Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 392

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of the J-lntegral and CTOD Parameters for Short Crack Specimen Testing

Sorem, WA, Dodds, RH, Rolfe, ST·1991·Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second Volume)

Abstract

This study investigates the applicability of the J-integral test procedure to test short crack specimens in the temperature region below the initiation of ductile tearing where JIc cannot be measured. The current J-integral test procedure is restricted to determining the initiation of ductile tearing and requires that no specimen demonstrates brittle cleavage fracture. The JIctest specimen is also limited to crack-depth to specimen-width ratios (a/W) between 0.50 and 0.75. In contrast, the crack tip opening displacement (CTOD) test procedure can be used for testing throughout the entire temperature-toughness transition region from brittle to fully ductile behavior. Also, extensive research is being conducted to extend the CTOD test procedure to the testing of short crack specimens (a/W ratios of approximately 0.15). The CTOD and J-integral fracture parameters are compared both analytically and experimentally using square (cross-section) three-point bend specimens of A36 steel with a/W ratios of 0.50 (deep crack) and 0.15 (short crack). Three-dimensional elastic-plastic finite element analyses are conducted on both the deep crack and the short crack specimens. The measured J-integral and CTOD results are compared at various levels of linear-elastic and elastic-plastic behavior. Experimental testing is conducted throughout the lower shelf and lower transition regions where stable crack growth does not occur. Very good agreement exists between the analytical and experimental results for both the short crack and deep crack specimens. Results of this study show that both the J-integral and the CTOD fracture parameters work well for testing in the lower shelf and lower transition regions where stable crack growth does not occur. A linear relationship is shown to exist between J-integral and CTOD throughout these regions for both the short and the deep crack specimens. These observations support the consideration to extend the J-integral test procedure into the temperature region of brittle fracture rather than limiting it to JIc at the initiation of ductile tearing. Also, analyzing short crack three-point bend specimen (a/W < 0.15) records using the load versus load-line displacement (LLD) record has great potential as an experimental technique. The problems of accurately measuring the CMOD of short crack specimens in the laboratory without affecting the crack tip behavior may be eliminated using the J-integral test procedure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1520/stp16845s

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 392

Metadata

Authors
Sorem, W., Dodds, R., & Rolfe, S.
Venue
Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second Volume)
Published
1991-01-01
Pages
19-41
OpenAlex
W980807897
Cited by
392
References
0
FWCI
33.58
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of the J-lntegral and CTOD Parameters for Short Crack Specimen Testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1520/stp16845s
The paper
Sorem, W., Dodds, R., & Rolfe, S. (1991). A Comparison of the J-lntegral and CTOD Parameters for Short Crack Specimen Testing. Elastic-Plastic Fracture Test Methods: The User's Experience (Second Volume). https://doi.org/10.1520/stp16845s

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.