Search NASASearch

Engineering topics

Donnelly, B.

Publications and source records attributed to Donnelly, B..

Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These guidelines integrate state-of-the-art elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a road map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the road map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the art fracture technology employed in these guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the failure assessment diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy Inconel 718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T3511, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and multiple-cycle proof testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors.

Chell, G. G.

NASA Contractor Report: Guidelines for Proof Test Analysis

These Guidelines integrate state-of-the-art Elastic-Plastic Fracture Mechanics (EPFM) and proof test implementation issues into a comprehensive proof test analysis procedure in the form of a Road Map which identifies the types of data, fracture mechanics based parameters, and calculations needed to perform flaw screening and minimum proof load analyses of fracture critical components. Worked examples are presented to illustrate the application of the Road Map to proof test analysis. The state-of-the-art fracture technology employed in these Guidelines is based on the EPFM parameter, J, and a pictorial representation of a J fracture analysis, called the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) approach. The recommended fracture technology is validated using finite element J results, and laboratory and hardware fracture test results on the nickel-based superalloy IN-718, the aluminum alloy 2024-T351 1, and ferritic pressure vessel steels. In all cases the laboratory specimens and hardware failed by ductile mechanisms. Advanced proof test analyses involving probability analysis and Multiple Cycle Proof Testing (MCPT) are addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided on to how to account for the effects of the proof test overload on subsequent service fatigue and fracture behaviors.

Chell, G. G.

Significant issues in proof testing: A critical appraisal

Issues which impact on the interpretation and quantification of proof test benefits are reviewed. The importance of each issue in contributing to the extra quality assurance conferred by proof testing components is discussed, particularly with respect to the application of advanced fracture mechanics concepts to enhance the flaw screening capability of a proof test analysis. Items covered include the role in proof testing of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics, ductile instability analysis, deterministic versus probabilistic analysis, single versus multiple cycle proof testing, and non-destructive examination (NDE). The effects of proof testing on subsequent service life are reviewed, particularly with regard to stress redistribution and changes in fracture behavior resulting from the overload. The importance of proof test conditions are also addressed, covering aspects related to test temperature, simulation of service environments, test media and the application of real-time NDE. The role of each issue in a proof test methodology is assessed with respect to its ability to: promote proof test practice to a state-of-the-art; aid optimization of proof test design; and increase awareness and understanding of outstanding issues.

Chell, G. G.