0
Research Papers: Materials and Fabrication

Evaluation of Simplified Creep Design Methods Based on the Case Analysis of Tee Joint at Elevated Temperature

[+] Author and Article Information
Jian-Guo Gong

School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of
Science and Technology,
130 Meilong Road,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: jggong@ecust.edu.cn

Qi-Wei Xia

School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of
Science and Technology,
130 Meilong Road,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: xia_qiwei@163.com

Fu-Zhen Xuan

School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of
Science and Technology,
130 Meilong Road,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: fzxuan@ecust.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received December 23, 2016; final manuscript received April 14, 2017; published online June 1, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Haofeng Chen.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(4), 041412 (Jun 01, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: PVT-16-1245; doi: 10.1115/1.4036533 History: Received December 23, 2016; Revised April 14, 2017

Based on a tee joint, the simplified creep design methods of ASME code, elastic-perfectly plastic (EPP) analysis of Code Case N-861 (CC N-861) and the inelastic analysis by isochronous stress strain (ISS) curve, were evaluated and compared to nonlinear finite element creep analysis (FECA). Results indicate that both EPP and FECA lead to a greater inelastic strain than ISS curve-based results. By contrast, the ISS-based analysis induces a smaller usage fraction (damage) than FECA due to the underestimated inelastic strain. In addition, the smallest usage fraction (damage) is obtained by using EPP analysis of CC N-861 in which case the remarkable bending strain is involved.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Hayner, G. O. , Bratton, R. L. , Wright, R. N. , Windes, W. E. , Totemeier, T. C. , Moore, K. A. , Rittenhouse, P. L. , Wilson, D. F. , Ren, W. , Corwin, W. R. , Burchell, T. D. , Klett, J. W. , Nanstad, R. K. , Snead, L. L. , Katoh, Y. , Swindeman, R. W. , and McGreevy, T. D. , 2005, “ Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Research and Development Program Plan,” Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, ID, Report No. 39009143.
Gong, J. G. , and Xuan, F. Z. , 2017, “ Notch Behavior of Components Under the Stress Controlled Creep-Fatigue Condition: Weakening or Strengthening?,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 139(1), p. 011407. [CrossRef]
ASME, 2015, “ ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, III-5, High Temperature Reactors,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
ASME, 2015, “ ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Cases: Nuclear Components,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
Shen, X. L. , and Xuan, F. Z. , 2016, “ Impact of Stress Multi-Axial Effect on 316 Stainless Steel Creep Design Margin,” J. Mech. Strength, 38(5), pp. 1087–1092 (in Chinese).
Koves, W. , and Zhao, M. , 2013, “ On Simplified Inelastic Method Using Material's Isochronous Stress–Strain Data for Creep Analysis,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 135(3), p. 031202. [CrossRef]
Zhao, M. , and Koves, W. , 2007, “ Applications of Isochronous Data in Creep Analysis,” ASME Paper No. PVP2007-26095.
Koves, W. , and Zhao, M. , 2009, “ Comparison of the Isochronous Method and a Time-Explicit Model for Creep Analysis,” ASME Paper No. PVP2008-61579.
Zhang, J. W. , Wang, G. Z. , Xuan, F. Z. , and Tu, S. T. , 2015, “ Effect of Stress Dependent Creep Ductility on Creep Crack Growth Behaviour of Steels for Wide Range of C*,” Mater. High Temp., 32(4), pp. 369–376. [CrossRef]
Xuan, F. Z. , Chen, J. J. , Wang, Z. D. , and Tu, S. T. , 2009, “ Time-Dependent Deformation and Fracture of Multi-Material Systems at High Temperature,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 86(9), pp. 604–615. [CrossRef]
Naumenko, K. , and Kostenko, Y. , 2009, “ Structural Analysis of a Power Plant Component Using a Stress-Range-Dependent Creep-Damage Constitutive Model,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 510–511, pp. 169–174. [CrossRef]
Xuan, F. Z. , Li, P. N. , and Tu, S. T. , 2006, “ Limit Load Analysis for the Piping Branch Junctions Under In-Plane Moment,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 48(4), pp. 460–467. [CrossRef]
SIMULIA, 2011, “ ABAQUS 6.11 User's Manual,” DASSAULT SYSTEMES, Providence, RI.
Rieth, M. , Falkenstein, A. , Graf, P. , Heger, S. , Jäntsch, U. , Klimiankou, M. , Materna-Morris, E. , and Zimmermann, H. , 2004, “ Creep of the Austenitic Steel AISI 316 L(N)-Experiments and Models,” Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe Gmbh, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Wen, J. F. , Tu, S. T. , Gao, X. L. , and Reddy, J. N. , 2013, “ Simulations of Creep Crack Growth in 316 Stainless Steel Using a Novel Creep-Damage Model,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 98, pp. 169–184. [CrossRef]
Lee, S. J. , and Chang, Y. S. , 2015, “ Crack Initiation and Growth Simulation for CRDM Nozzles by Extended Finite Element Method,” ASME Paper No. PVP2015-45172.
Gorash, Y. , and Chen, H. , 2013, “ Creep-Fatigue Life Assessment of Cruciform Weldments Using the Linear Matching Method,” Int. J. Pressure Vessels Piping, 104, pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Finite element model of tee joint at elevated temperature: (a) Mesh model and boundary conditions and (b) loading history

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Stress–strain curve for 316SS at 600 °C [15]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Isochronous stress–strain curve for 316SS at 600 °C

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Flow diagram for inelastic analysis based on Code Case N-861

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Methodology for elastic-perfectly plastic analysis based on various target inelastic strains in Code Case N-861

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Relationship between the normalized inelastic strain distribution and the distance along with the chosen path under various internal pressures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Relationship between maximum principle stress and maximum principle strain for the chosen path at various internal pressures: (a) internal pressure of 0.5 MPa and (b) internal pressure of 2.0 MPa

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

von Mises stress and total inelastic strain distributions for tee joint with target inelastic strain of 0.5% (p/p0 = 2.0): (a) von Mises stress and (b) total inelastic strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

von Mises stress and total inelastic strain distributions for tee joint with target inelastic strain of 0.002% (p/p0 = 0.5): (a) von Mises stress and (b) total inelastic strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Total inelastic strain distributions along with path A for various target inelastic strains (p/p0 = 2.0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Plastic strain and averaged strain for various target inelastic strains (p/p0 = 2.0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Total inelastic strain distributions along with path A for various target inelastic strains (p/p0 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Plastic strain and average strain calculated for various target inelastic strains (p/p0 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

von Mises stress and inelastic strain distributions of tee joint based on nonlinear finite element creep analysis (p/p0 = 2.0): (a) von Mises stress and (b) inelastic strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

von Mises stress and equivalent plastic strain distributions of tee joint based on isochronous stress strain curve (p/p0 = 2.0): (a) von Mises stress and (b) equivalent plastic strain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Difference of material model between inelastic analysis based on ISS curve and the EPP analysis in CC N-861

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Inelastic strain distributions for nonlinear finite element creep analysis and two simplified creep design methods (p/p0 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Usage fraction (damage) for nonlinear finite element creep analysis and simplified creep design method (p/p0 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Mechanism for difference between EPP analysis and nonlinear finite element creep analysis (p/p0 = 0.5)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Inelastic strain distributions for nonlinear finite element creep analysis and two simplified creep design methods (p/p0 = 2.0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Usage fraction (damage) for nonlinear finite element creep analysis and two simplified creep design methods (p/p0 = 2.0)

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