Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T22:29:36.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stress analysis on Canadian naval platforms using a portable miniature X-ray diffractometer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2012

S. P. Farrell*
Affiliation:
Dockyard Laboratory (Atlantic), Defence Research and Development Canada–Atlantic, 9 Grove St., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z7, Canada
L. W. MacGregor
Affiliation:
Dockyard Laboratory (Atlantic), Defence Research and Development Canada–Atlantic, 9 Grove St., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z7, Canada
J. F. Porter
Affiliation:
Dockyard Laboratory (Atlantic), Defence Research and Development Canada–Atlantic, 9 Grove St., Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z7, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Strain field distribution in a naval platform under dry-dock conditions is complex and represents the cumulative response from residual stress (“locked in” during fabrication of materials and formation of the structure) and static loading stress (e.g., dry-dock loading). The magnitude and distribution of stress fields are a significant concern for the Canadian Navy, where the superposition of applied stresses on residual stresses may adversely affect the performance, safe operational envelope, and service life of naval platforms. Stress analysis was conducted on Canada’s VICTORIA Class submarines using a portable miniature X-ray diffractometer (mXRD) under dry-dock conditions. This paper introduces the concept of “residential stress” as it applies to submarine platforms and discusses the methodology for performing stress analysis with a portable mXRD. The evolution of residential stress during routine pressure hull repairs to Canada’s VICTORIA Class submarines is discussed. In particular, the recent replacement of the diesel exhaust hull and back-up valves on one of the submarines, as well as a pressure hull plate extraction-insertion-weld procedure on another, is discussed.

Type
Technical Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ASTM (2000a). “Standard method for verifying the alignment of X-ray diffraction instrumentation for residential stress measurement,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards (Standard E-915-96) (ASTM, Philadelphia), Vol. 03.01, pp. 809812.Google Scholar
ASTM (2000b). “Standard test method for determining the effective elastic parameter for X-ray diffraction measurements of residential stress,” Annual Book of ASTM Standards (Standard E-1426-98) (ASTM, Philadelphia), Vol. 03.01, pp. 916919.Google Scholar
Brauss, M. E., Gorveatte, G. V., and Porter, J. F. (1996). “Development of a miniature X-ray diffraction based stress analysis system suitable for use on marine structures,” Proceedings of the SPIE’s Nondestructive Evaluation of Materials and Composites, Proc. SPIE, Scottsdale, AZ, Vol. 2944, pp. 307317.Google Scholar
Farrell, S. P. and MacGregor, L. W. (2008). “Residential stress analysis of Q1N submarine pressure hull steel with the portable miniature X-ray diffractometer,” Internal Report of Defence Research and Development Canada—Atlantic (DRDC Atlantic TM, Dartmouth, NS), pp. 20072335.Google Scholar
Masubuch, Hopkins K. (1980). “The magnitude and distribution of residential stresses in weldments,” in Analysis of Welded Structures, International Series on Materials Science and Technology, edited by D. W., (Pergamon Press, Oxford), Vol. 33, pp. 189335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevéy, Ruud P. S. (1991). “Problems with non-destructive surface X-ray diffraction residential stress measurements,” in Practical Applications of Residential Stress Technology, edited by C., (American Society for Metals, Materials Park, OH), pp. 4754.Google Scholar