You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    If you are an ASTM Compass Subscriber and this document is part of your subscription, you can access it for free at ASTM Compass

    Comparative Findings Using the Slow Strain-Rate, Constant Flow Stress, and U-Bend Stress Corrosion Cracking Techniques

    Published: 01 January 1979

      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (300K) 15 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (7.9M) 438 $118   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    The testing of materials for stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in a use environment involves the risk that cracking may not be found by the test technique. When this happens, immunity to SCC may be incorrectly concluded. To avoid this type of error, the use of multiple testing techniques is recommended.

    This report discusses the different findings for Type 304 stainless steel obtained by three SCC testing techniques: the slow strain-rate technique (SSRT), the constant flow stress (CFS) test, and the U-bend test. The comparative studies in 36.5 percent magnesium chloride solution show that the cracking mode has an electrochemical potential dependency. In sodium chloride solutions, in the range of 1 to 20 percent concentration, the studies show that the cracking has a critical strain-rate dependency.


    strain rate, constant flow stress, U-bend, stainless steels, chloride stress cracking, stress corrosion cracking, evaluation

    Author Information:

    Daniels, WJ
    Principal engineering specialistsenior research engineer, Monsanto CompanyShell Development Company, St. LouisHouston, Mo.Tex.

    Committee/Subcommittee: G01.06

    DOI: 10.1520/STP38126S