Two laboratories compared NACE DCB testing procedures and agreed on an “equivalent” methodology to conduct round robin DCB tests on an API 5CT T95 casing material. This test methodology is compared to TM0177 requirements. The results of the round robin tests provide valuable insight into important test parameters and interpretation of DCB test data. Test scatter, effects of arm displacement, dimensional measurement, notch severity, and exposure parameters are discussed.

Subject
Test methods, Materials, Laboratory data, Compliance, Deviation, Dispersion, Precracking, Specimen preparation, Steel, Scale, Fatigue, Sulfide stress cracking, Test specimen
Keywords:
Sulfide Stress Cracking, SSC, Double Cantilever Beam, DCB, Carbon Steel, Low Alloy Steel, Nace TM0177, Test Methodology
© 2003 Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of AMPP. Positions and opinions advanced in this work are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AMPP. Responsibility for the content of the work lies solely with the author(s).
2003
Association for Materials Protection and Performance (AMPP)
You do not currently have access to this content.