A. S.

Kobayashi
Mem.ASME

M. Ramulu
Impacted Notch Bend Specimens
The proposed test procedure for instrumented impact testings is evaluated by the
University of Washington,
experimental and numerical dynamic fracture results obtained for Homalite-100,
Department of Mechanical
polycarbonate, A533B steel and 6061 aluminum notched bend specimens. As ex-
Engineering, pected, brittle fracture of the polymeric, steel and aluminum impacted notch bend
Seattle, Wash. 98195 specimens considered in this paper cannot be predicted by the static stress intensity
factors at the instant of crack propagation. The fracture energy was only a fraction
of the total energy and was equally unsuitable for dynamic fracture characterization
S. Mall of these specimens. This evaluation suggests that despite the enormous correlation
University of Maine studies which justify the use of static analysis for specific specimens under specified
atOrono, loading conditions, the proposed procedure should not be used to evaluate fracture
Department of Mechanical data of impacted notch bend specimens of other configurations and loading rates.
Engineering,
Orono, Me. 04473
Mem.ASME

Introduction
For over a decade, a variety of instrumented impact testings
of notch bend specimens has been used to characterize the
fracture resistance of brittle as well as ductile materials. Test
specimens for such dynamic fracture testing range from the
large notch bend specimens of 38x30x228 cm [1] to the
standard Charpy V-notched precracked specimens of
10x10x55 mm [2, 3] with test materials ranging from
structural steel, to aluminum, titanium, polymers, carbon-
epoxy composities and ceramics. The results are normally
presented in terms of total energy absorbed in the specimen
(Charpy fracture energy), total fracture energy, and dynamic
initiation fracture toughness, KId, all of which are to
characterize the material resistance to dynamic loading.
Unfortunately, the last two quantities are not directly
measureable and the total absorbed energy includes the
residual strain energy as well as the parasitic kinetic energy
which propels the fractured specimen. As a result, literature is
abundant with procedures for interpreting the test results,
most of which have involved correlation studies of static
analyses of dynamic fracture data of impacted notch bend
specimens. While these data have been presented in terms of
total absorbed energy, i.e., Charpy fracture energy, in the
past, the recent trend is to present the test results in terms of
dynamic fracture toughness, KId. The KM data and the
restrictive conditions under which the data are valid are
summarized among others in references [4 and 5]. These
empirical procedures are all based on static fracture analysis
with restrictive test conditions and data interpretation
procedures which assure that the effects of "inertia loading"
are excluded. Although the high strain rate loading condition
is maintained, this a priori data filtering reduces the impact
testing to an analytically more palatable time-varying quasi-
static testing condition. Despite this uncertainty in its physical
Contributed by the Pressure Vessels and Piping Division for publication in
the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received at ASME
Headquarters, September 14,1981.
characterization, the impacted notch bend specimen is a very
popular test specimen because of the simple test procedure
involved and its compact specimen size.
With the recent developments in numerical and ex-
perimental procedures for analyzing the dynamic responses of
cracked structures, some numerical [6, 7] and experimental [8]
dynamic analyses of impacted notch bend specimens are
becoming available. 'One common conclusion which emerges
from these dynamic analyses involving various specimen
geometries and materials is that static analysis, when used
outside of the restricted test conditions [3, 4, 5] of impact data
can lead to erroneous KId values. The authors have also
studied dynamic fracture responses of various impacted notch
bend specimens over the past several years [9-12], but did not
present these results in terms of the recently proposed method
for impact testings of notch bend specimens [5]. The purpose
of this paper, thus, is to review these past results in view of
recent attempts [13] to relate the results of impacted notch
bend specimen to parameters related to dynamic fracture
mechanics and in particular, to the dynamic initiation fracture
toughness, KId.
Static Analyses of Impacted Notch Bend Specimens
Since elastodynamic analysis of an impacted notch bend
specimen can, at best, be obtained only by executing large-
scale finite differences of finite element codes, data evaluation
procedures which have evolved to date are based on static
analysis of this transient phenomenon. Among the several but
similar procedures in use [2-5], the procedure as reported in
reference [5] is briefly described in the following.
The foremost criterion for guaranteeing that specimen
inertia oscillation has subsided is the 3T requirement, where T
is related to the period of the apparent oscillations. Inertia
oscillations, which accounts for only part of the dynamic
effects, is modeled with the vibration of a free-free beam and
thus [13]

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1982, Vol. 104/25

Copyright © 1982 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 T=1.68(SWEBQL)I/2/C0 (1) U- 6 4 mm -«J

The specimen compliance, CLL, in equation (1) can be

derived from the known specimen deflection in the notch bend 25mm
beam as [14]
13mm-* •=»

where (6/P) no crack is the compliance of the uncracked beam

13mm R
and V2{a/W), which is the correction factor due to the
presence of a crack, is represented in a polynomial of a/Win DROP WEIGHT TUP
reference [14] as

J l ) = f - ^ f f 5.58-19.57^) + 36.82(^)2
DROP WEIGHT TUP

-34.94(|,)2+12.77(^)4)
By adjusting the impact velocity of the tup as well as the
specimen geometry, ring down of the impacted specimen is
believed to occur when the time to fracture, tf>3r. The
dynamic stress intensity can then be computed by using the
following static formula [14] of
S / a \
where Pm is the maximum tup load, and F(a/W), which is a
geometric parameter and corrects for the finite geometry of
the beam, is represented by a polynomial a IW in reference
[14] as
l^-1.0»-..735(£) ..20(i)'
\wJ +
14.18
(£)' + i 4 - 5 7 (£)' <">
In addition, complete fracture of the specimen is
guaranteed by a conservative requirement that the total
available energy at impact, £/„, is larger than three times the
energy dissipated at maximum load, or 3t/,„. This
requirement also ensures that the tup velocity is not reduced
during the fracture initiation event more than 20 percent of its
initial impact velocity. In addition, a loading rate in terms of
the static stress intensity factor rate of ^ = 5 0 - 5 0 0 GPa
Vm/s is computed by the simple formula of
K,=Ku/tf (4)
Although the foregoing static analysis is elastic, impacted
notch bend specimens are used to characterize also the
fracture resistance of ductile materials, such as A533B steel
and low carbon steel. Thus the influence of dynamic plasticity
cannot be ignored in practice. Some attempts have been made
to use J for reducing data in the presence of plastic yielding [3,
13], but recommended procedures are yet to be established,
due to the lack of a definitive static ductile fracture criterion
and, needless to mention, a dynamic ductile fracture initiation
criterion at this time.
{2t)
THICKNESS HOMALITE-IOO B= 9.5mm
POLYCARBONATE B = 3.2mm
W = 89mm
5r
J~M L
ui
S - 368mm -
L= 394mm-
SPECIMEN
Fig. 1 Homalite-100 and polycarbonate impacted notch bend
specimen
Impacted Notch Bend Photoelastic Specimens
The dynamic stress intensity factors obtained previously,
either experimentally by the use of dynamic photoelasticity or
by dynamic finite element analysis of impacted, notch bend
photoelastic specimens [10, 11], are used to assess the validity
of the recommended procedures for dynamic fracture-
toughness testing. The two photoelastic specimens of
Homalite-100 and polycarbonate used in this comparison are
shown in Fig. 1. The Homolite-100 and polycarbonate
specimens model brittle and somewhat ductile materials,
respectively. All cracks were fatigue precracked in these
specimens. The specimen geometries which were primarily
designed to satisfy the photoelastic requirements are ad-
mittedly larger and thinner than the commonly used metallic
specimens. Nevertheless, the two-dimensional elastodynamic
responses of the photoelastic specimens, with proper care, can
be scaled to metallic specimens of smaller dimensions [15, 16],
and thus these dynamic photoelasticity results were used to
investigate the effectiveness of the recommended procedures.
Also shown in Fig. 1 is the instrumented tup from which the
impact load was obtained.
Figure 2 shows typical tup load traces for the Homalite-100
and polycarbonate specimens. These load traces do not
exhibit the oscillating but increasing load responses with time,
such as those shown in references [4 and 8], but follow those
shown in reference [5]. These differences could be in part

Nomenclature
KAyn mode I dynamic stress
a = crack length intensity factor tj = time to fracture from
B = specimen thickness mode I static stress impact initiation
c0 = longitudinal bar stress intensity factor U = energy
wave velocity mode I dynamic init- U„, = total energy in specimen
CLL — specimen load-line com- iation fracture at maximum tup load
pliance toughness U0 = total energy in tup
E = modulus of elasticity applied tup load V0 = tup velocity at impact
K, = mode I stress intensity maximum tup load W = beam depth
factor S = support span of beam 5 = load line displacement

26/Vol. 104, FEBRUARY 1982 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Summary of test data

If K/d K Ic k/tat(Gl k/ dyn Ua

Ua/Urn Va
(IlS) (MPavrn) (MPavrn) (GPav'ffi/s) (GPav'ffi/s) (1) (m/sec)
Homalite-l00 180 0.403 0.415 15.4 3.4 19.2 76.5 1.72
(average of 2 tests
at room temperature)
polycarbonate 1070 2.52 3.43 1.97 9.7 19.2 8.1 1.72
(average of 2 tests
at room temperature)
A533B steel 425 123 294 460 2.5
(1 test at room
temperature)
A533B steel 232 64 151 400 2.5
(1 test at -18 C)
6061 aluminum 140 44 493 500 8.6
(!test at room
temperature)

(GlComputed by equation (4).

3.--------,r-~--.----,-...,

CRACK
PROPAGATION

~o j
Cl.
:::E
-Z
cr:::
~
U
<t
u..
>-
~
VJ
Z
lJJ
~
Z

VJ
(a)Homalite·100 specimen - vertical one division = 622 N, hortizontal VJ
one division = 0.1 m lJJ
cr:::
~ (NUMERICAL)
VJ

dyn
KI
(EXPERIMENTAL)
100 ZOO 300
TIME (MICROSECOND)
Fig. 3 Stress intensity factors of an impacted Homalite·100 notch
bend specimen

factors were either obtained directly by fitting the singular

(b)Polycarbonate specimen - vertical one division = 298 N, horizontal
one division = 0.2 m
Fig.2 Tup load traces for Impacted Homalite'100 and polycarbonate
specimens
attributed to the higher tup velocities at impact, Va, used in
these series of tests, as shown in Table 1.
Figures 3 and 4 show the static and dynamic stress intensity
factors, K/tat and K/dyn, up to crack propagation in typical
Homalite-l00 and polycarbonate specimens, respectively. The
static stress intensity factor was computed by substituting the
measured instantaneous tup load in equation (3). The rapid
~ise in K/tat at the early phase of impact is thus an artifact
Introduced by this static analysis. The dynamic stress intensity
near-field state of stress to the transient isochromatics
surrounding the stationary crack tip, or by using a calibrated
crack opening displacement obtained from dynamic finite
element analysis. Details of the experimental and numerical
procedure used are provided in references [10 and 11].
Crack propagation initiated from the fatigued crack tip in
four Homalite-100 impacted notch bend specimens within
If *180 /l-S after initiation of impact, as shown in Fig. 3.
Equations (1) and (2) yielded a calculated 7* 740 /l-S with a
If 17 = 0.24, which violates the 3rimpact duration set forth in
the recommended procedure. Also notable is the six-fold
difference in calculated K/tat and the actual K/dyn at crack
propagation in Fig. 3.
For the seven polycarbonate specimens, the time to fracture
is If *1020/l-s, as shown in Fig. 4. The calculated 7=980 /l-s
yields a If 17* 1 and is one-third of the specified 37 limitation.
While reasonable agreements in Charpy data in the 17 region
are noted in reference [5], the same If = 7 yielded large dif-
ferences between the statically computed K/tat and the actual

JOurnal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1982, Vol. 104/27

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ^

- 3 0.7 EXTERNAL WORK DONE

rr
o (EXPERIMENTAL) PROBATION
H
o
<

2
t S 0.5
ONSET OF
CRACK
PROPAGATION -
2 0.4

0.3
or

0.2
STRAIN ENERGY

200 400 600 800 1000

TIME (MICROSECOND) FRACTURE —-
ENERGY .
Fig. 4 Stress intensity factors of an impacted polycarbonate notch
bend specimen "l I L
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (MICROSECOND)
dynamic K,dyn in the polycarbonate specimens.' For the Fig. 5 Computed energies in impacted Homolite-100 notched bend
higher impact velocities of about 1.7 m/s, the tup load traces specimen
for the impacted polycarbonate notch bend specimen show
that the tup load continues to oscillate without abatement I I I I I i i
after tf through the duration approaching the 3T limit. These
oscillations are similar to those shown by Fig. 7, 8 and 9 in ONSET OF CRACK PROPAGATION ~>"
2.5-
reference [8], and thus suggest that K,dy" in Fig. 4 would not
converge to K,sm even if initiation of crack propagation was
restrained beyond the suggested 3T limit by lowering the tup
EXTERNAL / ^ "
velocity from 1.7 m/s to the specified 1 m/s [5] in these WORK D O N E - ^ / /
photoelastic specimens. _i
=>
o — '•» / \
Figures 5 and 6 show typical computed energy partitions in
impacted Homalite-100 and polycarbonate notch bend 1.5 _ KINETIC / STRAIN^ / \
ENERGY ^ V ENERGY \ /
specimens. The small percentage of the fracture energy in
rr
terms of the total input work at complete specimen fracture
shows that the total absorbed energy or the Charpy fracture
UJ
2
/ ' N / \Z\_FRACTURE
s
energy cannot possibly be used to characterize dynamic / ' / A ENERGY

fracture of Homalite-100. Although the fracture energy

occupies about 57 percent of the total absorbed energy in the 0.5- / / / \ . / A
polycarbonate specimen, for the same reason, would not be
an appropriate quantity for dynamic characterization of
polycarbonate. J*
IJ
•

Impacted Notch Bend Steel and Aluminum Specimens
A dynamic finite element code2 was used to determine the
increasing K,dyn leading to K,d at the onset of crack
propagation in 25.4-mm-thick A533B steel at room tem-
perture and at - 1 8 ° C and a 16-mm-thick aluminum notch
bend specimen [12]. The cracks in the two A533B steel
specimens were fatigue-precracked while a mechanically
sharpened notch tip of 0.025 mm radius was used in the
aluminum specimen. These specimens were instrumented with
a 3 x 3 mm strain gage near the notch tip. The transient strain
recorded during impact was then related to an equivalent
static stress intensity factor following Loss's procedure [16].
A second strain gage was also located at 1/4 span on the
compression edge of the aluminum specimen. Extensive
numerical analyses [12] verified that the proximity of the
strain gage and the use of instantaneous dynamic strains
1
Reference [5], however, shows significant differences in Charpy data in the
regimes of TOJ-Orand fy >3T.
2
The dynamic finite element code, HONDO II, with a special fracture
mechanics package was used in the plane stress mode.
_-*?- i i i i i I I
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
TIME (MICROSECOND)
Fig. 6 Computed energies in impacted polycarbonate noctched bend
specimen
appeared to compensate for lack of dynamic analysis in
Loss's static procedures for computing Kt6yn. The tip
velocities at impact, V0, and the loading rates, K,st3' and
Kjdyn, in these tests are shown in Table 1. K,sm was computed
by using equation (4) and K/dyn was obtained by measuring
the slope of the K,dyn versus time relation at fracture
initiation.
Figures 7 and 8 show the K,stM and K,dyn variations in an
impacted A533B steel tested at room temperature and
— 18°C, respectively. With the exception of the fortuitous
coincidence of K,siM and K,dyn at the initiation of crack
propagation in Fig. 7, K,dy" shows no tendency to converge to
K,slM in these figures. The time to fracture, tf, is about 27 and
1.2T for the two A533B specimens, but the lack of visible
convergence of K,dyn to Kism again indicates that K;dyn will
not converge to K,^1 even at the 3T period.
Figure 9 shows the K,sm and K,dyn variations in impacted
6061 aluminum notch bend specimens with /y/r = 0.81. Again,

28/Vol. 104, FEBRUARY 1982 Transactions of the A3 ME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 100
2UU - • 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1

slot
CRACK PROPAGATION-
* • 80
0-
150
A rKi°' s
; , tr
o
60
100 vKiyn — <

co 40-
50

-/ CO
CO 20-
i i 1 i 1 i 1 i
100 200 300 400 500
TIME (MICROSECOND)
Fig. 7 Stress intensity factors of an impacted A533B steel notched
bend specimen. (L = 229mm, S = 203mm, W = 51 mm, B = 25mm, 0 50 100 150 200 250
a = 25mm) TIME (MICROSECOND)
Fig. 8 Stress intensity factors of an impacted A533B steel notched
the notable differences between A"/5"1 and Ar/Stat, with no bend specimen (L = 229mm, S = 203mm, W = 51 mm, S = 25mm,
trend of abatement, are noted. K,st!it computed from the 1/4- a = 25mm)
span strain gage signals, following the procedure described in
reference [5], is not shown in Fig. 9. The significant dif-
ferences in the tup load trace and 1/4-span gage signal, as
shown in Fig. 11 in reference [12], would have led to K,stM,
which is appreciably different than the K,dyn in Fig. 9. While
the energy partitions of the above three metallic specimens
were not determined due to lack of crack velocity
measurements during fracture, experiences with other
dynamic fracture specimens such as single-edged notch (SEN)
specimens subjected to uniform loading and fixed end
displacement loading [17] show that the total fracture energy
dissipated in such specimens would be, at the best, about half
of the total input work of the specimen.

Conclusions and Discussions

Results of our previous experimental and numerical
analyses of photoelastic and metallic impacted notch bend
specimens, when evaluated in terms of the recommended
guidelines for dynamic fracture toughness testing, show that
these procedures cannot be extended to the larger specimen
configurations under more severe dynamic loading conditions
used in our investigations.
The credible consistency in the experimental K,d in
reference [5] is based on internal correlations of the dynamic
data evaluated statically. The results of the photoelastic test
data show that this correlation of statically computed KId
with the actual KId breaks down under loading conditions
outside of the specified limits. In contrast, Figs. 3 in reference
[10 and 11] and Fig. 8 in reference [18] show that the
dynamically evaluated KId are remarkably the same among
each of the four [10] and six [18] Homalite-100 and the seven
[11] polycarbonate impacted notch bend specimens tested.
The foregoing comparative study indicates that valid K,d
data could be generated through impacted notch bend tests
under arbitrary loading conditions if appropriate dynamic
analysis is used. The authors feel that efforts should be ex-
pended in developing such a dynamic analysis procedure
rather than in developing restrictive conditions under which
static analysis can be used. Conceivably, the long time delay
necessary to validate static analysis could obviate the loading
rate effect originally sought in these impact test.
Acknowledgment
The results reported in this paper were obtained through
50 I00
TIME (MICROSECOND)
Fig. 9 Stress intensity factors of an impacted 6061 aluminum notched
bend specimen (L = 178mm, S = 163mm, IV = 41mm, B = 16mm,
a = 13mm)
ONR Contract No. 00014-76-C-0600 NR 64-478. The authors
wish to thank Dr. N. Perrone, ONR, for his support during
the course of this investigation.
References
1 Loss, F. J., and Pellini, W. S., "Coupling of Fracture Mechanics and
Transition Temperature Approaches to Fracture-Safe Design," Practical
Fracture Mechanics for Structural Steel, ed., M. O. Dobson, Chapman and
Hall, Ltd., 1969, pp. Jl-35.
2 Rolfe, S. T., and Barsom, J. M., Fracture and Fatigue Control in
Structures, Applications of Fracture Mechanics, Prentice-Hall, 1977.
3 Instrumented Impact Testing, ASTM STP 563, Oct. 1974.
4 Ireland, D. R., "Procedures and Problems Associated with Reliable
Control of the Instrmented Impact Test," Instrumented Impact Testing, ASTM
STP 563, Oct. 1974.
5 Server, W. L., Wullaert, R. A., and Sheckherd, J. W., "Evaluation of
Current Procedures for Dynamic Fracture-Toughness Testing," Flaw Growth
andFracture, ed., J. M. Barsom, ASTM STP 631, 1977, pp. 446-461.
6 Norris, D. M., Reaugh, J. E., Moran, B., and Quinones, D. F.,

Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology FEBRUARY 1982, Vol. 104/29

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 "Computer Model for Ductile Fracture: Applications to the Charpy V-Notch 13 McConnel, P., and Server, W., "EPRI Instrumental Impact Test
Test," EPRI Report No. NP-961, 1979. Procedures," C.S.N.I. Specialist Meeting on Instrumented Precracked Charpy
7 Kanninen, M. F. Gehlen, P. C , Barnes, C. R., Hoagland, R. G., Hahn, Testing, ed., R. A. Wullaert, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
G. T., and Popelar, C. H., "Dynamic Crack Propagation Under Impact Calif. 1981, NP-2102-LD, p. 1.1
Loading," Nonlinear and Dynamic Fracture Mechanics, eds., N. Perrone and 14 Tada, H., Paris, P. C , and Irwin, G. R., The Stress Intensity Handbook,
S. N. Atluri, ASME AMD, Vol. 35, 1979, pp. 195-200. Del Research, 1972, p. 2.17.
8 Kalthoff, J. F., Bohme, W., Winkler, S., and Klemm, W.,
"Measurements of Dynamic Stress Intensity Factors," C.S.N.I. Specialist 15 Kobayashi, A. S., Emery, A. F., and Liaw, B. M., "Dynamic Analysis of
Meeting on Instrumental Precracked Charpy Testing, ed., R. A. Wullaert, Notch Bend Specimens," C.S.N.I. Specialist Meeting on Instrumented
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. 1981, NP-2102-LD, p. II.1 Precracked Charpy Testing, ed., R. A. Wullaert, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, Calif. 1981, NP-2102-LD, p. II.2
9 Kobayashi, A. S., and Char, C. F., "A Dynamic Photoelastic Analysis of
Dynamic Tear Test Specimen," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 16, No. 5, May 16 "Structural Integrity of Water Reactor Pressure Boundary Com-
1975, pp. 176-181. ponents," Progress Report ending February 1976, ed., F. J. Loss, Naval
10 Mall, S., Kobayashi, A. S., and Urabe, Y., "Dynamic Photoelastic and Research Laboratory Report 8006 (also, NR: NUREG.l), August 26, 1976.
Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Dynamic-Tear-Test Specimens," Ex- 17 Kobayashi, A. S., Emery, A. F., and Liaw, B. M., "Dynamic Fracture
perimental Mechanics, Vol. 18, No. 12, Dec. 1978, pp. 449-456. Characterization of Materials," Trans, of the 6th International Conference on
11 Mall, S., Kobayashi, A. S., and Urabe, Y., "Dynamic Photoelastic and Structural Mechanism in Reactor Technology, North Holland Publishing Co.,
Dynamic Finite Element Analysis of Polycarbonate Dynamic Tear Test Amsterdam, 1981, p. L6.1
Specimens," Fracture Mechanics, ed., C. W. Smith, ASTM STP 677, Aug.
1979, pp.498-510. 18 Kobayashi, A. S., and Mall, S., "Dynamic Photoelastic Analysis of
12 Mall, S., Kobayashi, A. S., and Loss, F. J., "Dynamic Fracture Analysis Three Dynamic Fracture Specimens," Proceedings of International Conference
of Notched Bend Specimens," Crack Arrest Methodology and Applications, on Dynamic Fracture Toughness Testing, The Welding Institute, 1976, pp.
ed., M. F. Kanninen and G. T. Hahn, ASTM STP 711, 1980, pp. 70-88. 259-272.

ASME PRIOR PUBLICATION POLICY

The policy of ASME is to publish in its Transactions a complete record of the significant and
original advances in mechanical engineering technology. Definitive review articles which critically
summarize a currently-relevant part of this technology for the benefit of the designer/developer
and researcher alike, are also published.

An acceptable paper must not have been published previously, either in whole or in part, in a
serial, professional journal and expressed in any of the common scientific languages read in the
U.S.A. (e.g., Japanese, Russian and Chinese are excluded). All authors must so testify to the
Transactions Journal Technical Editor before their paper will be reviewed regarding publication.
When the substance of the paper is readily available in the U.S.A. in a report, conference
proceedings, thesis, book, ASME Special Publication, ASME Technical Pamphlet Paper etc.,
the journal Technical Editors must ensure that an acceptable paper be short and specifically
tailored for the designer/developer's use rather than for the research specialist. The extended
reference behind the paper must be specifically cited as the source and instructions for its acquisi-
tion with current price, must be included in the paper.

Technical Editors of the ASME Transactions journals have the final authority to decide for
their journal all issues regarding application of the ASME Prior Publication Policy.

per ASME Policy Board Communications

February 1980

30/Vol. 104, FEBRUARY 1982 Transactions of ihe ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/08/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use