scholarly journals INVESTIGATION OF THERMALSTRESS-FATIGUE BEHAVIOR OF STAINLESS STEEL. THE EFFECTS OF GAGE LENGTH AND SPECIMEN CONFIGURATION ON THERMAL-STRESS-FATIGUE TEST RESULTS

1962 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.E. Horton
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Thermal Stress ◽  
Fatigue Test ◽  
Fatigue Behavior ◽  
Gage Length ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Stress Fatigue

Effects of Surface Finish and Loading Conditions on the Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel in PWR Environment for Various Strain Amplitude Levels

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Alain Le Duff ◽  
Andre´ Lefranc¸ois ◽  
Jean Philippe Vernot
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Strain Amplitude ◽  
Surface Finish ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Fatigue Behavior ◽  
Complex Loading ◽  
Loading Conditions ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Cycle Fatigue

In February/March 2007, The NRC issued Regulatory Guide “RG1.207” and Argonne National Laboratory issued NUREG/CR-6909 that is now applicable in the US for evaluations of PWR environmental effects in fatigue analyses of new reactor components. In order to assess the conservativeness of the application of this NUREG report, Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF) tests were performed by AREVA NP on austenitic stainless steel specimens in a PWR environment. The selected material exhibits in air environment a fatigue behavior consistent with the ANL reference “air” mean curve, as published in NUREG/CR-6909. LCF tests in a PWR environment were performed at various strain amplitude levels (± 0.6% or ± 0.3%) for two loading conditions corresponding to a simple or to a complex strain rate history. The simple loading condition is a fully reverse triangle signal (for comparison purposes with tests performed by other laboratories with the same loading conditions) and the complex signal simulates the strain variation for an actual typical PWR thermal transient. In addition, two various surface finish conditions were tested: polished and ground. This paper presents the comparisons of penalty factors, as observed experimentally, with penalty factors evaluated using ANL formulations (considering the strain integral method for complex loading), and on the other, the comparison of the actual fatigue life of the specimen with the fatigue life predicted through the NUREG report application. For the two strain amplitudes of ± 0.6% and ± 0.3%, LCF tests results obtained on austenitic stainless steel specimens in PWR environment with triangle waveforms at constant low strain rates give “Fen” penalty factors close to those estimated using the ANL formulation (NUREG/6909). However, for the lower strain amplitude level and a triangle loading signal, the ANL formulation is pessimistic compared to the AREVA NP test results obtained for polished specimens. Finally, it was observed that constant amplitude LCF test results obtained on ground specimens under complex loading simulating an actual sequence of a cold and hot thermal shock exhibits lower combined environmental and surface finish effects when compared to the penalty factors estimated on the basis of the ANL formulations. It appears that the application of the NUREG/CR-6909 in conjunction with the Fen model proposed by ANL for austenitic stainless steel provides excessive margins, whereas the current ASME approach seems sufficient to cover significant environmental effects for representative loadings and surface finish conditions of reactor components.

Comparison Between ASME Code-Case N-761, NUREG/CR-6909 and Stainless Steel Component Fatigue Test Results

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. T. Harrison ◽  
Robert Gurdal
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Test ◽  
Fatigue Tests ◽  
Test Series ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Actual Number ◽  
Steel Component ◽  
Class 1 ◽  
Asme Code ◽  
Number Of Cycles

For Class 1 components, the consideration of the environmental effects on fatigue has been suggested to be evaluated through two different methodologies: either NUREG/CR-6909 from March 2007 or ASME-Code Case N-761 from August 2010. The purpose of this technical paper is to compare these two methods. In addition, the equations from Revision 1 of the NUREG/CR-6909 will be evaluated. For these comparisons, two stainless steel component fatigue test series with documented results are considered. These two fatigue test series are completely different from each other (applied cyclic displacements vs. insurge/outsurge types of transients). Therefore, they are producing an appropriate foundation for these comparisons. In general, the severities of the two methods are compared, where the severity is defined as the actual number of cycles from the fatigue tests, including an evaluation of the scatter, divided by the number of design cycles from the two methods. Also, how stable the methods are is being evaluated through the calculation of the coefficient of variation for each method.

Effects of Surface Finish and Loading Conditions on the Low Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Austenitic Stainless Steel in PWR Environment: Comparison of LCF Test Results With NUREG/CR-6909 Life Estimations

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Alain Le Duff ◽  
Andre´ Lefranc¸ois ◽  
Jean Philippe Vernot
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Austenitic Stainless Steel ◽  
Environmental Effects ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Fatigue Behavior ◽  
Complex Signal ◽  
Loading Conditions ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Cycle Fatigue

During mid 2006, ANL issued a NUREG/CR-6909 [2] report that is now applicable in The US for evaluations of PWR environmental effects in the fatigue analysis of new reactor components. In order to assess the conservativeness of the application of this NUREG report, low cycle fatigue (LCF) tests were performed by AREVA NP on austenitic stainless steel specimens in a PWR environment. The selected material exhibits in an air environment a fatigue behavior consistent with the ANL reference “air” mean curve. Tests were performed for two various loading conditions: for fully reverse triangular signal (for comparison purpose with tests performed by other laboratories with same loading conditions) and complex signal, simulating strain variation for actual typical PWR thermal transients. Two surface finish conditions were tested: polished and ground. The paper presents on one side the comparison of environmental penalty factors (Fen = Nair,RT/Nwater) as observed experimentally with the ANL formulation (considering the strain integral method for complex loading), and, on the other hand, the actual fatigue life of the specimen with the fatigue life predicted through the NUREG/CR-6909 application. Low Cycle Fatigue test results obtained on austenitic stainless steel specimens in PWR environment with triangle waveforms at constant low strain rates gives Fen penalty factors close to those estimated using the ANL formulation (NUREG report 6909). On the contrary, it was observed that constant amplitude LCF test results obtained under complex signal reproducing an actual sequence of a cold and hot thermal shock exhibits significantly lower environmental effects when compared to the Fen penalty factor estimated on the basis of the ANL formulations. It appears that the application of the NUREG/CR-6909 [2] in conjunction with the Fen model proposed by ANL for austenitic stainless steel provides excessive margins whereas the current ASME approach seems sufficient to cover significant environmental effect for components.

scholarly journals Application of Strainrange Partitioning to the Prediction of Creep-Fatigue Lives of AISI Types 304 and 316 Stainless Steel

1977 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. F. Saltsman ◽  
G. R. Halford
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
High Temperature ◽  
Fatigue Test ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Heat Treatments ◽  
Test Results ◽  
316 Stainless Steel ◽  
Creep Fatigue ◽  
Testing Techniques

As a demonstration of the predictive capabilities of the method of Strainrange Partitioning, published high-temperature, low cycle, creep-fatigue test results on AISI Types 304 and 316 stainless steel were analyzed and calculated cyclic lives compared with observed lives. Predicted lives agreed with observed lives within factors of two for 76 percent, factors of three for 93 percent, and factors of four for 98 percent of the laboratory tests analyzed. Agreement between observed and predicted lives is judged satisfactory considering that the data are associated with a number of variables (two alloys, several heats and heat treatments, a range of temperatures, different testing techniques, etc.) that are not directly accounted for in the calculations.

Development of New Design Fatigue Curves in Japan: Discussion of Effect of Surface Finish on Fatigue Strength of Nuclear Component Materials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motoki Nakane ◽  
Yun Wang ◽  
Hisamitsu Hatoh ◽  
Masato Yamamoto ◽  
Akihiko Hirano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Strength ◽  
Carbon Steel ◽  
Fatigue Test ◽  
Surface Finish ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Maximum Height ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Nuclear Component ◽  
Fatigue Evaluation

Abstract Based on the world wide fatigue test database, The Design Fatigue Curve (DFC) Phase 1 and 2 subcommittees established in The Japan Welding Engineering Society (JWES) have been developed new design fatigue curves which are applied for the nuclear component materials, in air environment. The effects of the design factor, such as mean stress, size effect and surface finish, etc. on the fatigue curves are also discussed with the fatigue database in order to construct fatigue evaluation method for the new design fatigue curves. The subcommittees also have studied the applicability of newly developed fatigue evaluation method to the nuclear component materials. This paper reports the fatigue test results of machined finished small-scale test specimens which are used for the verification of proposed fatigue evaluation method. The materials subjected to the fatigue tests are austenitic stainless steel SUS316LTP, low-alloy steels SQV2A and SCM435H, and carbon steel STPT370. Specimens finished with lathe machining are subjected to the tests. The planed maximum height roughness of the specimen are 25 and 100 μm. The fatigue test results show that the surface finish effect on the fatigue strength in the high cycle region of the austenitic stainless steel can be negligible. On the other hand, fatigue strength of the carbon steel and low alloy steel is decreased as increasing the surface roughness of the specimen. Especially, decrease of fatigue strength for the specimens with more than 100 μm maximum height roughness is larger than that of conventional estimation. It is presumed that severe roughness introduced by lathe machining tends to behave as notches and increase the stress concentration at the specimen surface, and resulted in unexpected decrease of fatigue strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document