Tensile, Fracture, Fatigue Life, and Fatigue Crack Growth Rate Behavior of Structural Materials for the ITER Magnets: The European Contribution

Author(s):  
A. Nyilas
CORROSION ◽  
10.5006/3572 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramgopal Thodla ◽  
Anand Venkatesh

Fatigue crack growth rate was developed on three heats of alloy 718 (UNS N07718) under cathodic polarization, over a wide range of loading conditions. Fatigue crack growth rate increased with decreasing frequency over a range of Kmax and K conditions. In most cases, there was no evidence of a plateau in fatigue crack growth rate at low frequencies. The fatigue crack growth rate over the range of conditions evaluated were influenced by static crack growth rate at Kmax. The principle of superposition of fatigue crack growth and static crack growth was used to rationalize the observed crack growth rate response. Static crack growth rate of alloy 718 measured under constant K conditions, was lower than that measured under rising displacement conditions. A crack tip strain rate based model was used to rationalize the fatigue crack growth rate behavior and the static crack growth rate behavior under constant K. However, the formulation of the model for the rising K was not able to rationalize the crack growth rate under rising displacement conditions.


Author(s):  
Sanjay Tiku ◽  
Aaron Dinovitzer ◽  
Vlad Semiga ◽  
Mark Piazza ◽  
Tom Jones

Fracture mechanics methodologies for calculating fatigue lives have been successfully applied by pipeline operators to estimate integrity reassessment intervals. Their application in the definition of pipeline system fatigue lives has been overly conservative in actual practice. The source and magnitude of the conservatism inherent in the calculated fatigue life estimates needs to be identified so operators have a better indicator of when reassessments should take place. The pipe life estimation is especially critical for Electric Resistance Weld (ERW) and Electric Flash Weld (EFW) pipeline systems with longitudinally oriented defects. Prior work on improving fatigue life was initiated through studies completed by Pipeline Research Council International, Inc. (PRCI) to evaluate the sources of differences between fatigue life estimates produced by industry fatigue analysis software and different metallurgists. Two significant sources of conservatism in the fatigue life estimation process were identified: the fatigue crack growth rate (da/dN) and the bulging correction factor applied to axial surface flaws. The experimental and numerical simulation techniques considering the impact of these factors on rate of fatigue crack growth of pipeline axially oriented defects are described in this paper. Finite element modeling was used to simulate pipe bulging in the presence of axial flaws. The effect of the pipe thickness, diameter and flaw geometry was compared with treatments included in existing defect assessment standards. The results illustrate that for longer and deeper flaws existing treatments over represent the local bending due to pipe wall bulging. This results in unnecessarily conservative (shorter) fatigue life estimates. The crack growth rate (da/dN) was measured in a compact tension specimen material fatigue testing program. The test results included a range of ERW and EFW pipe materials with varying vintages and grades. The measured fatigue crack growth rate for the materials tested was found to be lower than that recommended by existing industry standards. This adds to the over conservatism of current approaches. The numerical simulation and materials testing results and related recommendations presented in this paper are compared to existing codified treatments to quantify the level of conservatism inherent in the current state of practice. Recommendations are provided to enhance the precision and better manage conservatism in fatigue crack growth rate calculations. Increased accuracy serves to improve integrity management and would be of interest to pipeline operators, consultants and regulators.


1989 ◽  
Vol 38 (432) ◽  
pp. 1047-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akio INOUE ◽  
Shuichi TANI ◽  
Sumio YOSHIOKA ◽  
Akinori UEDA ◽  
Tadatoshi TAKAYANAGI ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document