Comparison of R6 and A16 J estimation methods under combined mechanical and thermal loads with FE results

Hyun Suk Nam, Chang Young Oh, Yun Jae Kim, Dong Wook Jerng, Robert A. Ainsworth, Peter J. Budden, Stéphane Marie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)


This paper compares elastic-plastic values of J calculated using the methods in the UK R6 and the French A16 fitness-for-service procedures with FE results for a vessel with a circumferential surface crack under axial tension and a radial thermal gradient. In the FE analyses, the relative magnitudes and loading sequence of mechanical and thermal loads are systematically varied, together with the material strain hardening exponent. Fully circumferential and semi-elliptical surface crack with two relative crack depths are considered. It is found that the R6 estimates are overall accurate but can be non-conservative at large Lr. The A16 estimates are more conservative than the R6 estimates at small Lr but are conservative even at large Lr. Possible sources of conservatism and non-conservatism in R6 and A16 are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)12-25
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Nov
Externally publishedYes


  • A16
  • Circumferential cracked vessel
  • Combined mechanical and thermal loading
  • Elastic-plastic J
  • Finite element analysis
  • R6

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Materials Science
  • Mechanics of Materials
  • Mechanical Engineering


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of R6 and A16 J estimation methods under combined mechanical and thermal loads with FE results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this