Open Access
Issue
Mécanique & Industries
Volume 11, Number 3-4, Mai-Août 2010
Giens 2009
Page(s) 189 - 196
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/meca/2010038
Published online 15 November 2010
  1. ASTM standard E1820-08, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fracture Toughness, Annual Book of American Society of Testing and Materials Standards, Vol. 03.01 [Google Scholar]
  2. BS 7448-4:1997, Fracture mechanics toughness tests. Method for determination of fracture resistance curves and initiation values for stable crack extension in metallic materials, The British Standards Institution, ISBN: 0580 27997 9 [Google Scholar]
  3. ISO 12135-02, Metallic materials – Unified method of test for the determination of quasistatic fracture toughness, International Organization for Standardization, 2002 [Google Scholar]
  4. G.P. Gibson, S.G. Druce, C.E. Turner, Effect of specimen size and geometry on ductile crack growth resistance in a C-Mn steel, Int. J. Fracture 32 (1986) 219–240 [Google Scholar]
  5. V.E. Marques, P.F. Louvigné, Ph. Gilles, Ductile tearing predictions in a 304L stainless steel, SMiRT 14, Lyon, France, August 17–22, paper GW11, 1997 [Google Scholar]
  6. A. Pineau, Modelling of scatter and size effects in ductile and brittle fracture, SMiRT 14, Lyon, France, August 17–22, paper GW1, 1997 [Google Scholar]
  7. H.A. Ernst, P.C. Paris, J.D. Landes, in Fracture Mechanics: Thirteenth Conference, ASTM STP 743, Am. Soc. Testing Mat. (1981) 476–502 [Google Scholar]
  8. H.A. Ernst, Material Resistance and Instability Beyond J-controlled Crack Growth, in Elastic-Plastic Fracture: Second Symposium, Inelastic Crack Analysis, ASTM STP 803, American Society of Testing and Materials, I-191-I-213, 1983, Vol. 1 [Google Scholar]
  9. C.E. Turner, A Re-Assessment of Ductile Tearing Resistance, Part I: The Geometry Dependence of J-R Curves in Fully Plastic Bending. Part II: Energy Dissipation Rate and Associated R-Curves on Normalized Axes, Fracture Behaviour and Design of Materials and Structures, ECF8, in: D. Firrao, ed. EMAS, Warley, UK 2 (1990) 933–949, 951–968 [Google Scholar]
  10. S. Marie, S. Chapuliot, 2D crack growth simulation with an energetic approach, Nucl. Eng. Des. 212 (2002) 31–40 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. P. Anuschewski, W. Brocks, D. Hellmann, Characterisation of Ductile Tearing Resistance by the Energy Dissipation Rate: Effects of Material, Specimen Shape and Size, Report GKSS 2002/13, GKSS Research Centre Geesthacht, 2002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Y.J. Chao, X.K. Zhu, Constraint-modified J-R curves and its applications to ductile crack growth, Int. J. Fracture 106 (2000) 135–160 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. J.R. Rice, D.M. Tracey, On the ductile enlargement of voids in triaxial stress fields, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 17 (1969) 201–217 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. A. Gurson, Continuous Theory of Ductile Rupture by Void Nucleation and Growth: Part I – Yield Criteria and Flow Rules for Porous Ductile Media, ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol. 99 (1997) 2–15 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. V. Tvergaard, A. Needleman, Analysis of cup-cone fracture in a round tensile bar, Acta Metallurgica 32 (1984) 157–169 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. G. Rousselier, Ductile fracture models and their potential in local approach of fracture, Nucl. Eng. Des. 105 (1987) 97–111 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. C. Faidy, Structural integrity of dissimilar welds – ADIMEW project overview. Proc. PVP 2004, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, USA, 2004 Vol. 475, pp. 3–10 [Google Scholar]
  18. SINTAP: Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure for European Industry, Final Procedure, Brite-Euram Project No. BE95-1426, British Steel, 1999 [Google Scholar]
  19. Recommandation d’essais de mesure de la résistance à la déchirure ductile des matériaux métalliques (essais JΔa), Commission Fragilité Rupture de la Société Française de Métallurgie (GFR SF2M), juin 1990 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ph. Gilles, J. Devaux, M.F. Cipière, ADIMEW project: Ductile tearing prediction of a cracked 16 dissimilar welded junction, Proc. of PVP2004, ASME Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, San Diego, USA, 2004, Vol. 475 [Google Scholar]
  21. M.T. Kirk, R.H. Dodds, J and CTOD estimation for shallow cracks in single edge notched bend specimens, J. Test. Eval. 21 (1993) 228–238 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. P. Hornet, C. Eripret, Experimental J evaluation from a load-displacement curve for homogeneous and over-matched SENB or CCT specimens, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct. 26 (1997) 679–692 [Google Scholar]
  23. S. Marie, Y. Kayser, B. Drubay, P. Le Delliou, P. Gilles, B. Barthelet, J. Schwab, Analytical method for the calculation of J Parameter for surface cracks in piping welds, PVP conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2008 [Google Scholar]
  24. R6 Revision 4: Assessment of the Integrity of Structures containing Defects, Section III.8 Allowance for strength mis-match effects, British Energy Generation Ltd., 2001 [Google Scholar]
  25. K.H. Schwalbe, R.A. Ainsworth, C. Eripret, C. Franco, P. Gilles, M. Koçak, H. Pisarski, Y.Y. Wang, Common views on the effect of yield strength mismatch on testing and structural assessment, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Mis-Matching of Interfaces and Welds, GKSS, 1997 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ph. Gilles, V. Robin, J. Devaux, Ductile tearing behavior near a bimetallic interface, EMMC9 EUROMECH-MECAMAT conference, Moret sur Loing, Presses de l’école des Mines de Paris, ISBN: 978-2-911762-73-4, 2006 [Google Scholar]
  27. M.L. Wilkins. R.D., Streit, J.E., Reaugh, Cumulative-strain-damage model of ductile fracture: Simulation and prediction of engineering fracture tests, Technical Report UCRL-53058, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, October 1980 [Google Scholar]
  28. M.L. Wilkins, Computer Simulation of Dynamic Phenomena, Springer Verlag, 1999, ISBN: 978-3-540-63070-8 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.