Abstract
In this investigation, five estimation methods have been adopted to estimate the dynamic fracture toughness of a nuclear pressure vessel steel A508 CL3 by using pre-cracked Charpy-size specimens on an instrumented impact test machine. Furthermore, the merits and the demerits of the five methods have also been compared. The experimental results indicate that the maximum load energy method based on the curve of load versus load-point displacement overestimates the dynamic fracture toughness J Id , especially above room temperature. The method of compliance changing rate underestimates the dynamic fracture toughness. The method of measuring the critical stretch zone width (SZW c ) at the crack tip by means of SEM fractography and then converting the SZW c into J Id has a relatively large error. In addition, it is expensive and difficult to measure the SZW c . The method of energy revised at the maximum load may be considered a better single-specimen method for determining the dynamic fracture toughness. Furthermore, the results indicate that although the dynamic resistance curve method can exactly estimate the dynamic fracture toughness of the material, this method needs several specimens. Moreover, the test procedure is complicated. Thus, it is not suitable for nuclear reactor pressure vessel embrittlement surveillance.
Published Version
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.
