Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12

Third International Conference on Structural Integrity 2023 (ICONS 2023)

A new approach to evaluate Ramberg-Osgood parameters for

SS316LN using different types of specimens
S. K.Pandeya,b*, M.K.Samala,c, Sajish S.Db
a
Division of Engineering Sciences, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, Tamilnadu, India ([email protected]).
b
c
Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, India ([email protected]).
* Corresponding Author

Abstract

A novel methodology is proposed for evaluating the stress-strain curve and determining the Ramberg-Osgood
parameters (n, α) of SS316LN material. This involves utilizing load-displacement data from various specimen types,
including both smooth and notched tensile specimens with different notch radii, in conjunction with finite element
analysis. An error minimization method was used for evaluating the material parameters. The proposed approach for the
evaluation of unique Ramberg-Osgood parameters provides a better result than that of the material stress-strain data of smooth
specimen test. Ramberg-Osgood parameters were evaluated at two temperatures, i.e., 25°C and 650°C and compared with RCC-
MRx code. Stress-strain equation as provided in the RCC-MR, can’t be used in FE analysis if the plastic strain exceeds 1.5% at
certain regions of structure containing discontinuity, e.g., regions like shell-nozzle junction, vessel head, T-junction etc. The
approach developed in this work shall help to obtain the material stress-strain curve over a wide range of plastic strain values.
Ramberg-Osgood parameters were evaluated for the whole temperature range of 25°C and 650°C, which can be used for
structural integrity analysis of reactor components made of stainless steel grade SS316LN. The range of applicability of data for
RCC-MR code was extended beyond 1.5% of plastic strain in this work. The equations derived in this work shall be useful for
structural integrity analysis and life assessment of structural components of nuclear reactors.
© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
This is an open
Peer-review underaccess article under
responsibility the CC2023
of the ICONS BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Organizers
Peer-review under responsibility of the ICONS 2023 Organizers
Keywords: Ramberg-Osgood parameters, RCC-MR, Stress-Strain data, SS316LN;

2452-3216 © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the ICONS 2023 Organizers

2452-3216 © 2024 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the ICONS 2023 Organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2024.05.026
4 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
2 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

1. Introduction

Smooth specimens are used to find the stress-strain data using the tensile test (ASTM E8). The stress-stain
material data produced by the uniaxial tensile test are used to predict the behaviour of any kind of structural
components comprising multiaxial state of stress. Small deviations in stress-strain data produced by smooth
specimen testing for the purpose of design of structure are generally acceptable because allowable stress and strain in
design codes are kept sufficiently below the ultimate strength. While using damage material model [Pandey et al.
2023, Samal et al. 2009, Samal et al. 2013) damage parameters are needed, which are determined by experimental
and finite element analysis. But in the case of damage parameters evaluation where stress-strain data are used up to
the fracture point, the stress-strain behavior becomes significantly important. The stress-strain data derived from
tensile tests of smooth specimens may not be able to predict load-displacement behavior of notched specimens (due
to presence of multiaxial state of stress) accurately as discussed later in Section-3 of this manuscript. Hence an
optimum stress-strain behavior of a material is required which can predict both smooth and notched tensile load-
displacement behavior accurately. In literature, a technique to identify materials properties using displacement field
measurement has been presented in Fazzini et al. 2011. An inverse methodology to extract constitutive parameters
from experimental data has been presented in Ramirez et al. 2022. Generally, notched specimen test data is used to
evaluate the material damage parameters with the triaxial state of stress. Ramberg-Osgood (RO) stress-strain relation
is used to relate the stress-strain data. In the present work, an approach has been developed to evaluate unique set of
Ramberg-Osgood parameters (n, α), which shall able to predict the behavior (load-displacement data) of different
types of specimens machined from the same material, i.e., specimens with both uniaxial state of stress condition
(smooth tensile specimen) and multiaxial state of stress conditions (notched tensile specimen) accurately.
This approach is based on the minimization of error (minimization of difference of scaled energy absorption,
represented by differences in area under load-displacement curves as obtained from FEA and experiment).

Nomenclature

δ Maximum elongation of specimens

σ Stress
𝜺𝜺𝜺𝜺 Strain
α, n Ramberg-Osgood parameters

2. Approach for optimize Ramberg-Osgood parameters

Approach has been developed based on minimization of difference of areas under the load-displacement curves
of FEA and experimental data, to find the optimized RO parameter, i.e., unique RO parameter (n, α). This approach
consists four steps as follows:
• Step 1: Selection and numbering of different sets of RO parameters (n,α)
• Step 2: Evaluation of Error at each set of (n,α) for each specimen by FEA
• Step 3: Evaluation of Normalized-Error at each set of (n,α)
• Step 4: Evaluation of optimized (n,α), i.e., unique (n,α)
The overall process of optimization approach for unique RO parameters is presented in Fig.1. Ramberg-Osgood
equation for stress and strain is proposed by Ramberg and Osgood as provided in Eq.1. Three sets of RO parameters,
viz., (n1, α1), (n2, α2) and (n3, α3) have been taken to explain the whole process of optimization for unique RO
parameter (n, α). For each set of RO parameter, Error and subsequently Normalized-Error are calculated. Unique
RO parameter is evaluate Ramberg-Osgood equation for stress and strain is proposed by Ramberg and Osgood in
1943 as provided in Eq. (1).d using all Normalized-Errors. The terms, Error and Normalized-Error, are explained in
next sections. Unique RO parameter exists nearest to that RO parameter which gives the lowest value of Error (or
Normalized-Error = 1). The process of finding the lowest valued Normalized-Error, RO parameter and subsequently
the Unique RO parameter has been explained in next paragraphs.
 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000 3

S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12 5

ε σ σ n
= + α� � (1)
ε0 σ0 σ0

2.1. Step 1: Selection and numbering of different sets of RO parameters

Selection and numbering different sets of RO parameters is the key process to reduce the computation work in the
exercise of unique RO parameter appraisal. In this section, an approach has been adopted for performing the
selection and numbering of different sets of RO parameters (n, α) to reduce the number of points for study. The
selection and numbering of points can be done in other fashion also and it doesn’t affect the result, but selection and
numbering of points in the proper manner will lead the fast minimization of error and decrease the number of sets of
data points for study and reduces the computation cost. If ‘n’ and ‘α’ are considered two mutual perpendicular
coordinate axes, then each set of RO parameters corresponds to a point on n-α coordinate plane as in Fig.2.

Fig. 1. Schematic of error evaluation for different combinations of R-O Fig. 2. Selection and numbering of RO parameter points
parameter and evaluation of unique RO parameter values using
optimization as presented later in Section 2.4
The horizontal axis and vertical axis are taken as n-
axis and α-axis respectively. For example, point number 19 represents the RO parameter (n’, α’). The (n,α) of
smooth specimen is called here initial guess point and is considered here as point number 1 in n-α coordinate plane,
if (n,α) of smooth specimen is not available then initial guess value can be taken from literature or design code for
this material. The number of total sets of (n, α) may vary depending depend upon closeness of initial guess (n, α)
and optimized (n, α).
During the selection and numbering of different sets of RO parameters, for SS316LN, n = 2.5, α = 15 are selected
for initial guess point for the temperature of 298K. The values of ‘n’ are range from 2.2 to 3.2 with an interval of 0.1,
and the values of ‘α’ are ranging from 6 to 18 with an interval of 1. In this study, 85 sets of data have been used to
increase the accuracy of result but even less number of data sets can also be used. Increasing the number of RO
parameter sets increases the accuracy of unique RO parameters. Finite element analysis (discussed in next
paragraph) for all five specimens (smooth, notch-5, notch-2.5, notch-1.25 and notch-0.5) with 85 sets of RO
parameters have been carried out. Normalized-Errors have been calculated for all the sets of RO parameters.

2.2. Step 2: Evaluation of Error at each sets of (n, α) by FE analysis

Elasto-plastic finite element analysis, with rate-independent isotropic plasticity model, has been carried out, using
ABAQUS FEA code, for all five specimens with all 85 sets of RO parameters. The gauge length of specimen is 30
mm. The diameter of gauge region of prismatic smooth specimen is 5 mm. For the notched specimens, the minimum
diameter in the notched region has also been kept as 5 mm in order to study the effect of notch on the load-
displacement behavior in the experiment. The half section of the specimens have been modelled (due to symmetry in
6 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
4 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

loading condition along the length) and axisymmetric model has been used for the specimen using 8-node
biquadratic axisymmetric quadrilateral, reduced integration (CAX8R) element. The numbers of elements along
minimum cross section radius are 25 and the aspect ratio of the elements have been maintained as ‘1’ in order to
obtain better accuracy. It is the most critical zone of the FEA mesh with the element distortion point of view. The
finite element mesh for smooth, notch-5 mm, notch-2.5 mm, notch-1.25 mm and notch-0.5 have been depicted in
Fig.3. A typical experimental and FEA load-displacement curve is provided in Fig.4. Physical significance of Error
is the average of deference between average load for FEA and average load for the experiment for all specimens
taken for study, as provided in Fig.5. Error has been defined, in Eq.2, as the average of modulus (absolute) of
difference between area (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 ) under the load-displacement curve of experimental data and area (𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 ) under load-
displacement curve of FEA data divided by the maximum elongation (δ) of specimen at the rupture for the different
types of specimens. Assume load-displacement data (experimental and FEA) are available for five specimens, viz.,
smooth, notch-5, notch-2.5, notch-1.25 and notch-0.5. The Error for each point (each RO parameter) is calculated as
the sum of � � for all type of specimen (smooth, notch-5, notch-2.5, notch-1.25 and notch-0.5) divided by the
�𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 −𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 �
𝛿𝛿𝛿𝛿

number of types of specimens as in Eq. 2.

The basis for this equation (2) is as follows. The differences in load-displacement data between FE analysis and
experiments occurs because of the error in the Ramberg-Osgood parameter set, which describe the true stress-strain
curve of the material through Eq. (1). Hence the objective function is the same of the normalized area between the
load-displacements curves of smooth and notched specimens as we want to optimize data for all types of specimens
including the specimens with different notch radii (simulating different triaxial conditions). These areas scale
according to specimen displacement which is very large for smooth specimen, when compared to the notched
specimen. Hence, we scale the error in area by the total elongation (used as scaling factor in Eq. 2) in order to give
equal weightage to smooth as well as notched specimen. If this scaling is not used, smooth specimen shall have more
weightage (due to more elongation and hence, area under load-displacement curve) and it shall introduce error for
notched specimens as their weightage becomes less in the objective function.

Fig 3. FE mesh for (a) smooth specimen (b) notch 5mm (c) notch 2.5mm (d) notch 1.25mm

Fig 4. Typical experimental and FEA load-displacement Fig 5. Schematic of error evaluation
curve of smooth specimen
 S. K.S.K. Pandey
Pandey/ et al. / Procedia
Structural Structural00
Integrity Procedia Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
(2023) 000–000 57

�𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 − 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 �
Error = � � � ���No. of specimens (2)
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠_𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠

2.3. Evaluation of Normalized-Error at each sets of (n, α)

The Error is determined as in Eq.2. Normalized-Error at a point (RO parameter) is the ratio of Error at a point and
smallest Error among all points. While computing the Error, the difference of areas is divided with maximum
elongation (δ) of specimen at the rupture, to nullify the effect of length of specimen. Normalized-Error has been
determined for all 85 sets of RO parameters with the Errors calculated in the previous paragraph using the Eq.2. The
Normalized-Error of SS316LN at the temperature of 298 K has been provided in Fig.6.

2.4. Step 4: Evaluation of optimized set of (n, α)

The Normalized-Error at each point (each value of RO parameter) is calculated. Data of 2-dimensional plane is
converted into 1-dimension (along a line) as provided in Fig.7 and Fig.8. Evaluation of unique (n, α) is processed in
two steps. In the first step, RO parameters are identified in each row where Normalized-Error is lowest. In the
second step, RO parameter is identified among the RO parameters of first step which have lowest Normalized-Error.
The lowest value of Normalized-Error, among each row, is found by plotting the Normalized-Error versus RO
parameter- n. Abscissa (n) at the minima of curve is marked for each row. For α =12 (typical), Normalized-Errors
versus ‘n’ is provided in Fig.9. Next, α versus n, determined from above process, is plotted in Fig.10. Now the two
dimensional data in converted in one-dimensional data. The best fit equation of, 1-dimentional data of (n, α) is
provided in Eq. 3. For the temperature of 923K, RO parameter- α versus RO parameter- n has been determined for
minimum Normalized-Errors as given in Eq. (3).

Fig 6. Normalized-Error for temperature of 298K

Fig 7. Normalized-Error in (n- α) plane (2-dimensional) Fig 8. Lowest Normalized-Error along a line (1-
dimensional) in (n- α) plane
8 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
6 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

α = 2.948 ∗ n2 − 25.74 ∗ T + 58.15 (3)

α = 4.358 ∗ n2 − 32.74 ∗ T + 64.98 (4)

Fig 9. Normalized-Mean-Offset vs. n for α =12 at T=298K Fig 10. Optimized-α versus n at T=298K

Now, Normalized-Errors, for each set of (n, α) of Fig.10, has been determined as provided in Fig.11. The minima
of curve give optimized RO parameter- n (unique RO parameter- n) as 2.72. Optimized RO parameter- α (unique
RO parameter- α) corresponding to n as 2.7 has been found as 10.0 from Eq. 3. Hence the unique RO parameters (n,
α) for SS316LN have been found as (2.72, 10.0) at the temperature of 298K.
For the temperature of 923K, RO parameter- α versus RO parameter- n has been determined for minimum
Normalized-Errors as given in Eq. 4. Normalized-Errors versus ‘n’ has been plotted in Fig.12. Unique RO
parameters (n, α) for SS316LN have been found as (2.67, 8.62) at the temperature of 923K. The optimized value of
Ramberg-Osgood parameter for the SS316LN at the different temperatures is provided in Table 1.

Fig 12. Normalized error versus n curve for optimized-n at

Fig 11. Variation of normalized-Mean-Offset with temperature of 923K
optimized-‘n’ at T=298K
 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12 9
S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000 7

Table 1. Unique Ramberg-Osgood parameters for SS316LN

Temperature n α

298 K (25°C) 2.72 10

923 K
2.67 8.62
(650°C)

3. Comparison of FEA and experimental data

The comparisons of load-displacement curves generated by finite element analysis with the experimental results
(Kumar et al. 2014, Nandagopal et al. 2011) have been carried out for the all types of specimens. Finite element
analysis has been carried out with two types of material stress-stain data. First, the stress-strain data was evaluated
by unique Ramberg-Osgood parameters (n, α). Second, the stress-strain data was evaluated by the smooth specimen
experimental result. Comparison of load-displacement curves, at the temperature of 298K, for the smooth, notch-2.5
and notch-5 have been depicted in Fig.13 and Fig.14 respectively. Comparison of load-displacement curves, at the
temperature of 923K, for the smooth, notch-2.5 and notch-5 have been depicted Fig.15 and Fig.16 respectively

Fig 14. Load-displacement curves for notch-5 mm

Fig 13. Load-displacement curves for notch-2.5 mm
specimen at 298K
specimen at 298K

Fig 15. Load-displacement curves for notch-5 mm Fig16. Load-displacement curves for notch-5 mm
specimen at 923K specimen at 923K
10 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
8 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

4. Comparison of stress-strain curves with data of RCC-MR design code

The unique Ramberg-Osgood parameter (n, α) has been compared with RCC-MRx French design code. RCC-MR
provides design curve equations for stress-strain relation, at a temperature, valid up to 1.5% of plastic strain. Design
curve equations provided in RCC-MR code can’t be valid if plastic strain increases beyond 1.5% which generally
occurs in high geometrical discontinuity regions like nozzle junction, vessel head, T-junction etc. Generally, design
is carried out with minimum stress-strain curve and life assessment is carried out with an average stress-strain curve.
Beyond the 1.5% of plastic strain, the stress-strain curves are provided at a certain interval of temperature in RCC-
MR. Conservatively, next higher value is considered if design temperature falls in between the temperature interval.
Secondly, for thermo-mechanical analysis of structural components, where temperature varies across the thickness
of components, temperature dependent material stress-strain curve can be helpful for more accurate analysis in the
form of temperature dependent RO parameter (n, α), instead of using the maximum temperature data which is
conservative.

4.1. Evaluation of Ramberg-Osgood parameter from RCC-MRx data

RO parameters (n, α) have been derived, using best fit curve, for stress-strain data provided in RCC-MR for
SS316LN material at the certain interval of temperatures as provided in Fig.17. It is seen that the curve fitting of
RCC-MRx stress-strain curve with RO type stress strain curve is performing well away from the first yield point.
Near the yield point, the RO type curve is not approximating the RCC-MRx data. The RCC-MRx provides
equations for the stress-strain curve up to the plastic strain of 0.015 (1.5%). RCC-MRx equation can be used up to
the plastic strain of 1.5%, and beyond that RO based stress-strain data can be used.

Fig 17. RCC-MRx stress-strain curve and Ramberg-Osgood best fit curve [8]

4.2. Comparison of unique Ramberg-Osgood parameters with RCC-MRx data

The variation of RO parameters ‘n’ and ‘α’ with temperature have been plotted in Fig.18 and Fig.19 respectively
for RCC-MRx data and also compared with unique RO parameter derived by the proposed approach at the
temperature of 298K and 923K. The unique RO parameters give a good approximation of RCC-MR curve. The best
fit curves for RO parameters are also plotted. The equations for Romberg Osgood parameters (n and α) have been
proposed with the function of temperature. The found relations for n and α with temperature are provided in Eq. 5
and Eq. 6 respectively. These proposed equations are good approximate the optimized Ramberg-Osgood parameters
at the temperatures of 293K (25°C) and 923K (650°C), as well as the RCC-MRx data. These relations can be used
for finding the stress-strain curve at any temperature ranging from 25°C to 650°C for the stainless steel grade
316LN.
 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000 9
S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12 11

Fig 18. Ramberg-Osgood parameter ‘n’ v.s. Fig 19. Ramberg-Osgood parameter ‘α’ v.s.
temperature (°C) temperature (°C)

n = 1E − 05 ∗ T 2 − 0.007 ∗ T + 3.5 (5)

α = −9E − 05 ∗ T 2 + 0.058 ∗ T + 9.7 (6)

5. Conclusion

The load-displacement curves obtained from FE analysis with the unique Ramberg-Osgood parameter (n, α) are
closely approximating the experimental load-displacement curve for the notched specimens. The FEA load-
displacement curve produced by using experimental stress-strain material data of smooth specimen is not
approximated well for the notched specimens. For the material damage parameter evaluation, the large plastic strain
data, up to the ultimate value is needed. Hence this approach provides the rules to evaluate the precise stress-strain
data for large plastic deformation which can be used for the damage mechanics study of the material as well as
designing for the high stress concentration zone. The equations for the best fit curve for RO parameters- n and α are
closely approximate with RCC-MRx material stress-strain curve for the austenitic stainless steel 316LN and valid
for plastic strain beyond 1.5% which generally occurs in high geometrical discontinuity regions like nozzle junction,
vessel head, T-junction etc. This best fit equation is not approximate well for plastic strain less than 1.5%. Hence the
RCC-MRx equation of stress-strain can be used when plastic strain is less than 1.5%. These equations of RO
parameters as derived in this work can be used for finding the stress-strain curve at any temperature from 25°C to
650°C. It was observed that the optimized values of RO parameters provide a good approximation of the stress-
strain data which is comparable to that provided on the RCC-MRx curve. The following conclusions can be drawn
from this work.
• The error minimization approach as followed in this work provides a new approach to evaluate the true
stress-strain curve of any material as this is represented in terms of Ramberg-Osgood paramaters. The
advantage is that any kind of specimen can be used in the experiment, i.e., both smooth and notched
specimens and hence, the effect of stress triaxiality in the notched region of the specimen is
automatically taken care of in the FE model.
• Appropriate scaling parameter must be used for smooth and notched specimens as the energy absorption
magnitude is high for smooth specimens due to presence of large elongation before fracture as compared
to notched specimens.
• Integration of error between laod-displacement curves of FE and experimental data should be carried till
experimental value of displacement at fracture of the specimen.
• The disadvantage of the approach is that it requires a hybrid approach of experiment and FE analysis
and hence, the engineer must be familiar with FE analysis in order to use the procedure.
12 S.K. Pandey et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 60 (2024) 3–12
10 S. K. Pandey/ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000–000

References

ASTM E8/ASTM E8M, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Testing of Metallic Materials” 2017.
Fazzini, M., Dalverny, O., Mistou, S. 2011. Identification of Materials Properties Using Displacement Field Measurement. Key Engineering
Materials 482, 5-9.
Kumar, J. G., Nandagopal, M., Parameswaran, P., Laha, K., Mathew, M. D., 2014. Effect of notch root radius on tensile behaviour of 316L(N)
stainless steel. Mater. High Temp 31, 239–248.
Nandagopal, M., Ganesan, V., Ganesh Kumar, J., Laha, K., Mathew, M. D., 2011. Influence of nitrogen on the notch sensitivity of 316LN
stainless steel during tensile deformation. High Temp. Mater. Process 30, 511–517.
Pandey, S. K., Samal, M. K.Numerical Simulation of Effect of Initial Crack Size of Fracture Specimens on J-R Curve for Austenitic Grade
Stainless Steel SS316LN. Proceedings of ICCMS 2022 conference, IIT Indore, India.
Ramirez-Tamayo D, 2022. A complex-variable finite element method-based inverse methodology to extract constitutive parameters using
experimental data." International Journal of Solids and Structures 243, 111545.
RCC-MRx, “RCC-MR, Section I, Sub section Z: Technical Appendix A3.” 2012.
Samal, M. K., Balani, K., Seidenfuss, M., Roos, E., 2009. An experimental and numerical investigation of fracture resistance behaviour of a
dissimilar metal welded joint. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 223, 1507–1523.
Samal, M. K., Shah, P. K., 2013. On the application of Rousselier’s damage model to predict fracture resistance behavior of zircaloy fuel pin
specimens. Procedia Engineering, 55, 710–715.
Samal, M.K., Seidenfuss, M., Roos, 2013. A comparative assessment of local and nonlocal damage models for prediction of fracture behavior
during mixed-mode loading. Procedia Engineering, 55, 493–498.