Problems of welding in shipbuilding-possibility of application the sintap procedure in assessment of the weldability of materials. Part I. The sintap programme overview

• Autorzy: Ranatowski E.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Some engineering methods are available for the assessment of structures containing defects. They belong essentially two methods: FAD and CDF methods. The recent SINTAP procedure unifies both FAD and CDF routes for the assessment of mode l loaded defects. Within the SINTAP defect assessment procedures, there are a number of levels of analysis and characterised in section 2. Finally, the treatment oftoughness data Kmat are presented.

PL

Kilka metod stosowanych w praktyce inżynierskiej jest dostępnych do oceny konstrukcji zawierających wady. Należą do nich dwie metody: FAD i CDF. Aktualnie metody te zostały, w ramach procedur programu SINTAP, zmodyflkowane do oceny I rodzaju obciążenia wad (rozciągania). W ramach tego programu występuje kilka poziomów analizy, które zostały scharakteryzowane w części 2 pracy. W końcowej części pracy przedstawiono sposób oceny odporności na pękanie Kmat.

• Wydawca: Polish Academy of Sciences - Branch in Gdańsk Marine Technology Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Marine Technology Transactions. Technika Morska
• Rocznik: 2006
• Tom: Vol. 17
• Strony: 131--141
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 14 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ranatowski E.

• Technical University, Mechanical Department Prof. S. Kaliskiego St. 7, 85-763 Bydgoszcz, Poland

Bibliografia

• 1. Webster S., Bannister A., Structural integrity assessment procedure for Europe - of the SINTAP programme overview, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67. Issue 6, December 2000, 481-514.
• 2. Gilles Ph., Franco Ch., A New J-estimation scheme for cracks in mis-matching welds - the ARAMIS method, [in:] Mis-Matching of Welds. ESIS 17, Edited by H.-K. Schwalbe, M. Kocak, Mechanical Engineering Publications, London 1994. 661-683.
• 3. Ainsworth R.A., Lei Y., Strength mis-match in estimation schemes, [in:] Mis- Matching of Interfaces and Welds. Edited by H.-K. Schwalbe, M. Kocak, GKSS Research Center Publications, Geesthacht 1997,, 35-53.
• 4. Schwalbe H.-K. et al, Common views on the effects of yield strength mis-match on testing and structural assessment, [in:] Mis-Matching of Interfaces and Welds, Edited by H.-K. Schwalbe, M. Kofak, GKSS Research Center Publications. Geesthacht 1997,, 99-132.
• 5. Ainsworth R.A. et al, Analysis levels within the SINTAP defect assessment procedures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67, Issue 6, December 2000, 515-527.
• 6. Kim Y.-J. et al, SINTAP defect assessment procedure for strength mis-matched structures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67, Issue 6, December 2000, 529-546.
• 7. Bannister A.C. et al, Implications of the yield stress / tensile stress ratio to the SINTAP failure assessment diagrams for homogeneous materials, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67, Issue 6, December 2000, 547-562.
• 8. Kim Y.-J. et al, Simplified J-estimations based on the Engineering Treatment Model for homogeneous and mismatched structures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 68, 2000, 9-28.
• 9. Ainsworth R.A. et al, Methods for including constraint effects within the SINTAP procedures, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67, Issue 6, December 2000, 563-571.
• 10. Ainsworth R.A. et al, Constraint effects in R6 for combined primary and secondary stresses, ASME PVP 324, 1996, 117-131.
• 11. British Energy Generation Ltd., Assessment of the integrity of structures containing defects, Procedure: R6, 1999.
• 12. Hooton D.G. et al. Application of R6 constraint methods using weight functions for T-stress, ASME-PVP 365, 199837-43.
• 13. Moscovic R., Statistical analysis of censored fracture toughness data in the ductile to brittle transition temperature region. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 44(1), 1993,21-41.
• 14. Pisarski H.G., Walin K., The SINTAP fracture toughness estimation procedure, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 67, Issue 6, December 2000, 613-624.