Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Failure Analysis

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

Determination of plastic collapse load of pre-cracked Small Punch Test

specimens by means of response surfaces
I.I. Cuesta , J.M. Alegre
Structural Integrity Group, Escuela Politcnica Superior, C/Villadiego s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 4 January 2012
Accepted 6 February 2012
Available online 16 February 2012
Keywords:
Small Punch Test
Failure Assessment Diagram
Response surface
Plastic collapse load

a b s t r a c t
In a previous research paper, a new methodology was developed to estimate the fracture
toughness of 15.5PH stainless steel, one that combines the Failure Assessment Diagram
(FAD), a procedure for evaluating the structural integrity of cracked components, along
with the loaddisplacement curve obtained from pre-cracked specimens using the Small
Punch Test (SPT), a non-standard test that is commonly used when there is not enough
material for conducting standard tests in order to obtain the mechanical and fracture properties of materials. One of the steps in this methodology is the determination of the plastic
collapse load PU of the pre-cracked specimen by carrying out a complicated elasticplastic
nite element analysis (FEA). In order to avoid the FEA in this step, an expression for
obtaining PU in pre-cracked SPT specimens was developed in this paper. This expression
can be used without the need for numerical simulation and is calculated by applying
response surface techniques based on the design of experiments for materials whose
behavior can be described by a RambergOsgood type equation. The expression yields
the plastic collapse load as determined by the specimen dimensions and the materials
elastoplastic parameters and encompasses the typical behavior range of steels.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In a previous research paper [1], a new methodology that combines the FAD approach and the loaddisplacement curve
obtained from pre-cracked SPT specimens was developed, in order to estimate the fracture toughness of 15.5PH stainless
steel. On the one hand, the Small Punch Test (SPT) basically consists of deforming a miniature square or circular specimen
using a high-strength punch in which the sides of the specimen are clamped between two dies. The SPT is a non-standard
test that is commonly used when there is not enough material for conducting standard tests in order to obtain the mechanical and fracture properties of materials, using standard specimens [26] or pre-cracked ones [1,7,8].
On the other hand, the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD) is a procedure used for evaluating the structural integrity of
cracked components [9]. This diagram considers the crack effect as well as the geometry and properties of the material, such
as its fracture toughness (Kmat), taking into account the plastic behavior of the cracked geometry throughout the load ratio
(Lr).
Fig. 1 presents an outline of the methodology developed. The steps in the determination of Kmat, using pre-cracked SPT
specimens, are summarized as follows:

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iicuesta@ubu.es (I.I. Cuesta), jalegre@ubu.es (J.M. Alegre).
1350-6307/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2012.02.002

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Flaw Dimensions

Stress analysis

Stress Intensity Factor

solution, ( K I )

Kr =

Kr

KI
K mat

Material toughness, K mat

LEFM

Brittle fracture

Plasticity effects

Crack initiation
SAFE

Plastic
collapse

Lr

ref Papp
Lr =
=
PU
y
Papp

PU

Flaw
dimensions

Stress
analysis

SPT pre cracked

specimens

SEM
analysis

Fig. 1. Outline of the methodology for assessing Kmat [1].

1. Determine material tensile properties.

2. Select and dene the Failure Assessment Diagram (FAD).
3. Determine the plastic collapse load PU of the pre-cracked specimen. An elasticplastic nite-element analysis may be
used.
4. Determine the crack initiation load Papp by conducting pre-cracked SPT.
5. Use the dened FAD and the calculated Lr = Papp/PU value (the abscissa in the FAD) to determine the value of Kr at the
initiation point (the ordinate value at that point).
6. Calculate the stress intensity factor at the initiation point KI(Papp) corresponding to the crack initiation load Papp.
7. Estimate the value of Kmat for this pre-cracked SPT specimen as Kmat = KI(Papp)/Kr.
To improve the applicability of this methodology for other materials and/or for researchers who do not have the means to
carry out a FEA, it would be advisable to eliminate the need to carry out numerical simulations in steps 3 and 6. With respect
to KI(Papp), an expression was developed in the previous paper [1].
In the case of PU, an expression for obtaining it in pre-cracked SPT specimens was developed in this paper. This expression
can be used without the need for numerical simulation and is calculated by applying response surface techniques based on
the design of experiments for materials whose behavior can be described by a RambergOsgood type equation [10]. The
expression yields the plastic collapse load as determined by the specimen dimensions and the materials elastoplastic
parameters and encompasses the typical behavior range of steels.
2. Materials
This paper relies on the use of response surface techniques based on the design of experiments, which yield a function
specic to each specimen size that can be used to estimate the value of PU directly for any type of steel whose behavior
is described by a RambergOsgood type equation as long as its characteristic parameters are within the range of values considered here. In steels, it is typical for plastic strain values to be taken into account when they reach a value of 0.2%, meaning
the RambergOsgood model can be simplied according to expression (1):

r
e 0:002 
E

r
r0:2

n

where E is Youngs modulus, r0.2 is the elastic limit for a plastic strain of 0.2% and n is a parameter that describes the materials plastic behavior that normally varies between 4 and 50 for most steels [10]. This, then, denes the behavior of the

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

material through the use of the parameters E, r0.2 and n. The parameters r0.2 and n are fundamental, as is shown below,
when establishing the plastic collapse value PU of the pre-cracked SPT specimen.
3. Numerical simulation
When determining the plastic collapse load PU of the pre-cracked SPT specimen, it is normal to perform a nite element
analysis of the crack geometry. There are two possible denitions for the plastic collapse load: the global collapse load and
the net section collapse load. This paper uses the second of these two denitions, which represents the load needed to cause
plasticity to spread across the remaining ligament, due to the greater accuracy of the results [9]. In general, this evaluation
requires an elasticplastic FEA to be performed.
The software chosen for modeling pre-cracked SPT specimens, with a pre-existing longitudinal non-through-thickness
aw, was the MSC.Marc program [11]. Due to the symmetry of the pre-cracked SPT specimen, one fourth of the geometry
was modeled in 3D with 8-node hexahedral elements (HEX 7), using the YZ and ZX planes as the symmetry planes, as shown
in Fig. 2. The punch and the upper and lower dies were modeled as rigid surfaces. The displacement of the punch was used to
control the calculation. A displacement value similar to that of experimental SPTs was used [1]. The specimen material was
assumed to be elastoplastic. The parameters used are listed in Table 1.
Once the calculation was completed, the load that yields generalized plastic strain in the net central section of the specimens crack plane was evaluated. This corresponds to the part that is not clamped between the upper and lower dies, as
shown in Fig. 2 for one of the simulations conducted, and coincides with the area of the dotted rectangle in the same gure.
This load value is assumed to be PU when the equivalent plastic strain attains a value of 0.002 at every point of the net central
section.

Fig. 2. FEM model of pre-cracked SPT specimen used for PU calculation.

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Table 1
Values for the parameters used in obtaining the response surface PU.
Fixed parameters

Variable parameters

Specimen 20  20  1 mm

m
E (MPa)
b  b  t (mm)
dp (mm)
Dd (mm)
r (mm)

0.29
200,000
20  20  1
5
8
1

a/t

r0.2 (MPa)
n

Specimen 10  10  0.5 mm
0.29
E (MPa)
200,000
b  b  t (mm)
10  10  0.5
dp (mm)
2.5
Dd (mm)
4
r (mm)
0.5

a/t

r0.2 (MPa)
n

[0.1, 0.7]
[200, 1400]
[4, 50]

[0.1, 0.7]
[200, 1400]
[4, 50]

4. Response surface
From a practical standpoint, and for the potential engineering application of the method proposed, it would be desirable to
avoid the aforementioned elastoplastic calculation whenever this method is applied, as this would imply a considerable
reduction in both the software resources and the time required. To that end, this paper relies on the use of response surface
techniques based on the design of experiments, which yield a function specic to each specimen size that can be used to estimate the value of PU.
Before proceeding with the determination of the response surface, an initial review of the parameters that inuence the
value of PU must be made. These parameters can be lumped into two large groups that can be called the materials elastoplastic and geometric parameters. These are listed in Table 2.
It would obviously be extremely complicated to obtain a response surface that encompasses the variation in all of these
parameters, so it is necessary to make some of them constant. In following a cost-saving criterion, xing the geometric parameters, depending on the experimental setup, as well as the specimen thickness assigned for each setup is justied. The depth of
the pre-existing aw a is clearly variable, not only due to variations in machining the aw, but also because its size constitutes
one of the fundamental parameters in the fracture process, and which is accounted for through the ratio a/t .
Of the materials elastoplastic parameters, only the Poisson coefcient and Youngs modulus are xed since their effect on
the value of PU is noted to be irrelevant. The remaining parameters were varied between the typical values for steel. Table 1
shows both the intervals considered as well as the xed values for the parameters used in obtaining the response surface PU
for the two specimen sizes in question.
The response surface PU, then, is determined by the parameters a/t, r0.2 and n, since the rest are constant. The relationship
that exists among these three parameters and the value of PU can be expressed as P U f a=t ; r0:2 ; n , where f is postulated
as a quadratic model of the form expressed in Eq. (2), in which a/t, r0:2 and n are the coded variables for a/t, r0.2 and n,
respectively. The real parameter values are coded so that they all vary within the same interval, which helps to yield a precise estimate of the coefcients that dene the function f a=t  ; r0:2 ; n . For any real value Xi of the variable parameters, this
coding can be performed by means of expression (3), resulting in the corresponding coded value xi, where XiNInf is the real
~ i is the mean of the highest and
value of the lowest level of factor i, XiNSup is the real value of the highest level of factor i, and X
lowest real level values of factor i.

a 
; r0:2 ; n
t

b0 b1 
b13 

xi

~i
2  1:682  X i  X
X iNSup  X iNInf

a
a2
a 
2
b2  r0:2 b3  n b11 
b22  r2
 r0:2
0:2 b33  n b12 
t
t
t

a 
 n b23  r0:2  n
t
where i

a 
; r0:2 ; n
t

Table 2
Parameters that inuence the value of PU.
Elastoplastic parameters

Geometric parameters

Flaw depth (a)

Specimen dimensions (b  b  t)
Punch diameter (dp)
Diameter of the lower die (Dd)
Fillet radius of lower die (r)

m
r0.2
n

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

The coefcients of the function f a=t ; r0:2 ; n for each specimen size are determined by conducting a central composite
design experiment [1214] using NEMRODW software [15] to estimate these coefcients. The main features of this design
are:
 The use of three factors, namely, the parameters a/t, r0:2 and n.
 A spherical domain with a classic radius. The three-factor radius value is 1.682.
 The coding of the value of intervals for the three factors listed in Table 1 so they vary between [1.682, 1.682], as in
expression (3).
 The composite experiment matrix with ve levels for each factor with no repetitions at the domain midpoint (experiment
NUM. 15). This would be meaningless as a numerical simulation to obtain the value of PU is being used.
 The use of expression (2) to adjust the response surface.
Table 3 shows both the experiment matrix with the coded variables and the matrix for the experimentation plan with the
values of the experiment design factors proposed for determining the coefcients of the function f a=t ; r0:2 ; n . Since both
specimen sizes use the same range of values for the parameters a/t, r0.2 and n, the values in this table are valid for both cases.
Each of the experiments in the experimentation plan is performed using a numerical simulation, as discussed in Section 3 of
this paper.
Once these values for PU are obtained, the coefcients of the function f a=t  ; r0:2 ; n , which are shown in Table 4 as a function of the specimen size used, can then be determined through the use of NEMRODW.
The signicant coefcients for the function f a=t ; r0:2 ; n shown with an asterisk are given at a 99% condence level, with
the most signicant coefcients being b0, b1 and b2 in both cases. The non-signicant coefcients contribute to the proper
shape of the response surface, and as such it is not desirable to eliminate them from the function f a=t  ; r0:2 ; n . Statistically,
the regression is signicant (p-value <104) and explains 99.7% of the variance for PU.
Using the function f a=t  ; r0:2 ; n , which adequately accounts for the values of PU obtained in the design, it is possible to
determine the value of PU for any combination of values of the parameters a/t, r0.2 and n after coding, as long as they are
within the spherical domain previously dened for this design. Expressions (4) and (5) represent the PU response surfaces
obtained from the coefcients in Table 4 for the pre-cracked SPT specimens measuring 20  20  1 mm and
10  10  0.5 mm, respectively.

 

  2
a 
a
a
2
; r0:2 ; n
3:664  1:132  1:993  r0:2  0:243  n 0:13 
0:065  r0:2 0:168  n2
t
t
t
20201
a
a
 0:797   r0:2 0:068   n  0:077  r0:2  n
t
t
 

  2
a 
a
a
2
; r0:2 ; n
0:916  0:285  0:498  r0:2  0:061  n 0:034 
0:016  r2
0:2 0:042  n
t
t
t
10100:5
a
a
 0:201   r0:2 0:018   n  0:02  r0:2  n
t
t

Obviously, at least one of the three coded variables a=t  ; r0:2 ; n on which the PU response surface depends needs to be xed
in order to be plotted. In this sense, Figs. 3 and 4 show, by way of example, the variation of PU as a function of parameters r0.2
and n for the most common ratios of a/t in both dimensions of the SPT specimen.
Table 3
Design of experiments performed.
Experiment
num.

Experiment matrix
a/t

a/t

r0.2 (MPa)

Specimen
20  20  1 mm
PU (kN)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.682
1.682
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1.682
1.682
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1.682
1.682
0

0.222
0.578
0.222
0.578
0.222
0.578
0.222
0.578
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4

443
443
1157
1157
443
443
1157
1157
800
800
200
1400
800
800
800

13.33
13.33
13.33
13.33
40.67
40.67
40.67
40.67
27
27
27
27
4
50
27

2.50
1.46
8.50
4.12
2.28
1.35
7.82
3.86
5.62
2.56
0.78
7.03
4.80
3.59
3.64

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15


0:2

Experimentation plan

Specimen
10  10  0.5 mm
PU (kN)
0.62
0.37
2.13
1.03
0.57
0.34
1.95
0.97
1.41
0.64
0.20
1.76
1.20
0.90
0.91

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Table 4
Coefcients of the function f a=t ; r0:2 ; n .
Coefcient

b0
b1
b2
b3
b11
b22
b33
b12
b13
b23

Specimen 20  20  1 mm

Specimen 10  10  0.5 mm

Value

Signicance (%)

Value

Signicance (%)

3.664
1.132
1.993
0.243
0.130
0.065
0.168
0.797
0.068
0.077

0.0273
0.0149
<0.01
7.8
46.6
71.0
35.6
0.262
65.5
61.4

0.916
0.285
0.498
0.061
0.034
0.016
0.042
0.201
0.018
0.020

0.0261
0.0138
<0.01
7.6
44.4
70.6
35.2
0.244
64.1
59.6

99% condence level:

If the number is <1.
***
If the number is <0.1.
**

5. Discussion
Analyzing Table 4 leads to the conclusion that the most inuential parameter in the value of PU is r0.2, an increase of
which would result in an increase in PU, since the coefcient b2 is positive. A second inuential parameter is the ratio a/t,
50

50
PU (kN) (a/t = 0.2)

1.0
2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

PU (kN) (a/t = 0.3)

1.0

9.0

8.0

40

30

30

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

40

20

20
10.0
1.0
2.0

10

3.0

4.0

6.0

5.0

7.0

8.0

1.0

9.0

2.0

10

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

11.0
20x20x1 mm specimen

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

7.0

8.0

9.0

20x20x1 mm specimen

1400

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.2 (MPa)

0.2 (MPa)
50

50
PU (kN) (a/t = 0.4) 7.0
1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

PU (kN) (a/t = 0.5)

2.0

6.0

30

30

3.0

4.0

5.0

1.0

40

40

7.0

20

1.0

10

20

6.0
2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

10

2.0

3.0

4.0

8.0
20x20x1 mm specimen

200

400

600

800

0.2 (MPa)

1000

1200

1400

5.0
20x20x1 mm specimen

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.2 (MPa)

Fig. 3. Variation of PU as a function of parameters r0.2 and n for the most common ratios of a/t in 20  20  1 mm specimens.

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

50

50

PU (kN ) (a/t = 0.2)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.6

1.4

1.8

PU (kN ) (a/t = 0.3)

2.0 2.2 2.4

0.4

40

0.2

30

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.4

1.6

1.8

1.8

2.0

0.2

30

0.6

40

20

10

20

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4

2.2

2.6
10

0.6

0.4

0.8

1.0

1.2

10x10x0.5 mm s pecimen
2.8
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

10x10x0.5 mm s pecimen
2.4

1400

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.2 (MPa)

0.2 (MPa)
50

50

PU (kN ) (a/t = 0.4)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

PU (kN ) (a/t = 0.5)

1.6

0.4

40

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

40

0.2

30 0.2

30

2.0

20

20

1.8
10

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

10

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

400

600

800

0.2 (MPa)

1000

1200

1400

1.4
1.6

2.0
10x10x0.5 mm specimen
200

1.2

10x10x0.5 mm specimen
200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.2 (MPa)

Fig. 4. Variation of PU as a function of parameters r0.2 and n for the most common ratios of a/t in 10  10  0.5 mm specimens.

whose increase would yield a decrease in the value of PU, since the coefcient b1 is negative. Parameter n is irrelevant to the
value of PU since its coefcient b3 is not signicant, which offers an advantage when calculating its value since any possible
variation is not going to have a signicant inuence on the estimated value of PU, thus providing a certain margin of error.
Lastly, it can be noted that neither the interactions between the parameters nor their effect on the square are of signicance
to the value of PU, with the exception of the coefcient b12, corresponding to the interaction between a/t and r0.2. Since its
value is negative, an increase in the product of a/t and r0.2 would mean a decrease in the value of PU, without taking into
account the effect of each of these variables separately.
Comparing the signicant coefcients of the function that denes the response surface for the specimen measuring
20  20  1 mm, listed in Table 4, with the signicant coefcients of the function that denes the response surface for
the specimen measuring 10  10  0.5 mm, shown in the same table, leads to the determination that the signicant coefcients in the rst function are approximately four times larger than those in the second. The same is true for the values of PU
in Table 3, which can be related in the same way. Considering that the geometric parameters of the rst specimen
(20  20  1 mm) are double those of the second specimen (10  10  0.5 mm), an ambiguity results in the relationship between the values of PU and the shape factor. In other words, in this specic case the same result is obtained whether the
relationship existing between the values of PU as being double the shape factor 2  2 4 or the square of the shape factor
(22 = 4) is considered. To resolve this ambiguity, a decision was made to calculate the value of PU for each of the experiments
that comprise the design listed in Table 3 using a specimen measuring 40  40  2 mm, which corresponds to a shape factor
of 4 with respect to the 10  10  0.5 mm specimen and to a shape factor of 2 with respect to the 20  20  1 mm specimen.

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Table 5
Relationship between the values of PU for each specimen dimension.
Experiment num.

PU (kN)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

10  10  0.5

20  20  1

40  40  2

0.62
0.37
2.13
1.03
0.57
0.34
1.95
0.97
1.41
0.64
0.20
1.76
1.20
0.90
0.91

2.50
1.46
8.50
4.12
2.28
1.35
7.82
3.86
5.62
2.56
0.78
7.03
4.80
3.59
3.64

9.91
5.72
34.08
16.45
9.12
5.43
31.18
15.51
22.56
10.23
3.20
28.16
19.20
14.39
14.41

Mean
DM/m

PU40402
PU10100:5

P U40402
P U20201

PU20201
PU10100:5

15.99
15.46
16
15.97
16
15.96
15.99
15.99
16
15.98
15.98
16
16
15.99
15.84

3.97
3.92
4.01
3.99
4.00
4.02
3.99
4.02
4.01
4.00
4.10
4.01
4.00
4.01
3.96

4.03
3.95
3.99
4.00
4.00
3.97
4.01
3.98
3.99
4.00
3.90
3.99
4.00
3.99
4.00

15.94
4

4.00
2

3.99
2

Table 5 shows the values yielded for PU by numerical simulation for the three specimen sizes used, as well as the relationship
present in each experiment between the value of PU for one of the specimens with respect to the values of PU along the other
two dimensions of the specimen.
This ambiguity can be resolved using the mean values of the relationships between the values of PU and it can be concluded that the relationship between the values of PU is determined by the square, as shown in expression (6):

PUM D2M=m  PUm

where PUM is the plastic collapse load associated with the larger specimen, PUm is the plastic collapse load associated with the
smaller specimen and DM/m is the shape factor that exists between the larger and smaller specimens, which thus allows this
parameter to always be greater than one. If the specimen order is reversed, that is, if PUM corresponds to the smaller specimen and PUm to the larger, the shape factor (DM/m) will take on a value that is less than one.
Expressions (4) and (5) also allow for the evaluation of the reference stress rref, which is commonly used in structural
integrity to estimate the value of J [16]. Expression (7) represents the value of rref:

rref Papp  ry =PU

where ry is the yield stress (in steels r0.2), PU is the plastic collapse load and Papp is the crack initiation load, which in the case
of 20  20  1 mm pre-cracked SPT specimens are dened by expressions (4) and (8) [17], respectively.

Papp kN 9:74  a=t 8:89

Thus, in the case of 20  20  1 mm pre-cracked steel SPT specimens, the reference stress could be evaluated from the following expression which depends on r0.2, a/t and n.

rref r0:2 

7:82  a=t 8:89

f at ; r0:2 ; n 20201

6. Conclusions
The respective response surfaces were obtained for the specimens analyzed. These surfaces demonstrate the effect of the
materials elastoplastic properties and of the geometry of the aw on the value of the plastic collapse load PU. This allows the
methodology developed previously in [1] and dened in the diagram in Fig. 1 to be applied without the need to perform a
complicated numerical simulation for obtaining PU.
The relationship that exists for the value of PU between the two specimen sizes used was established as a function of the
shape factor DM/m. This feature is of great use when extrapolating the results obtained from other specimen sizes.
For other specimens, test equipment or material congurations, the process for determining PU would be analogous to
that explained here.
Finally, an expression for the reference stress rref, commonly used in structural integrity, was provided for 20  20  1 mm
pre-cracked steel SPT specimens.

I.I. Cuesta, J.M. Alegre / Engineering Failure Analysis 23 (2012) 19

Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the funding received from project MCI Ref: MAT2008-06879-C03-03/MAT.
References
[1] Cuesta II, Alegre JM. Determination of the fracture toughness by applying a structural integrity approach to pre-cracked small punch test specimens.
Eng Fract Mech 2011;78:289300.
[2] Mao X, Takahashi H. Development of a further-miniaturized specimen of 3 mm diameter for tem disk small punch tests. J Nucl Mater 1987;150:4252.
[3] Mao X, Takahashi H, Kodaira T. Super small punch test to estimate fracture toughness JIc and its application to radiation embrittlement of 2.25Cr1Mo
steel. Mater Sci Eng 1992;AI50:2316.
[4] Saucedo-Muoz ML, Liu SC, Hashida T, Takahashi H, Nakajima H. Correlationship between JIc and equivalent fracture strain determined by small-punch
tests in JN1, JJ1 and JK2 austenitic stainless steels. Cryogenics 2001;41:7139.
[5] Bulloch JH. A study concerning material fracture toughness and some small punch test data for low alloy steels. Eng Fail Anal 2004;11:63553.
[6] Abendroth M, Kuna M. Identication of ductile damage and fracture parameters from the small punch test using neural networks. Eng Fract Mech
2006;73:71025.
[7] Ju JB, Jang J, Kwon D. Evaluation of fracture toughness by small-punch testing techniques using sharp notched specimens. Int J Press Ves Pip
2003;80:2218.
[8] Cuesta II, Rodriquez C, Belzunce FJ, Alegre JM. Analysis of different techniques for obtaining pre-cracked/notched small punch test specimens. Eng Fail
Anal 2011;18:22827.
[9] ASME API 579-1/ASME FFS-1. Fitness-for-service. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2007.
[10] MSC.Marc Volume A. Theory and user information, fracture mechanics [Chapter 5].
[11] Ramberg W, Osgood WR. Description of stressstrain curves by three parameters. Technical note no. 902. Washington: National Advisory Committee
for Aeronautics; 1943.
[12] Khuri AI, Cornell JA. Response surfaces. Design and analyses. Statistics: textbooks and monographs, vol. 81. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1987.
[13] Kuehl RO. Diseo de experimentos. International Thomson; 2001.
[14] Montgomery DC. Diseo y anlisis de experimentos. Grupo Editorial Iberoamrica; 1991.
[15] Mathieu D et al. NEMRODW, LPRAI, Marsella. <http://www.nemrodw.com>.
[16] Miller AG, Ainsworth RA. Consistency of numerical results for power-law hardening materials and the accuracy of the reference stress approximation
for J. Eng Fract Mech 1989;32:23347.
[17] Cuesta II, Alegre JM. Inicio de suracin en probetas miniatura de punzonado. Rev Dyna 2012;87:10713.