Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

Low cycle fatigue life prediction of 316 L(N) stainless steel based on cyclic
elasto-plastic response
Samir Chandra Roy a , Sunil Goyal b,∗ , R. Sandhya b , S.K. Ray a
a
Metallurgical and Material Engineering, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700 032, India
b
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam 603 102, India

h i g h l i g h t s

 Low cycle fatigue tests were carried out on 316 L(N) stainless steel.
 The stable hysteresis loops showed non-Masing behavior.
 The elasto-plastic response of the material under cyclic loading was evaluated.
 Hysteresis loops and life were predicted by isotropic and kinematic hardening models.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Low cycle fatigue (LCF) tests were carried out on 316 L(N) stainless steel at room temperature employing
Received 7 May 2012 strain amplitudes ranging from ±0.3% to ±1.0% and a strain rate of 3 × 10−3 s−1 . The material showed ini-
Received in revised form 3 August 2012 tial hardening for a few cycles followed by prolonged softening, saturation and final failure. The fatigue
Accepted 4 August 2012
life was found to decrease with increase in strain amplitude. The analysis of the stable hysteresis loops
under the tested conditions showed Masing behavior at lower strain amplitudes but non-Masing behav-
ior at higher strain amplitudes. The elasto-plastic response of the material under cyclic loading was
characterized taking into account isotropic and kinematic hardening occurring during cyclic loading. The
material parameters required for characterization of cyclic behavior were obtained from the experimen-
tal hysteresis loops and cyclic stress response of the material. Finite element (FE) analysis of elasto-plastic
deformation was carried out to obtain the hysteresis loop and cyclic stress response of the material. The
predicted hysteresis loops from simulation showed good agreement with experimental results. The low
cycle fatigue life prediction carried out based on plastic strain energy dissipation with cycling showed
good correlation with experimental results.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and the experimental condition (Duyi Ye et al., 2006; Sivaprasad

Type 316L(N) stainless steel is currently the favored structural
material for several high temperature components in the primary
side of liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs). In LMF-
BRs, the components are often subjected to repeated cyclic thermal
stresses as a result of temperature gradients which occur during
start-ups and shut-downs or during power transients. Therefore,
low cycle fatigue (LCF) represents a predominant failure mode,
requiring significant consideration in the design and life analysis
of LMFBR components (Valsan et al., 2000; Srinivasan et al., 1999;
Mannan and Valsan, 2006).
The cyclic stress–strain response of a material may exhibit Mas-
ing or non-Masing behavior, which depends on the microstructure
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 44 27480118; fax: +91 44 27480075.
E-mail address: goyal@igcar.gov.in (S. Goyal).
et al., 2010). A material is said to show the Masing behavior if shape
of the stable cyclic stress–strain hysteresis loop is geometrically
similar to the cyclic stress–strain curve magnified by a scale fac-
tor of two regardless of the amplitude of loading (Jhansale and
Topper, 1973; Lefebvre and Ellyin, 1984; Mughrabi and Christ,
1997; Plumtree and Abdel-Raouf, 2001). Whereas, for materials
that show non-Masing behavior, coincidence may occur only when
the stable hysteresis loops for different strain amplitude are trans-
lated along the linear elastic slope to match the loading branches
(Jhansale and Topper, 1973; Lefebvre and Ellyin, 1984). Plumtree
and Abdel-Raouf (2001) studied the stress response of various
materials under cyclic loading. They observed that characteristic
increase of cyclic flow stress with increasing strain range and subse-
quent decrease in cell size was responsible for non-Masing behavior
in steels.
Since LCF damage is associated with cyclic plastic strain, the dis-
sipated strain energy can be considered for accurately predicting

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2012.08.024
220 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225
Table 1
Elastic and hardening properties of 316 L(N) SS.
Young’s modulus Yield stress
E (GPa)  0 (MPa)
200 211
the fatigue life of the components. The calculation of hysteresis loop
energy depends on the accuracy of prediction of the hysteresis loop
from the hardening models that characterize the hysteresis loop.
Various hardening models are available in literature (Chaboche,
2008) for modeling the monotonic and cyclic behavior of materials.
Most widely accepted hardening model is by Armstrong and Fred-
erick for non-linear kinematic hardening (Tong and Vermeulen,
2003; Tong et al., 2004; Kunc and Prebil, 2003; Dutta et al., 2010)
which was further modified by Chaboche and Rousselier (1983).
In the present investigation, the analysis of hysteresis loop
energy is used for low cycle fatigue life prediction. The hysteresis
loops obtained from experiments are compared with the hysteresis
loops predicted with finite element (FE) analysis by incorporat-
ing the combined kinematic and isotropic hardening and LCF life
is predicted based on Masing/non-Masing analysis.
2. Experimental
Nuclear grade, 316 L(N) SS has the following chemical compo-
sition (in wt.%): C: 0.027, Mn: 1.7, Ni: 12.2, Cr: 17.53, Mo: 2.49, N:
0.07, Si: 0.22, S: 0.0055, P: 0.013, Fe: balance. Rods of 22 mm diam-
eter machined in the rolling direction were subjected to a solution
annealing treatment at 1373 K for 1 h followed by water quenching.
The specimens with 25 mm gauge length and 10 mm gauge diam-
eter machined from the heat-treated rods were low cycle fatigue
tested at a constant strain rate of 3 × 10−3 s−1 at different strain
amplitudes (±0.3% to ±1.0%) at room temperature. All the tests
were carried out in air under fully reversed, total axial strain control
mode employing a symmetrical triangular strain–time waveform
using DARTEC servo hydraulic fatigue testing system.
3. Elasto-plastic modeling
The mechanical behavior of the material under elasto-plastic
deformation may be represented by von-Mises yield function (f ),
which can be defined as
3 1/2
f = (  − x ) : (  − x ) − r − y = 0
2
where   , x , r and  y represents the deviatoric stress, deviatoric
back stress tensors and isotropic hardening function and yield
stress of the material respectively (Dunne and Petrinic, 2005).
In case of nonlinear kinematic hardening, the back stress is
defined by the following expression:
2 p
ẋ = c ε̇ − xṗ
3
where ε̇p and ṗ are the plastic strain rate and effective plastic strain
rate,  and c the kinematic hardening material constants. As the
plastic strain increases, the back stress increases and saturates to
the value c/. The constant  determines the rate of saturation of
stress and c/ determines the magnitude of saturation.
In case of isotropic hardening, the isotropic function is defined
by the following equation,
ṙ = b(Q − r)ṗ
In which b and Q are material constants, which gives an expo-
nential shape to the stress–strain response which saturates with
increasing plastic strain.
Kinematic hardening parameters Isotropic hardening parameters
c (MPa)  Q (MPa) b
57,805 619.04 42.30 21.6
FE analysis of low cycle fatigue behavior was carried out
using ABAQUS finite element software. For numerical simulations,
axisymmetric elements were employed to represent smooth cylin-
drical specimen used in experiments. The elasto-plastic response
of the material under low cycle fatigue loading was modeled using
combined nonlinear kinematic and exponential isotropic hard-
ening laws. Kinematic and isotropic hardening coefficients were
obtained from the experimental hysteresis loop, Table 1. The kine-
matic and isotropic hardening coefficients were incorporated in the
material model using *PLASTIC and *CYCLIC HARDENING options
within ABAQUS software.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Cyclic stress response
The dependency of peak tensile stress on number of cycles and
strain amplitude is depicted in Fig. 1. The material showed initial
hardening followed by gradual prolonged softening, saturation and
final failure. The extent of initial hardening and degree of soften-
ing after initial hardening was found to be dependent on strain
amplitude employed in the experiment.
Degree of hardening (DOH) during low cycle fatigue cycling is
defined as
 − 1
DOH = (4)
1
where,  and  1 represents the cyclic stress amplitude at comple-
tion of initial hardening and at first cycle for a given total strain
amplitude, respectively. On the other hand, to measure the degree
of softening (DOS),  represents the cyclic stress amplitude at the
initiation of softening and  1 is stress at saturation after cyclic
softening. Fig. 2 shows the variation of DOH and DOS with strain
amplitude. It is observed that degree of hardening increases with
increase in strain amplitude. Strong dependency of cyclic harden-
ing on strain amplitude has been observed in stainless steels (Duyi
Ye et al., 2006). It is also observed that degree of softening after
initial hardening decreases with increase in strain amplitude from
(1)
(2)
(3)
Fig. 1. Cyclic stress response curve of 316L(N) SS.
 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225 221

Table 2
Values of coefficients of strain-life relation for 316 L(N) SS.

Cyclic stress strain curve coefficients Basquin relation coefficients Coffin–Manson relation coefficients

K n f b εf  c

2854 MPa 0.378 1444 MPa −0.159 0.294 −0.494

0.3% to 0.8% and at 1.0% strain amplitude no softening has been
reported but slight secondary hardening has been observed which
is evident from the negative value of DOS at 1.0% strain amplitude.
4.2. Fatigue life variation
Hardening characteristics exhibited by the material is reflected
in the cyclic stress–strain behavior as shown in Fig. 3. From the locus
of the stress–strain maxima of the stable hysteresis loops of differ-
ent strain amplitudes, cyclic stress–strain curve can be represented
by a power law equation as follows:
 n
 εp
= K
2 2
where , εp , K , n are stress range, plastic strain range,
cyclic strain hardening coefficient, cyclic strain hardening expo-
nent respectively. The value of K and n obtained by least square
method is given in Table 2. The value of n was found to be higher
than that observed in Austenitic stainless steels (Ganesh Sundara
Raman and Radhakrishnan, 2002). This could be due to the change
in slope of the cyclic stress–strain curve at higher strain amplitudes
as the material exhibited non-Masing behavior at higher strain
amplitudes.
The influence of strain amplitude on fatigue life is shown in
Fig. 4. The variation of low cycle fatigue life with total, plastic and
elastic strain amplitudes can be analyzed on the basis of strain life
relationship, which is defined by the following equation:
f
εt
= (2Nf )b + εf (2Nf )c (6)
2 E
(5)
where εt , Nf , E,  f  , εf  , b, c are total strain range, failure cycle,
Young’s modulus, fatigue strength coefficient, fatigue ductility
coefficient, fatigue strength exponent, fatigue ductility exponent
respectively. The values for the coefficients for 316 L(N) determined
from least square fit are summarized in Table 2.

4.3. Finite element analysis and comparison of cyclic behavior

Combined isotropic and kinematic hardening model was

Fig. 2. Variation of DOH and DOS with strain amplitude.
employed in cyclic elasto-plastic finite element analysis to pre-
dict the first cycle hysteresis loop and initial few cycles of cyclic
stress response of the material. The coefficients were obtained
from the experimental hysteresis loops at a total strain amplitude
±0.5% and were incorporated in the material model to simulate the
cyclic stress–strain response of the material for total strain ampli-
tude ±0.4% to ±6.0%. Fig. 5 shows the comparison of the simulated
hysteresis loop for the first cycle obtained from FE analysis and
experiment for ±0.4%, ±0.5% and ±0.6% strain amplitudes respec-
tively. The results showed good agreement between the numerical
simulation and the experimental results at ±0.4% and ±0.5%
strain amplitudes, Fig. 5(A) and (B). However, slight deviation was
observed at ±0.6% strain amplitude, Fig. 5(C). Initial cyclic response
of the material was also predicted by finite element analysis. Fig. 6
shows the comparison of the tensile stress amplitude with number
of cycles for experiments and simulation at total strain amplitudes

Fig. 3. Cyclic stress–strain plot for 316 L(N) at room temperature. Fig. 4. Strain-life plots for 316 L(N) at room temperature.
222 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225

Fig. 5. Comparison of first cycle hysteresis loop obtained from experiment and
simulation, (A) ±0.4%, (B) ±0.5% and (C) ±0.6% strain amplitude.

of ±0.4%, ±0.5% and ±0.6%. Good correlation was obtained between
the response of material in simulation using the determined param-
eters and the experiments at total strain amplitudes of ±0.4%
and ±0.5%, Fig. 6(A) and (B). However, difference in cyclic stress
response obtained from experiments and by simulation at ±0.6%
strain amplitude (Fig. 6(C)) could be due to non-Masing behavior
exhibited by the material above ±0.5% strain amplitude, which is
described in the next section.
Fig. 6. Comparison of cyclic stress response from experiment and simulation, (A)
±0.4%, (B) ±0.5% and (C) ±0.6% strain amplitude.
4.4. Hysteresis loop analysis and fatigue life prediction
Saturated hysteresis loops for various strain amplitudes with
common compressive tips are plotted in Fig. 7. The figure shows
that loading part of the saturated hysteresis loops follow the com-
mon loading curve, representing the Masing behavior at low strain
 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225 223

Fig. 7. Stress–strain hysteresis loop plots after saturation with matching lower tips
at strain amplitudes ranging from ±0.3% to ±1.0% at room temperature. Fig. 8. Generation of Master curve for non-Masing behavior in 316 L(N) at room
temperature.

amplitudes (±0.3% to ±0.5%) matches with monotonically increas-

ing unique curve. However, at higher strain amplitudes (±0.6%
to ±1.0%), saturated hysteresis loops do not follow the common
loading curve and depicts the non-Masing behavior (Mughrabi
and Christ, 1997). The critical plastic strain range for the onset
of non-Masing behavior was found to be 0.006 for the material.
Detailed investigation of microstructural changes in 304LN SS has
been carried out by Sivaprasad et al. (2010). It was observed that
non-Masing in that material could be due to the phase instability
and transient dislocation substructure in the material during cyclic
deformation.
For accurate low cycle fatigue life prediction using strain energy,
accurate measurement of hysteresis loops and cyclic properties
of the material is essential. During fatigue cycling, at relatively
high strain amplitudes, the hysteresis loop stabilizes after a few
cycles and remains stable for the majority of its life time before
crack initiation and final failure take place. However, the materi-
als showed initial hardening followed by gradual softening at low
strain amplitudes. Hence, hysteresis loop at half-life can be used
as representative hysteresis loop for total strain energy calculation
and low cycle fatigue life prediction. The strain energy per cycle
(W) can be defined as
 1 − n 
W = εp
1 + n
Hence the total strain energy released during fatigue is cal-
culated from the stable hysteresis loop as the multiplication of
number of cycles to failure (Nf ) and area under the stable hysteresis
loop (W).
 1 − n 
WT = WNf = εp Nf
1 + n
where, n is the cyclic strain hardening exponent,  is the stress
range and εp is the plastic strain range of the stable hysteresis loop
at the particular strain amplitude. This approach is generally used
The master curve can be defined by the following expression
n
 = H(εp ) (9)
where H is strain hardening coefficient and n is the cyclic hardening
exponent of the master curve. The coefficients H and n obtained
by least square fitting were 1245 MPa and 0.152 respectively. The
following equation can be used for calculating the strain energy per
cycle based on non-Masing analysis:
1 − n  2n 
W = εp + ı0 εp (10)
1+n 1+n
where n is the strain hardening exponent obtained from master
curve and ı 0 is the change in proportional limit of stable loops for
different strain amplitudes.
The total strain energy to predict fatigue life based on non-
Masing analysis is given as
WT = WNf (11)
The total experimental hysteresis loop energy was calculated
based on hysteresis loop energy of saturated loop for each strain
amplitude from experiments. The calculated total hysteresis loop
energy was divided by the hysteresis loop energy calculated from
Eq. (7) and Eq. (10) for stabilized hysteresis loop for estima-
(7) tion of low cycle fatigue life for Masing and non-Masing analysis,
respectively. Fatigue life predicted using Masing and non-Masing
approach is shown in Table 3.
Though material showed Masing behavior at lower strain ampli-
tudes, the value of cyclic hardening exponent obtained from
cyclic stress–strain curve was significantly high due to non-Masing
behavior exhibited at higher strain amplitudes, Fig. 3. The hystere-
(8) sis loop energy calculated based on Eq. (7) leads to overestimation
of fatigue life due to the higher value of cyclic hardening exponent
Table 3
Comparison of experimental and predicted fatigue life for different approach.

for predicting fatigue life for materials exhibiting Masing behavior. Strain Experimental Predicted failure life
But when the material exhibits non-Masing behavior, as observed amplitude failure life
in the present study, then Eq. (8) may not predict fatigue life accu- Non-Masing Masing FE analysis
rately. In order to calculate the hysteresis loop area, a master curve
0.003 14,817 14,941 24,383 12,717
has to be generated from the stable hysteresis loops obtained at 0.004 7946 8432 13,983 6656
different strain amplitudes (Sivaprasad et al., 2010; Lefebvre and 0.005 5838 5905 9786 4452
Ellyin, 1984). The curve is obtained by matching the lower tips of 0.006 2634 2728 4693 2379
stable hysteresis loops at different strain amplitudes and by trans- 0.008 1290 1311 2334 1358
0.01 765 772 1395 912
lating each loop along the linear elastic portions as shown in Fig. 8.
224 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225

Table 4
Hysteresis loop energy calculation for experiment and FE simulation.

Strain amplitude Experimental Simulated strain Deviation in strain Experimental Deviation in total Deviation in fatigue
(%) strain energya per energya per cycle energya per cycle failure cycle strain energya life prediction
cycle (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

0.3 1.35511 1.529 −0.17389 14,817 −2576.5281 −1901

0.4 2.31403 2.6649 −0.35087 7946 −2787.99713 −1204
0.5 3.04683 3.9625 −0.91567 5838 −5345.66978 −1754
0.6 4.75093 5.31317 −0.56224 2634 −1480.94279 −311
0.8 8.0988 8.0688 0.03 1290 38.69742 4
1.0 12.13983 10.81704 1.32279 765 1011.93282 83
a
Strain energy is defined in per unit volume.

obtained for the material showing both Masing and non-Masing

behavior.
Non-Masing analysis suggests that the proportional stress range
of the material is not constant but increases with the strain ampli-
tude (Lefebvre and Ellyin, 1984). This leads to increase in the
hysteresis loop area and subsequently hysteresis loop energy per
cycle. In such a case, hysteresis loop shapes at all strain amplitude
are well defined by the Master curves coefficients H and n, Fig. 8.
The prediction of fatigue life improves in non-Masing analysis due
to modified cyclic hardening exponent and inclusion of increased
hysteresis loop area (Eq. (10)) as shown in Fig. 9, in which, the dash
and dotted lines represent boundaries representing the boundaries
corresponding to factor of 2 and 1.5 respectively. The predicted
fatigue life using Masing analysis lies close to the factor of 2 and in
case of Non-Masing analysis, within the factor of 1.5.
In the present FE analysis, the material is assumed to have sim-
ilar hysteresis loop shapes irrespective of applied strain amplitude
or in other words, Masing behavior. Fig. 10 shows the fatigue life
Fig. 10. Fatigue life prediction from hysteresis loops obtained from FE Analysis.
predicted based on the simulated hysteresis loops. The calculated
total hysteresis loop energy was divided by the hysteresis loop
energy calculated from Eq. (7) and Eq. (10) for stabilized hysteresis It was observed that deviation in life prediction was more at
loop predicted from FE analysis for estimation of low cycle fatigue lower strain amplitude than that of higher strain amplitude. The
life. Fatigue life predicted using FE analysis is shown in Table 3. hysteresis loops in FE analysis were predicted based on the cyclic
The predicted fatigue life is in good agreement with fatigue life hardening coefficients obtained from the cyclic behavior of the
obtained in experiments. The predicted fatigue life using FE analy- material at strain amplitude of ±0.5%. Though, the material showed
sis lies within the factor of 1.5. In case of FE analysis, the value of non-Masing behavior at higher strain amplitudes in experiments,
strain hardening exponent n is estimated from the loading branch the same was not reflected in FE analysis and would result in vari-
of simulated stable hysteresis loops of different strain amplitudes ation in fatigue life. The deviation in hysteresis strain energy per
n
by fitting the  = H(εp ) type of equation for fatigue life pre- cycle was found to be insignificant at all the strain amplitudes for
diction. The value of coefficients H and n was found to be 0.055 and experimental and FE simulated saturated hysteresis loops as shown
892.68 MPa respectively. in Table 4.
However after multiplying deviation in strain energy per cycle
with cycles to failure, deviation in total strain energy computed is
noted to become significant at lower strain amplitude, and result in
underestimation of fatigue life in simulation, as shown in Table 4.
In the present FE analysis, cyclic softening was not considered
although material exhibited prolonged softening after initial hard-
ening as shown in Fig. 1. The decrease in extent of softening with
increase in strain amplitude would lead to better life prediction at
higher strain amplitude.

5. Conclusions

1. Cyclic stress response of the SS 316L(N) material in solution

annealed condition was characterized by initial hardening fol-
lowed by prolonged softening, saturation and final failure.
2. The material showed Masing behavior at low strain amplitudes
and non-Masing behavior at relatively high strain amplitudes.
3. Predicted cyclic hysteresis loops and initial cyclic stress response
from simulation showed good correlation with the experimental
results.
Fig. 9. Comparison of fatigue life prediction through Masing and non-Masing 4. Fatigue life predicted by non-Masing analysis was found to be
approach. close to the actual fatigue life as the material behavior was
 S.C. Roy et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 253 (2012) 219–225
non-Masing. Thus strain energy based model can be successfully
used for materials showing non-Masing behavior for fatigue life
prediction.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Shri S.C. Chetal, Director, IGCAR and
Dr. T. Jayakumar, Director, Metallurgy and Materials Group, IGCAR
for their constant encouragement and support. The authors are also
thankful to Dr. A.K. Bhaduri, AD, MDTG and Dr. M.D. Mathew, Head,
MMD for their keen interest in this work. Help rendered by Mr.
K. Mariappan during the course of experimental work is greatly
acknowledged.
References
Chaboche, J.L., 2008. A review of some plasticity and viscoplasticity constitutive
theories. Int. J. Plast. 24, 1642–1693.
Chaboche, J.L., Rousselier, G., 1983. On the plastic and viscoplastic constitutive equa-
tions – Part-I: rules developed with internal variable concept. J. Press. Ves. Tech.
105, 153–158.
Dunne, F., Petrinic, N., 2005. Introduction to Computational Plasticity. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, UK.
Dutta, A., Dhar, S., Acharyya, S.K., 2010. Material characterization of 316 SS in low
cycle fatigue loading. J. Mater. Sci. 45, 1782–1789.
Duyi Ye, Matsuoka S., Nagashima, N., Suzuki, N., 2006. The low cycle fatigue, defor-
mation and final fracture of an austenitic stainless steel. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 415,
104–117.
225
Ganesh Sundara Raman, S., Radhakrishnan, V.M., 2002. On cyclic stress–strain
behaviour and low cycle fatigue life. Mater. Des. 23, 249–254.
Jhansale, H.R., Topper, T.H., 1973. Engineering analysis of the inelastic stress
response of a structural metal under variable cyclic strains. ASTM STP 519,
246–270.
Kunc, R., Prebil, I., 2003. Low cycle fatigue properties of steel 42CrMo4. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 345, 278–285.
Lefebvre, D., Ellyin, F., 1984. Cyclic response and inelastic strain energy in low cycle
fatigue. Int. J. Fatigue 6, 9–15.
Mannan, S.L., Valsan, M., 2006. High-temperature low cycle fatigue, creep–fatigue
and thermomechanical fatigue of steels and their welds. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 48,
160–175.
Mughrabi, H., Christ, H.-J., 1997. Cyclic deformation and fatigue of selected ferritic
and austenitic steels: specific aspects. ISIJ Int. 37, 1154–1169.
Plumtree, A., Abdel-Raouf, H.A., 2001. Cyclic stress–strain response and substruc-
ture. Int. J. Fatigue 23, 799–805.
Sivaprasad, S., Paul, S.K., Das, A., Narasiah, N., Tarafder, S., 2010. Cyclic plastic
behaviour of primary heat transport piping materials: influence of loading
schemes on hysteresis loop. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 527, 6858–6869.
Srinivasan, V.S., Valsan, M., Sandhya, R., Rao, K.B.S., Mannan, S.L., Sastry, D.H., 1999.
High temperature time-dependent low cycle fatigue behaviour of a type 316L(N)
stainless steel. Int. J. Fatigue 21, 11–21.
Tong, J., Vermeulen, B., 2003. The description of cyclic plasticity and viscoplas-
ticity of waspaloy using unified constitutive equations. Int. J. Fatigue 25,
413–420.
Tong, J., Zhan, Z.-L., Vermeulen, B., 2004. Modelling of cyclic plasticity and viscoplas-
ticity of a nickel-based alloy using Chaboche constitutive equations. Int. J. Fatigue
26, 829–837.
Valsan, M., Nagesha, A., Bhanu Sankara Rao, K., Mannan, S.L., 2000. A compara-
tive evaluation of low cycle fatigue and creep-fatigue interaction behaviour of
316L(N) SS, 316 weld metal and 316L(N)/316 weld joint at 873 K. Trans. Indian
Inst. Metals 53, 263–271.