# Yield Load Solutions for SE(B) Fracture Toughness Specimen with I-Shaped Heterogeneous Weld

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{YW}and σ

_{YB}represent the yield strength of the weld metal and the yield strength of the base metal (BM), respectively, while M < 1 refers to under-matching (UM) and M > 1 to over-matching (OM).

## 2. Problem Description and Investigation Plan

## 3. Finite Element Analysis

_{OM}= 2, 1.5 and 1.19 and under-match metal with mismatch factor M

_{UM}= 0.86, 0.75 and 0.5. Yield strength and mismatch factors M

_{UM}= 0.86 and M

_{OM}= 1.19 were chosen due to later comparison to experimental results.

## 4. Results of Finite Element Analysis

#### 4.1. Yield Load Solutions for a Crack in the Over-Matched Part of the Weld

_{UM}. Therefore, the solutions were the values 0.5, 0.75 and 0.86 because the dominant metal is in front of the crack. Although the solutions were these values, it is noticeable that they are actually slightly larger, which is a consequence of the formation of the yield zone partially through the over-matched metal too, which has a higher value of the mismatch factor M

_{OM}.

_{OM}= 1.19 and M

_{UM}= 0.86.

_{OM}and M

_{UM}differ significantly, while the solutions for combinations of metals with closer values of M

_{OM}and M

_{UM}approach the values of 1 of the base metal. For example, for the combination of metals M

_{OM}= 2 and M

_{UM}= 0.5, the solutions range from 0.5 to 1.6, and for the combination of M

_{OM}= 1.19 and M

_{UM}= 0.86, the solutions are almost everywhere uniform and closer to the value 1.

_{OM}, under-match strength mismatch M

_{UM}, the weld width H and the crack length a/W:

#### 4.2. Yield Load Solutions for a Crack in the Under-Matched Part of the Weld

_{OM}and M

_{UM}approached the values of 1 of the base metal. For example, for the combination of M

_{OM}= 2 and M

_{UM}= 0.5, the solutions ranged from 0.9 to 2, and for the combination of M

_{OM}= 1.19 and M

_{UM}= 0.86, the solutions were almost uniform and were everywhere closer to the value of 1.

## 5. Experimental Investigation

## 6. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Chen, Z.; Wang, P.; Wang, H.; Xiong, Z. Thermo-Mechanical Analysis of the Repair Welding Residual Stress of AISI 316L Pipeline for ECA. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.
**2021**. in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moskvichev, E. Fracture Assessment of Cracked Welded Structures Considering the Heterogeneity of Welded Joints. Procedia Mater. Sci.
**2014**, 3, 556–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Structural Integrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry (SINTAP); Project BE95–1426, Final Procedure; British Steel Report; British Steel Ltd.: Rotherham, UK, 1999.
- Su, L.; Xu, J.; Song, W.; Chu, L.; Gao, H.; Li, P.; Berto, F. Numerical Investigation of Strength Mismatch Effect on Ductile Crack Growth Resistance in Welding Pipe. Appl. Sci.
**2020**, 10, 1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Milosevic, N.; Sedmak, A.; Jovicic, R. Analysis of Strain Distribution in Overmatching V Groove Weld Using Digital Image Correlation. Procedia Struct. Integr.
**2018**, 13, 1600–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhu, L.; Tao, X.Y. The Study of Weld Strength Mismatch Effect on Limit Loads of Part Surface and Embedded Flaws in Plate. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.
**2016**, 139–140, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jeremić, L.; Sedmak, A.; Petrovski, B.; Ðordević, B.; Sedmak, S. Structural Integrity Assessment of Welded Pipeline Designed with Reduced Safety. Teh. Vjesn. Tech. Gaz.
**2020**, 27, 1461–1466. [Google Scholar] - Zhao, H.-S.; Lie, S.-T.; Zhang, Y. Fracture Assessment of Mismatched Girth Welds in Oval-Shaped Clad Pipes Subjected to Bending Moment. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.
**2018**, 160, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, K.; Wang, G.Z.; Tu, S.T.; Xuan, F.Z. Geometry and Material Constraint Effects on Fracture Resistance Behavior of Bi-Material Interfaces. Int. J. Fract.
**2016**, 201, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hertelé, S.; O’Dowd, N.; Minnebruggen, K.V.; Verstraete, M.; De Waele, W. Fracture Mechanics Analysis of Heterogeneous Welds: Validation of a Weld Homogenisation Approach. Procedia Mater. Sci.
**2014**, 3, 1322–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Zhao, K.; Wang, S.; Xue, H.; Wang, Z. Effect of Material Heterogeneity on Environmentally Assisted Cracking Growth Rate of Alloy 600 for Safe-End Welded Joints. Materials
**2021**, 14, 6186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Starčevič, L.; Gubeljak, N.; Predan, J. The Numerical Modelling Approach with a Random Distribution of Mechanical Properties for a Mismatched Weld. Materials
**2021**, 14, 5896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Naib, S.; Waele, W.D.; Štefane, P.; Gubeljak, N.; Hertelé, S. Analytical Limit Load Predictions in Heterogeneous Welded Single Edge Notched Tension Specimens. Procedia Struct. Integr.
**2018**, 13, 1725–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, Y.; Hu, B.; Gao, M.; Xie, Z.; Rong, X.; Han, G.; Guo, H.; Shang, C. Determining Role of Heterogeneous Microstructure in Lowering Yield Ratio and Enhancing Impact Toughness in High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater.
**2021**, 28, 816–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xue, H.; Wang, Z.; Wang, S.; He, J.; Yang, H. Characterization of Mechanical Heterogeneity in Dissimilar Metal Welded Joints. Materials
**2021**, 14, 4145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Predan, J.; Gubeljak, N.; Kolednik, O. On the Local Variation of the Crack Driving Force in a Double Mismatched Weld. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2007**, 74, 1739–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, Y.-J.; Schwalbe, K.-H. Compendium of Yield Load Solutions for Strength Mis-Matched DE(T), SE(B) and C(T) Specimens. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2001**, 68, 1137–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, Y.-J.; Schwalbe, K.-H. Mismatch Effect on Plastic Yield Loads in Idealised Weldments I. Weld Centre Cracks. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2001**, 68, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, Y.-J.; Schwalbe, K.-H. Mismatch Effect on Plastic Yield Loads in Idealised Weldments II. Heat Affected Zone Cracks. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2001**, 68, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, S.-H.; Han, J.-J.; Kim, Y.-J. Limit Load Solutions of V-Groove Welded Pipes with a Circumferential Crack at the Centre of Weld. Procedia Mater. Sci.
**2014**, 3, 706–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Kozak, D.; Gubeljak, N.; Konjatić, P.; Sertić, J. Yield Load Solutions of Heterogeneous Welded Joints. Int. J. Press. Vessels Pip.
**2009**, 86, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Konjatić, P.; Kozak, D.; Gubeljak, N. The Influence of the Weld Width on Fracture Behaviour of the Heterogeneous Welded Joint. Key Eng. Mater.
**2011**, 488, 367–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hao, S.; Schwalbe, K.-H.; Cornec, A. The Effect of Yield Strength Mis-Match on the Fracture Analysis of Welded Joints: Slip-Line Field Solutions for Pure Bending. Int. J. Solids Struct.
**2000**, 37, 5385–5411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ford, H.; Alexander, J.M. Advanced Mechanics of Materials; Longman: London, UK, 1963. [Google Scholar]
- Manjgo, M.; Medjo, B.; Milović, L.; Rakin, M.; Burzić, Z.; Sedmak, A. Analysis of Welded Tensile Plates with a Surface Notch in the Weld Metal and Heat Affected Zone. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**2010**, 77, 2958–2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Z.L.; Thaulow, C.; Hauge, M. Effects of Crack Size and Weld Metal Mismatch on the HAZ Cleavage Toughness of Wide Plates. Eng. Fract. Mech.
**1997**, 57, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ANSYS. Ansys|Engineering Simulation Solutions. 2021. Available online: https://www.ansys.com/ (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- Jin, Y.; Wang, T.; Krokhin, A.; Choi, T.Y.; Mishra, R. Ultrasonic elastography for nondestructive evaluation of dissimilar material joints. J. Mater. Process. Technol.
**2022**, 299, 117301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, T.; Mishra, R. Effect of Stress Concentration on Strength and Fracture Behavior of Dissimilar Metal Joints. In Friction Stir Welding and Processing X; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- TuringBot Software. Sao Paulo, Brazil. 2021. Available online: https://turingbotsoftware.com/ (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- BS 7448-4; Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests—Part 4: Fracture Mechanics Toughness Tests. Method for Determination of Fracture Resistance Curves and Initiation Values for Stable Crack Extension in Metallic Materials. British Standard Institution: London, UK, 1991.

**Figure 1.**Idealization of repaired I-shaped butt-welded joint: (

**a**) heterogeneous welded joint; (

**b**) idealized heterogeneous welded joint.

**Figure 2.**Numerical model: (

**a**) homogeneous weld for verification; (

**b**) heterogeneous weld; (

**c**) detail of finite element mesh of homogeneous weld for verification; (

**d**) key-points for variation of weld width H and crack length a; (

**e**) detail of finite element mesh of model with heterogeneous weld.

**Figure 4.**Mismatch yield loads for the heterogeneous weld and for a crack in the over-matched part of the weld: (

**a**) shallow crack—a/W = 0.1; (

**b**) medium length crack—a/W = 0.3; (

**c**) deep crack—a/W = 0.5.

**Figure 5.**Formation of the yield zone in a heterogeneous weld with a crack in the over-matched part of the weld for varying weld width H and constant crack length a/W = 0.5.

**Figure 6.**Mismatch yield loads for the heterogeneous weld and for a crack in the under-matched part of the weld: (

**a**) shallow crack—a/W = 0.1; (

**b**) medium length crack—a/W = 0.3; (

**c**) deep crack—a/W = 0.5.

**Figure 7.**Tensile and fracture toughness specimens: (

**a**) position and orientation of tensile specimens; (

**b**) fracture toughness specimen notch orientation; (

**c**) weld arrangement; (

**d**) three point bending specimen SE(B) for fracture toughness testing.

**Figure 8.**Experimentally obtained results: (

**a**) loading curves for specimens with a crack in the OM and UM part of the weld; (

**b**) comparison of experimentally obtained maximum load with a yield load obtained by numerical analysis for a crack in the OM and UM part of the weld.

Material | R_{p0.2}, MPa | R_{m}, MPa | E, GPa | M |
---|---|---|---|---|

Base metal (NIOMOL 490) | 545 | 648 | 202 | - |

Over-matched (FILTUB 75) | 648 | 744 | 184 | 1.19 |

Under-matched (VAC 60) | 468 | 590 | 206 | 0.86 |

Material | C | Si | Mn | P | S | Cr | Mo | Ni |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Base metal (NIOMOL 490) | 0.123 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.57 | 0.34 | 0.13 |

Over-matched (FILTUB 75) | 0.040 | 0.16 | 0.95 | 0.011 | 0.021 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 2.06 |

Under-matched (VAC 60) | 0.096 | 0.58 | 1.24 | 0.013 | 0.160 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.03 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Konjatić, P.; Katinić, M.; Kozak, D.; Gubeljak, N.
Yield Load Solutions for SE(B) Fracture Toughness Specimen with I-Shaped Heterogeneous Weld. *Materials* **2022**, *15*, 214.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010214

**AMA Style**

Konjatić P, Katinić M, Kozak D, Gubeljak N.
Yield Load Solutions for SE(B) Fracture Toughness Specimen with I-Shaped Heterogeneous Weld. *Materials*. 2022; 15(1):214.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010214

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Konjatić, Pejo, Marko Katinić, Dražan Kozak, and Nenad Gubeljak.
2022. "Yield Load Solutions for SE(B) Fracture Toughness Specimen with I-Shaped Heterogeneous Weld" *Materials* 15, no. 1: 214.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010214