4.4 Article

On fracture resistance parameter from non-standard fracture test specimens of titanium alloy

期刊

SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 177-185

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2012.741809

关键词

fracture resistance; fracture toughness; submersible structures; ductility; titanium alloys; constraint

资金

  1. High-tech 863 program under the project of 'Development of a 4500 m deep manned submersible' [2009AA093303]
  2. Fourth Term of '333 Engineering' Program of Jiangsu Province under the project of 'Fatigue and fracture performance of domestically produced high strength titanium alloys for the 4500 m deep manned pressure hull' [BRA2011116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current available design rules of submersible structures from ship classification societies are based on the philosophy of strength design. As a supplement, damage tolerant design becomes an important consideration in avoiding the catastrophic failure caused by material defects. Titanium alloys with relatively high ductility are widely used in pressure hull of submersibles nowadays. Much work should be devoted to systematic investigation of the fracture properties evaluation for candidate titanium alloys for submersible structures. Traditional fracture toughness test with normal specimen size may not give reliable fracture resistance value. More applicable non-standard specimens can be designed for engineering purpose. Then the establishment of a reliable fracture resistance parameter from the non-standard fracture test specimen for fracture ductility evaluation is necessary. The present work is to primarily study the potential proper fracture resistance parameters for ductile titanium alloys. Series of non-standard specimens of Ti80 are designed for the test and analysis. Thickness effect is specifically investigated using specimens with similar ligament size. Some fundamental proposals are accordingly brought forward for ductility evaluation of titanium alloys used in submersible structures.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据