Research Papers: Operations, Applications and Components

Numerical Prediction of Maximum Load-Carrying Capacity of Cracked Alloy 690TT Steam Generator Tubes

[+] Author and Article Information
Jun-Young Jeon

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: karn2000@korea.ac.kr

Yun-Jae Kim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Korea University,
Seoul 136-701, Korea
e-mail: kimy0308@korea.ac.kr

Jin-Weon Kim

Department of Nuclear Engineering,
Chosun University,
Gwngju 501-759, Korea
e-mail: jwkim@Chosun.ac.kr

Kuk-Hee Lee

Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Company, Yusung-Gu,
Daejeon 34101, Korea
e-mail: sklogw@naver.com

Jong-Sung Kim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Sunchon National University,
Jwollanam-do 540-742, Korea
e-mail: kimjsbat@sunchon.ac.kr

1Present address: Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction, Yongin-Si, Gyeonggi-Do 448-795, Korea.

2Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received June 3, 2015; final manuscript received October 4, 2015; published online April 28, 2016. Assoc. Editor: David L. Rudland.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 138(4), 041601 (Apr 28, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-15-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4031746 History: Received June 03, 2015; Revised October 04, 2015

This paper presents a finite element (FE) simulation technique to predict maximum load-carrying capacity of cracked steam generator tubes and its application to Alloy 690TT tubes. The simulation method is based on a simplified version of the stress modified fracture strain model. The damage model is determined from tensile test and one cracked tube test data. Predicted maximum pressures are compared with 23 test data of axial through-wall and surface cracked Alloy 690TT steam generator tubes. Comparison with experimental data shows good agreement.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Schematic diagram for tensile tests of Alloy 690TT SG tubes and (b) testing apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Engineering stress–strain curve with FE results and (b) true stress–strain curve of Alloy 690TT SG tube at room temperature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Schematic of the cross section of a circumferential through-wall cracked tube and (b) testing apparatus

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Grid marks in circumferential through-wall cracked tube: (a) before and (b) after the test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

(a) Load–displacement curves and (b) crack extension–displacement data from fracture tests using circumferential through-wall cracked tubular specimen. The measured crack extension data are averaged ones of the four crack-tips at the tube outer surface.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Axial cracked tubes for burst test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Schematic illustration of tube burst test setup and (b) typical loading rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Cracked tube specimen for burst test

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Crack opening profiles from axial cracked tube burst tests

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of axial cracked tube burst test results with existing estimation equation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Variation of stress triaxiality with equivalent plastic strain for tube tensile test and (b) assumed multiaxial ductility (fracture strain) of Alloy690TT

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of experimental burst test data with predicted maximum pressures from the FE damage analysis

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Load–crack mouth opening displacement curves, predicted from the FE analysis forthe cracked tube (c = 6 mm) with two crack depths: (a) and (b) a/t = 0.2; and (c) and (d) a/t = 0.8

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

FE meshes for burst test simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of fracture surfaces in the cracked tube test with simulated ones: (a) test and (b) simulation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Comparison of simulated results using the element size of Le = 0.1 mm with experimental ones: (a) load–displacement curves and (b) crack extension–displacement curves. For load–displacement curves, results from conventional elastic–plastic FE analysis (without damage) are also shown. For consistent comparison, the FE results in Fig. 13(b) are values at the outer surface.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Typical FE mesh for damage analysis to simulate tensile tests of a circumferential through-wall cracked tube and (b) comparison of simulated load–displacement curves with experimental ones




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