Jq from ASTM E1820, Relation to Assumed Elastic Modulus
Jq from ASTM E1820, Relation to Assumed Elastic Modulus
(OP)
Jq from ASTM 1820, Relation to Elastic Modulus
I have a set of fracture toughness test data from a vendor.
The initial submittal used an inappropriate (too high) elastic modulus.
The data was resubmitted after being evaluated using a lower modulus.
Both Jq and Kjq decreased with the lower assumed modulus. I can see why Kjq would decrease with decreasing elastic modulus. But why would Jq decrease? Annex 9 of ASTM E1820 was used.
Thanks,
Mark
I have a set of fracture toughness test data from a vendor.
The initial submittal used an inappropriate (too high) elastic modulus.
The data was resubmitted after being evaluated using a lower modulus.
Both Jq and Kjq decreased with the lower assumed modulus. I can see why Kjq would decrease with decreasing elastic modulus. But why would Jq decrease? Annex 9 of ASTM E1820 was used.
Thanks,
Mark
RE: Jq from ASTM E1820, Relation to Assumed Elastic Modulus
Regards,
Cory
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
RE: Jq from ASTM E1820, Relation to Assumed Elastic Modulus
Is there a simple way to estimate a new J for a different modulus assumption?
RE: Jq from ASTM E1820, Relation to Assumed Elastic Modulus
For example, if you originally had data calculated with E = 210 GPa (modulus for ferritic steel), but it really was E = 200 GPa (modulus for austenitic steel, a 5% difference), then Jel will vary by about 5%.
But, if you originally used E = 200 GPa (steel), but the material is aluminum with E = 70 GPa, then the Jel difference is 65%.
Regards,
Cory
Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.