0
Research Papers: Codes and Standards

Recent Developments of the Linear Matching Method Framework for Structural Integrity Assessment

[+] Author and Article Information
Daniele Barbera

Department of Mechanical &
Aerospace Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK

Haofeng Chen

Department of Mechanical &
Aerospace Engineering,
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G1 1XJ, UK;
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of
Science and Technology,
130 Meilong Road,
Shanghai 200237, China
e-mail: haofeng.chen@strath.ac.uk

Yinghua Liu

Department of Engineering Mechanics,
Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China

Fuzhen Xuan

School of Mechanical and Power Engineering,
East China University of
Science and Technology,
130 Meilong Road,
Shanghai 200237, China

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received January 5, 2017; final manuscript received May 23, 2017; published online June 16, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Yun-Jae Kim.

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 139(5), 051101 (Jun 16, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: PVT-17-1003; doi: 10.1115/1.4036919 History: Received January 05, 2017; Revised May 23, 2017

The linear matching method (LMM) subroutines and plug-in tools for structural integrity assessment are now in extensive use in industries for the design and routine assessment of power plant components. This paper presents a detailed review and case study of the current state-of-the art LMM direct methods applied to the structural integrity assessment. The focus is on the development and use of the linear matching method framework (LMMF) on a wide range of crucial aspects for the power industry. The LMMF is reviewed to show a wide range of capabilities of the direct methods under this framework, and the basic theory background is also presented. Different structural integrity aspects are covered including the calculation of shakedown, ratchet, and creep rupture limits. Furthermore, the crack initiation assessments of an un-cracked body by the LMM are shown for cases both with and without the presence of a creep dwell during the cyclic loading history. Finally, an overview of the in house developed LMM plug-in is given, presenting the intuitive graphical user interface (GUI) developed. The efficiency and robustness of these direct methods in calculating the aforementioned quantities are confirmed through a numerical case study, which is a semicircular notched (Bridgman notch) bar. A two-dimensional axisymmetric finite element model is adopted, and the notched bar is subjected to both cyclic and constant axial mechanical loads. For the crack initiation assessment, different cyclic loading conditions are evaluated to demonstrate the impact of the different load types on the structural response. The impact of creep dwell is also investigated to show how this parameter is capable of causing in some cases a dangerous phenomenon known as creep ratcheting. All the results in the case study demonstrate the level of simplicity of the LMMs but at the same time accuracy, efficiency, and robustness over the more complicated and inefficient incremental finite element analyses.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Topics: Creep , Stress , Cycles , Rupture
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic flowchart showing the R5 procedure for structural integrity assessment and LMMF capabilities in support of it

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) LMM main menu for analysis type and model selection, (b) material properties selection, (c) load cycle construction menu, and (d) analysis parameters and convergence methods and level menu

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

(a) Schematically representation of the circumferential notched bar and (b) different loading histories considered

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Notched bar interaction diagram, shakedown, ratchet, and creep rupture limit (see color figure online)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Plastic strain magnitude histories for different cyclic loading points obtained by step-by-step analyses

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Results for pure fatigue and creep–fatigue assessment of a circumferential round notched bar with pure fatigue life curve (see color figure online)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Cyclic response at different creep dwells time for cyclic loading point A at the most critical location

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Creep and fatigue damages against dwell time, and cycles to failure for the notched bar

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Creep-ratcheting interaction diagram at different creep dwells for cyclic loading point A at the most critical location, and contour of the cycles to failure for creep-ratcheting at 1000 h

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

von Mises stress contour of the notched bar at different load instances, for the LMM and SBS analyses

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