1976
DOI: 10.1080/03063453.1976.11683560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relation between minimum creep rate and time to fracture

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
63
1

Year Published

1992
1992
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 224 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
63
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the magnitude of m given by equation (4) is consistent with other values reported in the literature, the value of C* is significantly higher than other observed data by one to two orders of magnitude [22][23][24][25]. Alternatively, the data shown in figure 4 It is interesting to note that the data obtained at 1000 K lie predominantly on the plot described by equation (4c).…”
Section: Monkman-grant Plot and Creep Ductilitysupporting
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the magnitude of m given by equation (4) is consistent with other values reported in the literature, the value of C* is significantly higher than other observed data by one to two orders of magnitude [22][23][24][25]. Alternatively, the data shown in figure 4 It is interesting to note that the data obtained at 1000 K lie predominantly on the plot described by equation (4c).…”
Section: Monkman-grant Plot and Creep Ductilitysupporting
confidence: 70%
“…The experimental values of m and C* were observed to be 0.77 to 1.0 and 0.05 to 2.0, respectively, for several different metals and alloys [22][23][24][25]. In practice, equation (3) is often simplified to f t ε ≈ C MG , where C MG = C* is known as the Monkman-Grant constant with m = 1.…”
Section: Monkman-grant Plot and Creep Ductilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dobes and Milicka [34] argued that the value of C MG and m changed according to the applied stress in contrast to the studies of Davies and Wilshire [32] and Chih-Kuang Lin [31] who previously found that the value of C MG was dependent on stress and/or temperature. Therefore, Dobes and Milicka modified the Monkman-Grant relation into the form [34]:…”
Section: Review Of the Monkman-grant (Mg) Methodologycontrasting
confidence: 49%
“…The data for many materials is better fitted by the modified Monkman-Grant relationship (MMGR) [22] t r _ e m 0…”
Section: Initial Microstructurementioning
confidence: 99%