Abstract
This paper presents the results of a benchmark on creep-fatigue crack growth evaluation for a plate subjected to cyclic bending loads with a 1 h dwell. The simplified creep-fatigue crack growth evaluation methods of JNC in Japan and A16 procedures proposed by CEA in France are presented. The methods, based on the reference stress approach, are compared each other. They are found to differ in the expression used for the reference stress solution used to estimate the creep strain. It is also pointed out that in contrast to the A16 procedures, the JNC method takes heterogeneous creep strain distribution into account for small scale yielding condition. The predictions obtained by the methods are also compared to the experimental data. It is found that the methods exhibit conservatisms which are significantly reduced when integrating the creep curve continuously without initialisation during the experiment [Proceeding of SMiRT 14(G13/2), Creep-Fatigue Crack Growth on CT25 Specimens in 316L(N) stainless steel at 650 °C].
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
