Effects of Load Sequence on Fatigue Crack Growth in Pressure Vessels

Article Preview

Abstract:

Low alloy steels such as ASTM A508 and A533 and their equivalent materials have been extensively applied in fabricating pressure vessels due to their relatively excellent mechanical properties and moderately good weldability. The integrity of such materials governs the safety of the power plants. These vessels mainly are subjected to random loading in service and the load cycle interactions can have a significant effect in fatigue crack growth. Studying of fatigue crack growth rate and fatigue life calculation under spectrum loading is important for the reliable life prediction of vessels. Many models have been proposed, but as yet no universal model exists. In this paper, a fatigue life predicted under various load spectra, using three different fatigue crack growth models namely the Austen, modified Forman and NASGRO models. These models are validated with fatigue crack growth test data under various variable amplitude loadings. This application is performed with aids of three-point bend specimens. The results show clearly the load sequences effect and the predicted results agree with some discrepancies between the different models as well as with the test data. Neglecting, the cycle interaction effects in fatigue calculation under variable amplitude loading lead to invalid life prediction.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 160-162)

Pages:

1217-1222

Citation:

Online since:

November 2010

Export:

Price:

[1] J. Y Huang J.J. Yeh, R.C. Kuo, S.L. Jeng and M.C. Young: International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping Vol. 85 (2008), p.772.

Google Scholar

[2] X.P. Huang, J.B. Zhang, W.C. Cui and J.X. Leng: Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics Vol. 44 (2005), p.105.

Google Scholar

[3] P.C. Paris, H. Tada and J.K. Donald: International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 21 (1999), p. S35.

Google Scholar

[4] F. Taheri, D. Trask and N. Pegg: Journal of Marine Structure Vol. 16 (2003), p.69.

Google Scholar

[5] O.E. Wheeler: J Basic Engng, Trans ASME, Ser D Vol. 94 (1972), p.181.

Google Scholar

[6] J.D. Willenborg, R.M. Engle and H.A. Wood: Report AFFEL-TM-71-1-FBR, Dayton (OH): Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright–Patterson Air Force Base (1971).

Google Scholar

[7] W. Elber: ASTM STP, Vol. 486. American Society for Testing and Materials Vol. 486(1971), p.230.

Google Scholar

[8] J.C. Newman: International Journal of Fracture Vol. 24 (1984), p. R131.

Google Scholar

[9] A. Ray and R. Patanker: Applied Mathematical Modelling Vol. 25 (2001), p.995.

Google Scholar

[10] J. Schijve: Engineering Fracture Mechanics Vol. 14 (1981), p.461.

Google Scholar

[11] H.C. Voorwald and MAS. Torres: International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 13 (1991), p.423.

Google Scholar

[12] D. Kujawski: International Journal of Fatigue Vol. 23 (2001), p.733.

Google Scholar

[13] S.M. Beden, S. Abdullah, A.K. Ariffin and N.A. Al-Asady: Materials and Design Vol. 31 (2010), p.3449.

Google Scholar

[14] nCode User Guide Manual. ICE-FLOW Cracks Growth. V2. 0. (2003).

Google Scholar

[15] ASM Metals Handbook, Vol. 2 - Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-Purpose Materials, ASM International 10th Ed. (1990).

DOI: 10.31399/asm.hb.v02.9781627081627

Google Scholar

[16] K.S. Al-Rubaie, L. Emerson, L. Barroso and B. Godefroid: Materials Science and Engineering Vol. A486 (2008), p.585.

Google Scholar