Residual Stresses in Beams (With and Without Prior History) Numerically Assessed by the Crack Compliance Method
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract: This work assesses the Crack Compliance Method (CCM) by the Finite Element Method (FEM). The CCM is a very powerful method that is based on Fracture Mechanics Theory. Its experimental application and set up is validated by this work. The numerical assessment of the CCM is performed on bending beams with and without prior straining history, to determine the best position and orientation of strain gauges, as well as the optimum number of readings. The prior straining history condition, in the analyzed components, is induced by an axial pulling before the beam is bent. Three levels of preloading are considered: low, medium and high (which are related to the yield strain of the simulated material); Isotropic and Kinematic hardening rules are also considered. Additionally, an experimental evaluation is also presented by introducing a new supporting system to cut a slot in the beams. The results obtained in this work, provide a quantitative demonstration of the effect of hardening strain on the distribution of the residual stress in beams. In the same manner, the theoretical formulation of the CCM has been evaluated validating the application of this method for the determination of residual stress fields in mechanical components.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fatigue and fracture mechanics · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. Changes of the elastic limit and the modulus of elasticity on various metals
2. Bauschinger J.(1886)On the changes of the elastic limit and strength of iron and steel by drawing out by heating and cooling and by repetition of loading Mittheilungen aus dem mechanischen technischen laboratoriumder k Hochschule in Munchen 1–115.
3. 10.1243/03093247JSA16510.1243/03093247JSA165 ↗
4. Measurements of residual stresses through the thickness of a strip using the crack compliance method
5. Urriolagoitia‐Sosa G. · 2005 · 130
6. 10.1115/1.309892610.1115/1.3098926 ↗
7. Wadsley N. · 1994
8. 10.1115/1.322579910.1115/1.3225799 ↗
9. Schindler H. J. · 1997 · 509
10. 10.1115/1.322586410.1115/1.3225864 ↗
11. 10.1243/030932400151441310.1243/0309324001514413 ↗
12. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.347-349.15010.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.347-349.150 ↗
13. 10.1046/j.1475-1305.2003.00085.x10.1046/j.1475-1305.2003.00085.x ↗
14. Prime M. B. Rangaswamy P.andBourke M. A. M.(2000)Measuring spatial variation of residual stresses in a MMC using crack compliance 7th International Conference on Composites Engineering 711–712.
15. Cheng W. · 1994 · 449
16. 10.1007/978-1-349-16598-810.1007/978-1-349-16598-8 ↗
17. 10.1007/BF0231741810.1007/BF02317418 ↗
18. 10.1243/03093247V24102310.1243/03093247V241023 ↗
19. Wu X. R. · 1991
20. Press W. H. · 1987
21. ABAQUS Version 6.3 Standard user’s manual II 2002.
22. Gere J. M.andTimoshenko S. P.(1997)Mechanics of materials PWS.
23. Schindler H. J.andBertschinger P.(1997)Some steps towards automation of the crack compliance method to measure residual stress distribution 5th Int. Conf. on residual stresses June 16–18 Linköping Sweden 682–687.
24. Prime M. B.(2003)Experimental procedure for crack compliance (slitting) measurements of residual stress Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA‐UR‐03‐8629 1–6.