2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.05.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

J –CTOD relations in clamped SE(T) fracture specimens including 3-D stationary and growth analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(72 reference statements)
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides to separately investigate the ability of both parameters to characterise fatigue crack growth, different works [24]- [26] have been reported establishing a relationship between them.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Besides to separately investigate the ability of both parameters to characterise fatigue crack growth, different works [24]- [26] have been reported establishing a relationship between them.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This relationship was corroborated by finite elements results for the complete regime of elastic-plastic deformation and experimental data for A533B steels, HY-80 steels and several other ductile metals. Shih's study was used by Metzger et al [25] and Sarzosa et al [26] to numerically show that this J-CTOD relationship is valid even in cases where crack closure is present [25] and to establish accurate relationships between J and CTOD for use in testing protocols for toughness measurements [26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The influence of the size of SEN(B) specimen on CTOD was discussed in [28]. In 2015, Sarzosa et al [29] performed the analysis of the J-CTOD relationship for three-dimensional SEN(T) plates for both stationary and growing cracks. Also in 2015, Wang et al [30] proposed empirical equations to calculate the J-integral and CTOD.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fracture toughness is used in Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) to assess the fitness‐for‐service of engineering structures with respect to avoidance of fracture . Differences in the values of fracture toughness measurements on the same specimen using different methods could result in a structure being considered safe or not.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fracture toughness is used in Engineering Critical Assessment (ECA) to assess the fitness-for-service of engineering structures with respect to avoidance of fracture. [1][2][3][4][5] Differences in the values of fracture toughness measurements on the same specimen using different methods could result in a structure being considered safe or not. It is therefore important that the estimation of failure criteria, such as critical flaw size, does not result in over-conservative design, while still ensuring structural integrity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%