- Email: [email protected]
Peer review report 3 on “Two-parameter characterization of constraint effect induced by specimen size on creep crack growth”
Engineering Fracture Mechanics 133 Supplement 1 (2015) 139
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Fracture Mechanics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 3 on ‘‘Two-parameter characterization of constraint effect induced by specimen size on creep crack growth’’ Original Submission Recommendation Major amendments required Comments to the author The paper includes interesting experimental results, which recommend publication. The English is acceptable, with recommended amendments indicated over the yellow highlighted text region in the enclosed manuscript pdf. However, there a few important points needing clarifications and discussion: INTRODUCTION ⁄ I suggest a clear definition of C⁄ and creep-fracture toughness is given before such terms are employed in the text. In particular, mathematical relationships should be employed for definition. 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ⁄ Time tf is not clearly and unambiguously defined, as condition for ending individual tests were not stated. ⁄ Fig. 4 – The same symbol for specimens as in Figs. 2 and 3 should be used 3 FEM ANALYSIS ⁄ The proposed average creep strain rate can give quite different values than actual ones. The implications of this need to be discussed; ⁄ Moreover, usually creep fracture strain is not a material property, being strongly dependent on applied stress; this should also be discussed 3.4 FEM RESULTS ⁄ It is not clear to me why K should be different for the same model (i.e. for both plane stress models) as the crack grows (Fig. 7). Indeed, starting at the same Kin, the models should have the same load F per unit thickness and, therefore, the same K for equal a length (i.e. equal a/w, see equations 2 and 3). This discussion is absolutely MANDATORY. Anonymous reviewer
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.06.032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.06.051
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Engineering Fracture Mechanics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Peer Review Report
Peer review report 3 on ‘‘Two-parameter characterization of constraint effect induced by specimen size on creep crack growth’’ Original Submission Recommendation Major amendments required Comments to the author The paper includes interesting experimental results, which recommend publication. The English is acceptable, with recommended amendments indicated over the yellow highlighted text region in the enclosed manuscript pdf. However, there a few important points needing clarifications and discussion: INTRODUCTION ⁄ I suggest a clear definition of C⁄ and creep-fracture toughness is given before such terms are employed in the text. In particular, mathematical relationships should be employed for definition. 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ⁄ Time tf is not clearly and unambiguously defined, as condition for ending individual tests were not stated. ⁄ Fig. 4 – The same symbol for specimens as in Figs. 2 and 3 should be used 3 FEM ANALYSIS ⁄ The proposed average creep strain rate can give quite different values than actual ones. The implications of this need to be discussed; ⁄ Moreover, usually creep fracture strain is not a material property, being strongly dependent on applied stress; this should also be discussed 3.4 FEM RESULTS ⁄ It is not clear to me why K should be different for the same model (i.e. for both plane stress models) as the crack grows (Fig. 7). Indeed, starting at the same Kin, the models should have the same load F per unit thickness and, therefore, the same K for equal a length (i.e. equal a/w, see equations 2 and 3). This discussion is absolutely MANDATORY. Anonymous reviewer
DOI of published article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.06.032
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engfracmech.2015.06.051