0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Systematic Evaluation of Creep-Fatigue Life Prediction Methods for Various Alloys

[+] Author and Article Information
Yukio Takahashi

Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Industry,
Yokosuka, Kanagawa240-0196, Japan
e-mail: yukio@criepi.denken.or.jp

Bilal Dogan

Consultant,
Charlotte, NC 28262-8550

David Gandy

Electric Power Research Institute,
Charlotte, NC 28262-8550

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology. Manuscript received June 21, 2011; final manuscript received December 3, 2012; published online October 7, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Osamu Watanabe.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 135(6), 061204 (Oct 07, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-11-1141; doi: 10.1115/1.4024436 History: Received June 21, 2011; Revised December 03, 2012

Failure under creep-fatigue interaction is receiving an increasing interest due to an increased number of start-up and shut-downs in fossil power generation plants as well as development of newer nuclear power plants employing low-pressure coolant. Such situations have prompted the studies on creep-fatigue interaction and the developments of various approaches for evaluating its significance in design as well as remaining life evaluation, but most of them are fragmental and rather limited in terms of materials and test conditions covered. Therefore, applicability of the proposed approaches to different materials or even different temperatures is uncertain in many cases. The present work was conducted in order to comparably evaluate the representative approaches used in the prediction of failure life under creep-fatigue conditions as well as their modifications, by systematically applying them to available test data on a wide range of materials which have been used or are planned to be used in various types of power generation plants. The following observations have been made from this exercise: (i) The time fraction model has a tendency to be nonconservative in general, especially at low temperature and small strain ranges. Because of the large scatter of the total damage, this shortcoming would be difficult to cover by the consideration of creep-fatigue interaction in a simple manner. (ii) The classical ductility exhaustion model showed a general tendency to be overly conservative in many situations, especially at small strain ranges. (iii) The modified ductility exhaustion model based on the redefinition of creep damage showed improved predictability with a slightly nonconservative tendency. (iv) Energy-based ductility exhaustion model developed in this study seems to show the best predictability among the four procedures in an overall sense although some dependency on strain range and materials was observed.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Robinson, E. L., 1938, “Effect of Temperature Variation on the Creep Strength of Steel,” Trans. ASME, 60, pp. 253–259.
Manson, S. S., Halford, G. R., and Hirschberg, M. H., 1971, “Creep-Fatigue Analysis by Strain-Range Partitioning,” Symposium on Design for Elevated Temperature Environment, S. Y.Zamrik, ed., ASME, pp. 12–28.
Ostergren, W. J., 1976, “Correlation of Hold Time Effects in Elevated Temperature Low Cycle Fatigue Using a Frequency Modified Damage Function,” ASME-MPC Symposium on Creep-Fatigue interaction, pp. 179–202.
Majumdar, S., Maiya, P. S., 1976, “A Damage Equation for Creep-Fatigue Interaction,” 1976 ASME-MPC Symposium on creep-fatigue interaction, pp. 323–335.
Priest, R. H., and Ellison, E. G., 1981, “A Combined Deformation Map-Ductility Exhaustion Approach to Creep-Fatigue Analysis,” Mater. Sci. Eng., 49, pp. 7–17. [CrossRef]
Hales, R., 1983, “A Method of Creep Damage Summation Based on Accumulated Strain for the Assessment of Creep-Fatigue Endurance,” Fatigue Eng. Mater. Struct., 6, pp. 121–135. [CrossRef]
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Subsection-NH.
AFCEN, 2007, “Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR Nuclear Islands,” RCC-MR, Association Francaise Pour Les Regles de Conception et de Construction des Materials des Chaudieres Electronucleaires.
Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2005, “Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities—Rules on Design and Construction for Nuclear Power Plants—Part II: Fast Reactors,” Paper No. JSME S NC2-2005 (in Japanese).
British Energy, 2003, Assessment Procedure for the High Temperature Response of Structures, R5 Issue 3.
Takahashi, Y., 2008, “Study on Creep-Fatigue Evaluation Procedures for High Chromium Steels, Part I: Test Results and Life Prediction Based on Measured Stress Relaxation,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 85, pp. 406–422. [CrossRef]
Takahashi, Y., 1999, “Further Evaluation of Creep-Fatigue Life Prediction Methods for Low-Carbon Nitrogen-Added 316 Stainless Steel,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 148, pp. 142–148. [CrossRef]
Takahashi, Y., Shibamoto, H., and Inoue, K., 2008, “Study on Creep-Fatigue Life Prediction Methods for Low-Carbon Nitrogen-Controlled 316 Stainless Steel (316FR),” Nucl. Eng. Des., 238, pp. 322–335. [CrossRef]
Gittus, 1964, “Implications of Some Data on Relaxation Creep in Nimonic 80A,” Philos. Mag., 9, pp. 749–753. [CrossRef]
Yamamoto, M., Yaguchi, M., and Takahashi, Y., 1997, “Development of High Temperature Strength Evaluation Method for Inconel 738LC—1st Report: Fundamental Data Collection and Evaluation of Life Prediction Methods,” CRIEPI Report No. T96066 (in Japanese).
Yamamoto, M., and Ogata, T., 1998, “Development of High Temperature Strength Evaluation Method for Inconel 738LC—3rd Report: Proposal of Creep-Fatigue Life Evaluation Method Based on Failure Mechanisms,” CRIEPI Report No. T97012 (in Japanese).
Working Group on Inelastic Analysis, 2000, “High-Temperature Strength Committee, Report on High-Temperature Deformation Data of Superalloys for Gas Turbine” (in Japanese).
National Institute of Materials Science, 1983, fatigue data sheet No. 36.
National Institute of Materials Science, 1985, fatigue data sheet No. 49.
National Institute of Materials Science, 1987, fatigue data sheet No. 58.
National Institute of Materials Science, 1988, fatigue data sheet No. 62.
National Institute of Materials Science, 1993, fatigue data sheet No. 78.
Booker, M. K., 1979, “Analysis of the Long-Term Creep-Fatigue Behavior of 2 1/4Cr-1Mo steel,” Report No. ORNL/TM-7068.
Swindeman, R. W., 2007, private communication.
Booker, M. K., Strizak, J. P., and Brinkman, C. R., 1979, “Analysis of the Continuous Cycling Fatigue Behavior of 2 1/4Cr-1Mo steel,” Report No. ORNL-5593.
Brinkman, C. R., Corwin, W. R., Booker, M. K., Hebble, T. L., and Klueh, R. L., 1976, “Time Dependent Mechanical Properties of 2 1/4Cr-1Mo Steel for Use in Steam Generator Design,” Report No. ORNL-5125.
Wareing, J., 1981, “Creep-Fatigue Behaviour of Four Casts of Type 316 Stainless Steel,” Fatigue Eng. Mater. Struct., 4, pp. 131–145. [CrossRef]
Spindler, M. W., 2006, “An Improved Method to Calculate the Creep-Fatigue Endurance of Type 316H Stainless Steel,” 8th Liege Conference on Materials for Advanced Power Engineering.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Variation of rupture elongation with time to rupture (type 304 SS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Variation of rupture energy density with time to rupture (type 304 SS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Accumulated damages at failure estimated by each model: (a) Time fraction model, (b) classical ductility exhaustion model, (c) modified ductility exhaustion model, and (d) energy-based approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Temperature-dependency of total damage: (a) Time fraction model, (b) classical ductility exhaustion model, (c) modified ductility exhaustion model, and (d) energy-based approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Strain range-dependency of total damage: (a) Time fraction model, (b) classical ductility exhaustion model, (c) modified ductility exhaustion model, and (d) Energy-based approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Relation between experimental failure time and accumulated total damage: (a) Time fraction model, (b) classical ductility exhaustion model, (c) modified ductility exhaustion, and (d) energy-based approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of inelastic strain rates under pure creep and creep-fatigue conditions

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In