Strain Measures for Fatigue Assessment Using Elastic-Plastic FEA

Author(s):  
W. Reinhardt

In the ASME Code, Section III NB-3228.4(c) requires that if an elastic-plastic fatigue analysis is performed, the fatigue curve shall be entered with the numerically maximum principal total (elastic plus plastic) strain range multiplied by one-half the modulus of elasticity of the material at the mean cycle temperature. This paper discusses the choice of the principal strain range as well as other possible strain range measures for elastic-plastic fatigue analysis. Several generic observations that form the basis for the discussion are outlined.

Author(s):  
Daniel Leary ◽  
Chris Currie ◽  
Keith Wright

Abstract Rules for fatigue evaluation of nuclear pressure vessels and piping components are provided in Subsection NB of Section III of the ASME code. The code prescribed fatigue procedure requires the comparison of an alternating stress amplitude with fatigue allowables (design fatigue curves), usually derived through uniaxial specimen testing. For elastic assessments of multiaxial loading, typical from thermal shocks, a Tresca stress is used to characterise the stress field into a single effective stress measure for comparison with ASME fatigue allowables. For nonlinear elastic-plastic assessments, Appendix XIII-3440(b) of Section III specifies that “the numerically maximum principal total strain range” (interpreted as Maximum Total Principal (MTP) strain range) should be used for comparison with fatigue allowables. Two alternative methods for the characterisation of multiaxial strain fields are presented in the ASME code. Section VIII Division 2 provides alternative rules for the construction of pressure vessels, with Part 5 specifying the use of a Von Mises based Effective Strain Range (ESR) for elastic-plastic analysis. Section III Division 5 Subsection NBB provides rules for the assessment of components at elevated temperatures, also specifying the use of a Von Mises based Equivalent Total Strain Range (ETSR) measure. The two alternative strain measures are differentiated by their treatment of the elastic strain contribution. In the ESR method an equivalent elastic strain is calculated and summated with the plastic strain component. In the ETSR method the total strain (elastic plus plastic) is used thus evaluating the elastic and plastic contributions simultaneously. More complex critical plane approaches have also been proposed in recent years to better characterise multiaxial loading conditions. This paper presents a comparison of the various ASME specified strain measures and simplified critical plane approaches for fatigue evaluation of complex multiaxial loading. In support of this comparison, predictions of initiation lives to 0.254 mm defect in the stepped pipe specimen reported in PVP2004-2748 are provided to quantify the additional conservatism contained in elastic-plastic fatigue assessments of nuclear components. Predictions use the methodology presented in the companion paper PVP2019-93847 for the generation of short crack fatigue curves and the associated modification to environmental enhancement factors. It is concluded that use of the ASME specified strain measures, in conjunction with lower bound stress-strain data, conservatively underestimate the initiation life to a 0.254 mm defect by a factor of four for the example considered. However, use of more complex critical plane strain measures were observed to provide significant improvement in prediction accuracy of elastic-plastic fatigue evaluations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Shen ◽  
Mingwan Lu ◽  
Zhenyu Wang ◽  
Heng Peng ◽  
Yinghua Liu

Abstract ASME Code VIII-2-2019 and previous versions provided three screening criteria for fatigue analysis. From edition 2004 to 2019, the design factor for material allowable stress decreased and the considered range of permissible cyclic number for design fatigue curve extended. However, screening criteria are almost unchanged except one restriction: If the specified number of cycles is greater than 106, then the screening criteria are not applicable and a fatigue analysis is required. In this paper, percentage limit of the design pressure in method A is modified and the specified number of cycles is extended. Some revision suggestions are also proposed to broaden the applicable range of the screening criterion.


Author(s):  
Timothy M. Adams

In conducting a Class 1 piping analysis per the simplified rules of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3600, a fatigue analysis is required per paragraph NB-3653 for both Service Level A and Service Level B. The fatigue analysis provides two options. The options are dependent on Equation 10 of subparagraph NB-3653.1. If this equation is met for a given load set pair under consideration, then the analysis proceeds directly to subparagraphs NB-3653.2 through NB-3653.5. If however, Equation 10 is exceeded, the Code allows the use of a simplified Elastic Plastic Analysis as delineated in subparagraph NB-3653.6. The first requirement of NB-3653.6 is that both Equation 12 and Equation 13 must be met. The changes in the seismic design in the last 25+ years have not been appropriately reflected in the subparagraph NB-3653.6(b) Equation 13. Also, the Code provides no clear guidance on seismic anchor motions in paragraph NB-3650. In 2012 ASME Code Committees undertook an action to address these issues. This paper provides the background and basis for Code changes that are anticipated will be implemented in the near future in paragraph NB-3653.6 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 that will address both of these issues. This implementation will make the Elastic Plastic Fatigue rules of NB-3653.6 consistent with the design by analysis approach of NB-3228.5.


Author(s):  
Julian Emslie ◽  
Chris Watson ◽  
Keith Wright

ASME III NB-3200 provides a method for carrying out fatigue calculations using a simplified elastic-plastic analysis procedure. This allows a correction to elastic analysis to be performed in place of a full elastic-plastic analysis. Two mutually exclusive factors are described: the Poisson’s ratio correction accounts for surface stress exceeding the yield strength of the material and the Ke factor accounts for gross section plasticity. The recently released ASME Code Case N-779 provides a more complex but less onerous calculation of the Ke factor. Correction factors from the JSME and RCC-M codes have also been considered in this paper. The conservatism of different plasticity correction factors has been examined by calculating a ratio between the equivalent strain range from elastic-plastic Finite Element (FE) models and the strain range from elastic FE models and comparing this to calculated plasticity correction factors. Results show the potential for both the current ASME and Code Case Ke corrections to under-predict the strains when compared to those from an elastic-plastic FE assessment. A preliminary investigation has been carried out into an alternative correction factor based on linearised stress and local thermal stress ranges. This addresses the discontinuity between the two correction methods for surface and sectional plasticity which has been identified as a feature of the ASME correction methodology.


Author(s):  
Thomas Métais ◽  
Stéphan Courtin ◽  
Pierre Genette ◽  
Laurent De Baglion ◽  
Cédric Gourdin ◽  
...  

Environmentally Assisted Fatigue is receiving nowadays an increased level of attention for new builds and also for installed bases which are currently having their lives extended to 60 years in various countries. To formally integrate these effects, some international codes have already proposed code cases. More particularly, the ASME code has based itself on the NUREG/CR-6909 [1] to elaborate the Code Case N-792 [2] and suggests a modification of the fatigue curve combined with a calculation of an environmental penalty factor, namely Fen, which is to be multiplied by the usual fatigue usage factor. In France, EDF and AREVA also aim at more explicitly integrating these effects in the RCC-M code. The initiative is technically supported by CEA and bases itself on international methodologies but also on results from French in-house testing campaigns [3] [4]. The approach is globally similar to the one in the ASME code: it will indeed consist in an update of the mean air and design fatigue curves as well as the calculation of an environmental penalty factor. Nevertheless, the methodologies differ in their detailed implementation, as was already hinted in previous papers discussing the French methodology [5] [6]. This paper is the sequel to the proposal already described in [7].


Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (21) ◽  
pp. 4844
Author(s):  
Bogusław Hościło ◽  
Krzysztof L. Molski

The paper presents a method for estimating the value of equibiaxial stress in a surface layer of a material by using a modified hardness measurement procedure with a Vickers indenter. A certain characteristic parameter was defined and related to the surface stress. A hybrid approach, based on experimental tests and accompanied by the complementary results obtained by the finite element modelling of X20Cr13 steel in elastic–plastic range, confirmed a linear relationship between the value of the characteristic parameter and the magnitude of equibiaxial stress at the surface. This linear relationship was valid in both elastic and elastic–plastic strain range beyond the yield stress of the material.


Author(s):  
Jun Shen ◽  
Mingwan Lu ◽  
Zhenyu Wang ◽  
Heng Peng ◽  
Yinghua Liu

Abstract ASME Code VIII-2-2017 and previous versions provided three screening criteria for fatigue analysis. From Edition 2004 to 2017, the design factor for material allowable stress decreased and the considered range of permissible cyclic number for design fatigue curve extended. However, screening criterion are almost unchanged except one restriction: If the specified number of cycles is greater than 106, then the screening criteria are not applicable and a fatigue analysis is required. In this paper, percentage limit of the design pressure in Method A is modified and the specified number of cycles is extended. Some revision suggestions are also proposed to broaden the applicable range of the screening criterion.


Author(s):  
Wolf Reinhardt ◽  
Sampath Ranganath

In the fatigue analysis in Section III design by analysis, the evaluation is performed in terms of alternating stress, but the evaluation curves are alternating strain – life curves that were converted to alternating pseudo-stress by formally multiplying elastic-plastic (total) strains by a modulus of elasticity that is representative of the elastic regime. The corresponding evaluation method would be an elastic-plastic analysis where the calculated strain amplitude is multiplied by the modulus of elasticity that is provided with the Code fatigue curve to obtain the alternating pseudo-stress. When the alternating stress is calculated by elastic analysis but is found to be in excess of the elastic regime, corrections need to be applied that account for the difference between stress from an elastic analysis and the pseudo-stress that would be obtained from an elastic-plastic analysis. Performing such a correction is the objective of simplified elastic-plastic fatigue analysis. An alternative to the simplified elastic-plastic fatigue analysis in Appendix XIII, XIII-3450, is given by Code Case N-779. A new proposal has been developed recently, with the objective to be less conservative in most cases than the very conservative method in Appendix XIII, XIII-3450, and more straightforward to apply than Code Case N-779. The new proposal has been validated with elastic-plastic analysis results. The present paper details a comparison to Code Case N-779 over a large range of parameters. The causes for discrepancies and implications are discussed in detail.


Author(s):  
Thomas Métais ◽  
Stéphan Courtin ◽  
Pierre Genette ◽  
Laurent De Baglion ◽  
Cédric Gourdin ◽  
...  

Environmentally Assisted Fatigue is receiving nowadays an increased level of attention not only for new builds but also for the installed bases which are currently having their lives extended to 60 years in various countries. To formally integrate these effects, some international codes have already proposed code cases. More specifically, the ASME code has used the NUREG/CR-6909 [1] as the basis for Code Case N-792 [2] and suggests a modification of the austenitic stainless steels fatigue curve combined with a calculation of an environmental penalty factor, namely Fen, which is to be multiplied by the usual fatigue usage factor. The various methodologies proposed are not finalized and there is still a significant level of discussion as can be illustrated by the recent update of NUREG/CR-6909 [3]. In this context, EDF, AREVA and the CEA have also submitted two RCC-M Rules in Probatory Phase (RPP) (equivalent to ASME code-cases) to AFCEN to propose respectively an update of the fatigue curve for austenitic stainless steels and a methodology to incorporate EAF in fatigue evaluations. The approach is globally similar to the one in the ASME code: it consists in an update of the mean air and design fatigue curves as well as the calculation of an environmental penalty factor. Nevertheless, the methodologies differ in their detailed implementation by especially introducing the Fen-integrated which accounts for the environmental effects already covered by the fatigue curves. This paper is the sequel to the proposal already described in [4] [6].


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document