapse of a ligament is usually the main cause of structure rupture. Study of the evaluation procedure relating to the limit load of the surface crack ligament is, therefore, an important project for conventional fracture assessment, particularly for pressure vessel (LBB) assessment. For this purpose, novel more accurate residual strength prediction method based on the Elasto-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) has been developed and tested. Laboratory tests on tensile plate specimens with surface cracks were performed considering two different materials. In the final part of the work, effort was directed toward the verification and justification of selected analytical methods by adequate component testing. The most significant results of this work deal with residual strength evaluation for the thin wall pressure containing components. The important finding is that there is a potential for improvement in comparison to the current methods that may be used to increase payoff of the lightweight structures. The presented very robust analysis method and the useful structure integrity evaluation procedure should significantly contribute to the state-of-the-art structure optimisation and being applied to the design of the light-weight structures should ease the effort of the structure engineer to develop the successful and reliable hardware and to keep in place with advancing technologies.

Safety assessment residual strength surface cracks non-linear fracture mechanics. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agatonovic, P. (1987). Inelastic strain and creep fatigue life prediction for tubular component details using numerical simulation. Creep and Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures (Edited by B. Wilshire and R.W. Evans), Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference Swansea, U.K., The Institute of Metals, London.Google Scholar
  2. Agatonovic, P. and Windisch, M. (1990). Nonlinear fracture analysis of specimens and components with surface cracks. Numerical Methods in Fracture Mechanics (Edited by A.R. Luxmoore) Peneridge Press Limited, Swansea, 597–610.Google Scholar
  3. Agatonovic, P. and Windisch, M. (1990). Anwendung kleiner proben mit oberflächeriß zur vorhersage der tragfähigkeit von rißbehafteten bauteilen. Vorträge der Tagung DVM Werkstoffprüfung 250, 597–610.Google Scholar
  4. Agatonovic, P. and Windisch, M. (1991). Role of combined numerical and experimental investigation in the justification of the structural integrity and damage tolerance of space structures. Procedure of International Conference of Spacecraft Structures and Mechanical Testing, ESA SP-321, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 679–685.Google Scholar
  5. Agatonovic, P. and Henriksen, T.K. (1996). Development of residual strength prediction tools for the structure integrity of launchers based on elasto-plastic fracture mechanics. Procedure of Conference on Spacecraft Structures, Materials and Mechanical Testing, Noordwijk, The Netherlands (ESA SP-386), pp. 389–398.Google Scholar
  6. Agatonovic, P., Kordisch, H. and Sommer, E. (1989). Justification of dimensioning criteria for a rocket motor case using fracture mechanics. Element of Defect Assessment, European Symposium on EPFM, Freiburg.Google Scholar
  7. ASTM-E-740. Standard practice for fracture testing with surface-crack tension specimens.Google Scholar
  8. ESA Contract 9934/92 (1995). Final Report, MAN Technologie AG.Google Scholar
  9. Landes, J.D. (1994). The effect of constraints on fracture safe design. ECF10-Structural Integrity: Experiments, Model and Application, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
  10. Milne, I. et al. (1988). Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 32, 3–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Newman, J.C. and Raju, I.S. (1983). Stress-intensity factor equation for cracks in three-dimensional finite bodies. ASTM STP 791, pp. I-238–I-265.Google Scholar
  12. Oberparleiter, W. and Agatonovic, P. (1986). Creep crack growth and fatigue crack propagation of IN 800 H at 830 C. Fracture Control of Engineering Structures (Edited by H.C. van Elst and A. Bakker), Proceedings 6th Bienal European Conference on Fracture (ECF6) in Amsterdam (Holland).Google Scholar
  13. Read D.T. and McHenry, H.I. (1990). Postweld heat treatment criteria for repair welds in 2.25 Cr-1Mo Superheater headers. The Application of Fracture Mechanics to Life Estimation of Power Plant Components (Edited by S. Sedmak), EMAS.Google Scholar
  14. Sih, G.C. (1985). Mechanics and physics of energy density theory. Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics 4, 157–173.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zarzour, J.F. et al. (1993). Loss of Crack-Tip Constraints for Shallow Cracks in Bending, JMEPEG 2(6), 867–872.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petar Agatonovic
    • 1
  1. 1.RöhrmosGermany

Personalised recommendations