Strain Waveform Effects for Low Cycle Fatigue in Simulated PWR Water

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommi Seppänen ◽  
Jouni Alhainen ◽  
Esko Arilahti ◽  
Jussi Solin
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Steel Specimen ◽  
Feedback Signal ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Testing Facility ◽  
Reference Curves

In order to perform design code (ASME III, RCC-M, JSME) compatible direct strain-controlled tests in simulated PWR water, a unique environmental fatigue testing facility was previously developed. Pneumatic bellows are used to generate strain in the stainless steel specimen mid-section, while eddy current based measurement is used as a feedback signal. The NUREG/CR-6909 report gathered a large database of test results and proposed environmental reduction factors (Fen) to account for a reduction in fatigue life in simulated LWR environment when comparing to a reference value in air. The database was composed of non-stabilized stainless steels tested using methods which are not directly comparable to those used in air to define the reference curves. Applicability of the stainless steel Fen factors has already been challenged in previous PVP papers (PVP2013-97500, PVP2014-28465, PVP2016-63294). Results in this paper continue to show this trend of lower experimental Fen factors compared to predictions made by the NUREG report. Dual strain rate tests were performed, specifically focusing on the effect of strain waveform shape on fatigue life. Similarly to last year’s results (PVP2016-63294) a distinct effect of strain waveform, presently inadequately accounted for in Fen predictions, was observed.

Direct Strain-Controlled Variable Strain Rate Low Cycle Fatigue Testing in Simulated PWR Water

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tommi Seppänen ◽  
Jouni Alhainen ◽  
Esko Arilahti ◽  
Jussi Solin
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Strain Rate ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Reference Value ◽  
Hot Water ◽  
Feedback Signal ◽  
Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Experimental Values

A tailored-for-purpose environmental fatigue testing facility was previously developed to perform direct strain-controlled tests on stainless steel in simulated PWR water. Strain in specimen mid-section is generated by the use of pneumatic bellows, and eddy current measurement is used as a feedback signal. The procedure conforms with the ASTM E 606 practice for low cycle fatigue, giving results which are directly compatible with the major NPP design codes. Past studies were compiled in the NUREG/CR-6909 report and environmental reduction factors Fen were proposed to account for fatigue life reduction in hot water as compared to a reference value in air. This database exclusively contained non-stabilized stainless steels, mainly tested under stroke control. The applicability of the stainless steel Fen factor for stabilized alloys was already challenged in past papers (PVP2013-97500, PVP2014-28465). The results presented in this paper follow the same overall trend of lower experimental values (4.12–11.46) compared to those expected according to the NUREG report (9.49–10.37). In this paper results of a dual strain rate test programme on niobium stabilized AISI 347 type stainless steel are presented and discussed in the context of the NUREG/CR-6909 Fen methodology. Special attention is paid to the effect of strain signal on fatigue life, which according to current prediction methods does not affect the value of Fen.

Low Cycle Fatigue of Nuclear Pipe Components

1974 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Heald ◽  
E. Kiss
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Room Temperature ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
304 Stainless Steel ◽  
Code Design ◽  
Hydraulic Pressure ◽  
Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Cyclic Bending

This paper presents the results of low-cycle fatigue testing and analysis of 26 piping components and butt-welded sections. The test specimens were fabricated from Type-304 stainless steel and carbon steel, materials which are typically used in the primary piping of light water nuclear reactors. Components included 6-in. elbows, tees, and girth butt-welded straight sections. Fatigue testing consisted of subjecting the specimens to deflection-controlled cyclic bending with the objective of simulating system thermal expansion type loading. Tests were conducted at room temperature and 550 deg F, with specimens at room temperature subjected to 1050 psi constant internal hydraulic pressure in addition to cyclic bending. In two tests at room temperature, however, stainless steel elbows were subjected to combined simultaneous cyclic internal pressure and cyclic bending. Predictions of the fatigue life of each of the specimens tested have been made according to the procedures specified in NB-3650 of Section III[1] in order to assess the code design margin. For the purpose of the assessment, predicted fatigue life is compared to actual fatigue life which is defined as the number of fatigue cycles producing complete through-wall crack growth (leakage). Results of this assessment show that the present code fatigue rules are adequately conservative.

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.

Environmental Fatigue Testing of Type 316 Stainless Steel in 310 °C Water

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunchul Cho ◽  
Byoung Koo Kim ◽  
In Sup Kim ◽  
Seung Jong Oh ◽  
Dae Yul Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Pure Water ◽  
Cyclic Stress ◽  
Strain Rates ◽  
Low Oxygen ◽  
Test Environment ◽  
316 Stainless Steel

Low cycle fatigue tests were conducted to investigate fatigue behaviors of Type 316 stainless steel in 310 °C low oxygen water. In the tests, strain rates were 4 × 10−4, 8 × 10−5 s−1 and applied strain amplitudes were 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0%. The test environment was pure water at a temperature of 310 °C, pressure of 15 MPa, and dissolved oxygen concentration of < 1 ppb. Type 316 stainless steel underwent a primary hardening, followed by a moderate softening for both strain rates in 310 °C low oxygen water. The primary hardening was much less pronounced and secondary hardening was observed at lower strain amplitude. On the other hand, the cyclic stress response in room temperature air exhibited gradual softening and did not show any hardening. The fatigue life of the studied steel in 310 °C low oxygen water was shorter than that of the statistical model in air. The reduction of fatigue life was enhanced with decreasing strain rate from 4 × 10−4 to 8 × 10−5 s−1.

scholarly journals INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE AND LOADING PROGRAM ON THE FATIGUE LIFE OF STEEL P91

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-98
Author(s):  
Stanisław Mroziński ◽  
Michał Piotrowski
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Influence Of Temperature ◽  
Program Type ◽  
Influence Of Temperature On ◽  
Two Temperatures ◽  
A Minor ◽  
The Impact

Abstract In this paper there are shown the results of low-cycle fatigue testing of steel P91 samples. During the testing there was conducted a fixed amplitude loading testing as well as programmed loading with various sequence degrees of the program. The testing was done in two temperatures: T=20°C and T=600°C. During the testing a cyclic steel weakening was observed without a clear period of stabilization. Greater changes of the cyclic properties were observed in temperature T=600°C. The influence of temperature on the fatigue life was determined in this paper. This influence is dependent on the degree of strain. It’s a minor one in the range of big strain and increases in the process of decreasing the degree of strain. Furthermore, the impact of the loading program type was determined on the test results and fatigue life calculations

Fatigue Life of the Strain Hardened Austenitic Stainless Steel in Simulated PWR Primary Water

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuya Tsutsumi ◽  
Nicolas Huin ◽  
Thierry Couvant ◽  
Gilbert Henaff ◽  
Jose Mendez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Strain Hardening ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Axial Strain ◽  
Correlation Factor ◽  
304L Stainless Steel ◽  
Pressurized Water ◽  
Primary Water

Over the last 20 years or so, many studies have revealed the deleterious effect of the environment on fatigue life of austenitic stainless steels in pressurized water reactor (PWR) primary water. The fatigue life correlation factor, so-called Fen, has been standardized to consider the effect on fatigue life evaluation. The formulations are function of strain rate and temperature due to their noticeable negative effect compared with other factors [1,2]. However, mechanism causing fatigue life reduction remains to be cleared. As one of possible approaches to examine underlying mechanism of environmental effect, the authors focused on the effect of plastic strain, because it could lead microstructural evolution on the material. In addition, in the case of stress corrosion cracking (SCC), it is well known that the strain-hardening prior to exposure to the primary water can lead to remarkable increase of the susceptibility to cracking [3,4]. However, its effect on fatigue life has not explicitly been investigated yet. The main effort in this study addressed the effect of the prior strain-hardening on low cycle fatigue life of 304L stainless steel (SS) exposed to the PWR primary water. A plate of 304LSS was strain hardened by cold rolling or tension prior to fatigue testing. The tests were performed under axial strain-controlled at 300 °C in primary water including B/Li and dissolved hydrogen, and in air. The effect on environmental fatigue life was investigated through a comparison of the Fen in experiments and in regulations, and also the effect on the fatigue limit defined at 106 cycles was discussed.

scholarly journals Fatigue Testing of Wearable Sensing Technologies: Issues and Opportunities

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (15) ◽  
pp. 4070
Author(s):  
Andrea Karen Persons ◽  
John E. Ball ◽  
Charles Freeman ◽  
David M. Macias ◽  
Chartrisa LaShan Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatigue Life ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Fatigue Testing ◽  
Low Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Wearable Sensors ◽  
Fatigue Tests ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Cycle Fatigue ◽  
Wearable Sensing ◽  
Failure Data

Standards for the fatigue testing of wearable sensing technologies are lacking. The majority of published fatigue tests for wearable sensors are performed on proof-of-concept stretch sensors fabricated from a variety of materials. Due to their flexibility and stretchability, polymers are often used in the fabrication of wearable sensors. Other materials, including textiles, carbon nanotubes, graphene, and conductive metals or inks, may be used in conjunction with polymers to fabricate wearable sensors. Depending on the combination of the materials used, the fatigue behaviors of wearable sensors can vary. Additionally, fatigue testing methodologies for the sensors also vary, with most tests focusing only on the low-cycle fatigue (LCF) regime, and few sensors are cycled until failure or runout are achieved. Fatigue life predictions of wearable sensors are also lacking. These issues make direct comparisons of wearable sensors difficult. To facilitate direct comparisons of wearable sensors and to move proof-of-concept sensors from “bench to bedside,” fatigue testing standards should be established. Further, both high-cycle fatigue (HCF) and failure data are needed to determine the appropriateness in the use, modification, development, and validation of fatigue life prediction models and to further the understanding of how cracks initiate and propagate in wearable sensing technologies.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document