This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Case study of strain based criterion for high temperature design
JiaNan Chen
a
, JianJun Chen
b,
*
, ShanDong Tu
a,b
a
School of Mechanical and Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Technology. Nanjing 210009, China
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, East China University of Science and Technology Shanghai 200237, China
Abstract
For many years the strain criterion in high temperature design codes have been made mainly based upon empiricism. The develop
ment of continuum damage mechanics and numerical tools allows the simulation of damage and deformation evolution of complicated
structures subjected to high temperature. Aiming at reexamination of the current design rules, the paper studied the strain allowances
for inelastic design analysis routine based on a combined FEM and continuum damage mechanics approach. The structures of different
stress states such as straight pipe, bend and Tjoint component are studied. The numerical results indicate that the inelastic strain limits
in ASME code are sometimes appropriate, while sometimes can be risky.
Keywords: Strain criterion; Creep damage; FEA; Code rule.
1. Introduction
It has been known for long time that strain history
may be more important than the prevailing stress. The
most meaningful failure criterion would be the creep
strain because it’s easy to verify by measuring. The
problem, however, is how to define a critical value for
strain when a component fails [1]. It was found in
Monkman and Grant’s work that the product of mini
mum creep strain rate and rupture time equals almost
to a constant [2].
e t
r CR
= ⋅ ε& (1)
Here e can be interpreted as the strain which would be
accumulated by neglecting primary and tertiary stage
of creep and referred to as the usable creep ductility.
The empirical equation has been the basis for the creep
design in terms of strain. It has been demonstrated that
the criterion of 1% of strain is enough to prevent voi
dage and the current tertiary creep criterion is not al
ways necessary in determining the time dependent de
sign allowance for some alloys [3,4]. However, differ
ent codes may suggest very different strain allowances.
The German code, TRD [5] for instance, regards 2% of
creep strain as the end of component life while the
ASME code [6] uses 1% criterion to limit the strain
averaged through the thickness. It is worth noting that
the strain limits are in lack of support of the scientific
understanding. The difference between these codes
always makes engineers into dilemma. Taking ASME
Code Case N47 as an example, the code defines the
strain criterion for inelastic analysis as follows
(T1310):
*
Corresponding author.
Email address: chenjj.ecust@163.com (JianJun Chen).
In regions expecting elevated temperatures the
maximum accumulated inelastic strain shall not exceed
the following values.
a) Strains averaged through the thickness, 1%;
b) Strains at the surface, due to an equivalent linear
distribution of strain through the thickness, 2%;
c) Local strains at any point, 5%.
The above limits apply to computed strains accumu
lated over the expected operating lifetime of the ele
ment under consideration, and computed for some
steady state period at the end of this time during which
significant transients are not occurring.
Such stipulation implies an assumption as illustrated
in Fig.1, where the usable strain corresponding to the
above cases, e1, e2, e3 can be acquired by experimen
tation or numerical simulation. The ASME code thus
can be paraphrased as e2/e1=2 and e3/e1=5.
Fig.1. Assumption of ASME Code Case N47 in defining.
JiaNan Chen et al. / Case study of strain based criterion for high temperature design 132
It should be pointed out that the rupture ductility of a
component depends greatly on the stress state
[7]. Thus
it is very important to take into account of the accurate
stress state if the strain criterion shall be applied. The
continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach would
be a desirable tool to serve for this purpose.
The objective of this paper is to develop the strain
allowances for inelastic design analysis by taking into
account of the effect of the stress state during the creep
damage evolution. The structures of different stress
states such as straight pipe, bend pipe and Tjoint are
hence studied based on a combined FEM and contin
uum damage mechanics approach. The available results
from weldment are also quoted to interpret the design
rule for welded structure.
2. Finite element analysis of creep damage and de
formation
2.1 Constitutive equation and damage laws
Assume the total incremental strain can be divided
into elastic strain increment
e
dε , creep strain incre
ment
c
dε and plastic strain increment
p
dε , and is
expressed as
p c e
dε dε dε dε + + = (2)
Excluding plasticity the total strain is
c e
dε dε dε + = (3)
According to Hooke’s law, the elastic strain increment
is
dσ dε
e
1 −
= D (4)
where D is the elasticity matrix. Substitution of Eq.(4)
into Eq.(3) gives
£© £¨
0
ε ε ε d d d dσ
c
− − = D
(5)
where
0
ε d means the initial strain caused by tem
perature or other initial conditions
The modified KachanovRabotnov equation for in
homogeneous creep damage is used in the present
study and is shown below
[8].
( ) ( )
(
¸
(
¸
−
− + −
−
=
n
D ρ ρ
ij
s
n
e
Bσ
dt
c
dε
1 1
1
2
3
(6)
( )  
( )
υ
1
1
1
1
φ
σ α ασ
φ
D
e
A
g
dt
dD
−
− +
+
= (7)
( ) 1
1
1 1 + − − = φ g D
cr
(8)
where ε
c
is the strain tensor, s
ij
the stress deviation
tensor, σ
I
and σ
e
are the maximum principal stress and
von Mises stress, D and D
cr
the damage variable and
critical damage where the material creep life is as
sumed to be fully utilized when D/D
cr
reaches one. α is
the material constant relating to the multiaxial rupture
criterion which ranges from zero to unity, B, n, A, and
ν are material constants relating to the minimum creep
strain rate and rupture behaviors, g, φ and ρ the con
stant accounting for the inhomogeneity of the damage
where ρ represents the volumetric ratio of the damaged
phase.
It is common to use the nonlinear regression tech
nique to obtain the three latter constants. A statistical
optimization procedure can be used to ensure the
global minimization of the objective functions [9].
2.2. Finite element solution schemes
The strain in each element at the times ∆t are written
as:
∆ε = B ∆u (9)
where ∆u are node displacement increments, B is the
element strain matrix.
The equations of equilibrium to be satisfied at any
instant of time t are
⌡
⌠
V
B
T
∆σdV = ∆F (10)
where ∆F
represents the change in loads during the
time interval ∆t.
According to the principle of virtue work, the basic
equation of finite element method boundary value
problem can be expressed as follows:
c
F F u K ∆ + ∆ = ∆ (11)
where K is the elastic stiffness matrix , ∆F are the load
increments of nodes during the time interval ∆t, ∆F
C
represent the incremental pseudoloads due to creep
strain.
The time integration can be carried out by use of the
Euler Method or RungeKuttaManson Algorithm
[10].
To ensure convergence, timesteps should be chosen
with caution. When creep strains and damage values
were small the normal controls on these variables were
inappropriate. For this situation an overall force equi
librium check was used in which previous experience
had shown to be sensitive to the size of the timestep.
When D = 0, the upper limit of timestep to ensure
Journal of China Pressure Vessel Technology 1 (2003) 131135 133
convergence has been proposed by Cormeau
[11].
Considering the effect of creep damage, the timestep
can be written as:
( )


.

\

−
⋅ = ∆
−1
1
3
1 4
min
n
i i
i
nEB
c t
σ
µ
(I=1,2) (12)
where c is an empirical parameter governing the preci
sion of the solution and is taken as 0.8 in the study.
In rupture calculations, failure of a bar is assumed to
have occurred when D = D
cr
(0.999). In order to follow
the evolution of D until failure, an additional specific
automatic time step control is used. Comparing the
actual value with the remaining time for rupture gives
a new timestep:
( )
i
i
D
t
max
2
τ
= ∆ (i=1,2) (13)
where τ is another precision parameter and should be
smaller than 0.01D
cr
in general. The chosen time step
is then the min (∆t
1
, ∆t
2
).
The solution scheme has been implemented into the
ABAQUS finite element program in terms of user de
fine material model(UMAT).
3. Strain allowance for pipe bend under creep con
ditions
In order to develop the strain criterion for bend de
sign based on inelastic analysis (Norton’s law), the
pipe bend and corresponding straight pipe are investi
gated under the same pressure at p
i
=30MPa. The axial
stress applied to the pipe ends are 48.45 MPa.
The configuration of the 3D pipe bend is illustrated
in Fig.2. The dimension of the bend is Ø280×30mm
and the average curvature radius R
m
is 140mm. The
material properties at 530 for 0.5Cr0.5Mo0.25V ¡æ
pipe steel are given in Table 1 [12].
The CDMFE analysis indicates that failure oc
curred first in the outer surface of the inner arc region.
Although the damage in the inner / outer surface of the
bend pipe is hyper  asymmetry, damage along the
bend direction is almost symmetrical (Fig.3). This re
sult is coincident with the article [13], in which the
author used a simplified symmetry model instead of
the 3D model to predict the life of the bend. Damage
variation at θ=45° section is shown in Fig.4. It can be
seen in the outer surface the damage is always smaller
than that in the inner surface either in the inner arc or
outer arc region. And damage in the outer arc region is
far much lower than that in the inner arc region what
ever in the inner surface or outer surface.
The maximal strain of the bend pipe is located in
the inner surface of inner arc at θ=45° section. Figure 5
shows the maximal strain of the bend pipe vs. the
maximal strain of the straight pipe subjected to the
same system load. The maximal strain referred here is
the hoop strain. The corresponding usable strain of the
straight pipe e1 is 3.79% which is the result of mem
brane stress and the maximum strain of the pipe bend
e2 is 7.55% which can be considered as the membrane
strain plus bending strain. The results indicate that the
allowance for membrane strain plus bending strain can
be 1.99 times (e2/e1) larger than that for membrane
strain, which is exactly the allowance prescribed in
ASME Code Case N47. In this case the code rule is
considerably appropriate.
Table 1. Material constants for 0.5Cr0.5Mo0.25V steel at 530¡æ.
E
µ
B n g φ A α υ
ρ
5
10 6 . 1 ×
0.28
37
10 495 . 8
−
×
14.45 0.725 1.472
32
10 963 . 7
−
×
0.43 12.65 0.00534
Fig. 2. Three dimension model of 90° bend.
Fig. 3. The damage contour of the bend.
JiaNan Chen et al. / Case study of strain based criterion for high temperature design 134
Fig. 4. Damage variation at the inner/outer arc (θ=45°).
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
S
t
r
a
i
n
Generalized Time
bend pipe
straight pipe
Fig. 5. Strain development in the critical points of bend and
straight pipe.
4. Strain allowance for Tjoint under creep condi
tions
Tjoint is another important piping component in
high temperature plants. Due to geometry discontinuity
in the knuckle region, there exists significant stress
concentration. The geometry of a Tjoint is shown in
Fig.6. The material properties are assumed to be the
same as the bend material. Creep damage of the com
ponent at an internal pressure of 20MPa is simulated
by the CDMFEM approach. The model with strain
paths of interest is shown in Fig. 7.
Finite element analysis shows that the failure first
occurred in the outer surface of the intersection of the
Tjoint. Strain distributions along the two paths are
obtained as shown in Fig.8 and Fig.9. The strain de
creases continuously along the axial direction (Path1).
The strain along the Path2 is also given which verifies
the strain at point A is the maximum. The strain at
point A can thus be considered peak strain. According
to the strain development curves, the usable strain in
the Tjoint (e3) is 16.2% whereas the usable strain in
the corresponding straight pipe is only 3.5%(e1). The
ratio e3/e1 is 4.6. This means if 1% strain is allowed in
the straight pipe, the strain permitted in the knuckle
region shall be less than 4.6%. The ASME allowance
for local strain (5%) is hence nonconservative.
5. Strain allowance for weldment
The presence of weld in a structure subjected to high
temperature condition will generally cause reduction of
service life of the structure. The current design meth
odology is to use the parent material properties with
appropriate reduction to account for the welding effect.
A unique strain reduction factor of 50% is prescribed
in ASME Code Case N47. To ensure that the design
life of the weld can be achieved,
Fig. 6. Dimension of the Tjoint.
Fig. 7. Model designation.
0 50 100 150 200 250
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
P
i
=20MPa
t =20000h
S
t
r
a
i
n
Distance (mm)
Fig. 8. Variation of strain along Path1.
Journal of China Pressure Vessel Technology 1 (2003) 131135 135
0 50 100 150 200
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
S
t
r
a
i
n
Distance (mm)
P
i
=20MPa
t =20000h
Fig. 9. Variation of strain along Path2.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
S
t
r
a
i
n
Normalized time
Straight pipe
T_joint
Fig. 10. Strain development in the critical points of Tjoint and
straight pipe
the strain reduction is required and can be defined as
the ratio of the creep life of welded structure over that
of the structure without weld
[14].
For the 0.5Cr0.5Mo0.25V welded pipe, the contin
uum damage mechanics simulation was performed
[12].
It has been suggested that the inelastic strain in the
design analysis should be limited to 0.75% so that the
lifetime of welded pipe can be correctly estimated,
which is about 1/3 of the total calculated inelastic
strain accumulated in the parent pipe when failure oc
curs. This means that ASME code rule is
nonconservative.
For the AISI 316 welded pipe (cold worked), a sim
ple calculation in terms of rupture equation gives a
very considerable reduction in lifetime, which can be
several tens to hundreds times in reduction
[15]. This
implies that the reduction factor can be smaller than
1/10  1/100. The application of ASME Code rule in
this case would lead to ridiculous estimation.
6. Conclusions
In order to develop the strain allowances for inelastic
design analysis, continuum damage mechanics
approach incorporated into FEM code is used to
account for the effect of the stress state during the
creep damage evolution in high temperature structure.
age evolution in high temperature structure. The struc
tures of different stress states such as straight pipe, bend,
Tjoint and weldment are hence studied. Tentative con
clusions have been drawn from the study.
For creep design of the pipe bend, the allowance for
membrane strain plus bending strain can be twice times
(e2/e1) larger than that for membrane strain, which is
exact the allowance prescribed in ASME Code Case
N47. In this case the code rule is properly right.
For creep design of the Tjoint, it is suggested that
the strain permitted in the knuckle region shall be less
than 4.6% if 1% strain is allowed in the straight pipe.
The ASME code allowance for local strain (5%) is
hence nonconservative.
For creep design of weldment, the code rule can be
extremely nonconservative.
Further computation and experimental verification
work will be needed to form a systematical
strainbased criterion for high temperature design of
various structures.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
support provided by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Contract No.59875039).
References
[1] Viswanathan R. In: Damage Mechanism and Life Assess
ment of High Temperature Components, ASM, New York,
1989.
[2] Mankman FC, Grant NJ. 59th ASTM Annual Meeting
1956; 59.
[3] Udoguchi T. Proc. Int. Conf. on Creep, Tokyo, 1418 April,
1986; pp.110.
[4] Phaniraj C et al. Scripta Materialia 2003; 48: 1313.
[5] Hahn B, Bühl G, Nerger D. OMMI 2002; 1: 1.
[6] In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code, section
III—class I components in elevated temperature service.
Code Case N4729, 1990.
[7] Tu ST. Structural Integrity Principle for High Temperature
Components, Science Press, Beijing, 2003.
[8] Liu Y. Ph.D. Thesis, Southwestern Jiaotong University,
Chengdu, 1990.
[9] Tu ST, Yang WB. Proc. Int. Conf. On Advanced Exper.
Mech., Tianjing, China 1998; p. 142147.
[10] Ling X, Tu ST, Gong JM. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 2000;
77: 243.
[11] Comeau I. Int. J. Num. Mech. Engng. 1975; 9: 109.
[12] Tu ST, Wu R, Sandstrom R. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping
1994; 58: 345.
[13] Hide TH. Int.J. Press Vessel & Piping 2002; 799855.
[14] Tu ST, Segle P, Gong JM. Int. J. Pres. Ves & Piping 1996;
66: 171.
[15] Tu ST, Sandstrom R. Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 1994; 57:
335.
α is the material constant relating to the multiaxial rupture criterion which ranges from zero to unity. B is the element strain matrix. The continuum damage mechanics (CDM) approach would be a desirable tool to serve for this purpose.2. φ and ρ the constant accounting for the inhomogeneity of the damage where ρ represents the volumetric ratio of the damaged phase. A. ∆F are the load increments of nodes during the time interval ∆t. When creep strains and damage values were small the normal controls on these variables were inappropriate. and is expressed as Dcr = 1 − (1 − g )φ +1 1 (8) where εc is the strain tensor. According to the principle of virtue work. Substitution of Eq. / Case study of strain based criterion for high temperature design It should be pointed out that the rupture ductility of a component depends greatly on the stress state [7]. sij the stress deviation tensor. The objective of this paper is to develop the strain allowances for inelastic design analysis by taking into account of the effect of the stress state during the creep damage evolution. and ν are material constants relating to the minimum creep strain rate and rupture behaviors. Finite element solution schemes The strain in each element at the times ∆t are written as: ∆ε = B ∆u (9) dε = dε e + dε c + dε p Excluding plasticity the total strain is (2) dε = dε e + dε c (3) where ∆u are node displacement increments. creep strain increment dε c and plastic strain increment dε p .(3) gives where ∆F represents the change in loads during the time interval ∆t.1 Constitutive equation and damage laws Assume the total incremental strain can be divided into elastic strain increment dε e . To ensure convergence. The structures of different stress states such as straight pipe. bend pipe and Tjoint are hence studied based on a combined FEM and continuum damage mechanics approach. When D = 0. The equations of equilibrium to be satisfied at any instant of time t are According to Hooke’s law. n. For this situation an overall force equilibrium check was used in which previous experience had shown to be sensitive to the size of the timestep. 2. timesteps should be chosen with caution. c = 3 Bσ n − 1s (1 − ρ ) + ρ (1 − D )− n e ij dt 2 υ dD A ασ 1 + (1 − α )σ e =g φ +1 dt (1 − D )φ dε (6) (7) [ ] where K is the elastic stiffness matrix . the upper limit of timestep to ensure . Thus it is very important to take into account of the accurate stress state if the strain criterion shall be applied. Finite element analysis of creep damage and deformation 2. g. D and Dcr the damage variable and critical damage where the material creep life is assumed to be fully utilized when D/Dcr reaches one. 2.132 JiaNan Chen et al. the elastic strain increment is ⌠BT ∆σdV = ∆F ⌡ V (10) dε e = D −1 dσ (4) where D is the elasticity matrix. σI and σe are the maximum principal stress and von Mises stress. B. The available results from weldment are also quoted to interpret the design rule for welded structure. the basic equation of finite element method boundary value problem can be expressed as follows: dσ = D£¨ dε − dε c − dε 0£© (5) K∆u = ∆F + ∆Fc (11) where dε 0 means the initial strain caused by temperature or other initial conditions The modified KachanovRabotnov equation for inhomogeneous creep damage is used in the present study and is shown below [8]. A statistical optimization procedure can be used to ensure the global minimization of the objective functions [9]. ∆FC represent the incremental pseudoloads due to creep strain. The time integration can be carried out by use of the Euler Method or RungeKuttaManson Algorithm [10]. It is common to use the nonlinear regression technique to obtain the three latter constants.(4) into Eq.
725 φ A α υ ρ 1. Damage variation at θ=45° section is shown in Fig. .45 MPa. In rupture calculations. which is exactly the allowance prescribed in ASME Code Case N47. in which the author used a simplified symmetry model instead of the 3D model to predict the life of the bend.99 times (e2/e1) larger than that for membrane strain. Strain allowance for pipe bend under creep conditions In order to develop the strain criterion for bend design based on inelastic analysis (Norton’s law). the maximal strain of the straight pipe subjected to the same system load.45 1. the timestep can be written as: 4(1 − µ ) (I=1. The damage contour of the bend. And damage in the outer arc region is far much lower than that in the inner arc region whatever in the inner surface or outer surface. B n −37 g 0. The corresponding usable strain of the straight pipe e1 is 3. 2.55% which can be considered as the membrane strain plus bending strain.4.472 7.3). The maximal strain of the bend pipe is located in the inner surface of inner arc at θ=45° section.2) (13) where τ is another precision parameter and should be smaller than 0. damage along the bend direction is almost symmetrical (Fig. the pipe bend and corresponding straight pipe are investigated under the same pressure at pi=30MPa.8 in the study. It can be seen in the outer surface the damage is always smaller than that in the inner surface either in the inner arc or outer arc region.6 × 10 0.Journal of China Pressure Vessel Technology 1 (2003) 131135 133 convergence has been proposed by Cormeau [11].25V steel at 530¡æ . Figure 5 shows the maximal strain of the bend pipe vs.999).5Cr0. In order to follow the evolution of D until failure. The material properties at 530¡æ for 0.5Cr0. Considering the effect of creep damage.28 8. failure of a bar is assumed to have occurred when D = Dcr (0. Material constants for 0. The results indicate that the allowance for membrane strain plus bending strain can be 1.25V pipe steel are given in Table 1 [12]. Comparing the actual value with the remaining time for rupture gives a new timestep: ∆t 2 = max(Di ) i τ (i=1.2.79% which is the result of membrane stress and the maximum strain of the pipe bend e2 is 7. The solution scheme has been implemented into the ABAQUS finite element program in terms of user define material model(UMAT).65 0.43 12.2) ∆t1 = c ⋅ min i 3nEB σ n −1 i i (12) where c is an empirical parameter governing the precision of the solution and is taken as 0. In this case the code rule is considerably appropriate.5Mo0. The dimension of the bend is Ø280×30mm and the average curvature radius Rm is 140mm. ∆t2).00534 Fig. 3.963 × 10 −32 0.5Mo0. µ 5 Table 1. The CDMFE analysis indicates that failure occurred first in the outer surface of the inner arc region.495 × 10 14.asymmetry. E The configuration of the 3D pipe bend is illustrated in Fig. The maximal strain referred here is the hoop strain. Fig. Although the damage in the inner / outer surface of the bend pipe is hyper .01Dcr in general. Three dimension model of 90° bend. The chosen time step is then the min (∆t1. 3. The axial stress applied to the pipe ends are 48. This result is coincident with the article [13]. an additional specific automatic time step control is used.
8. Variation of strain along Path1. The material properties are assumed to be the same as the bend material. According to the strain development curves.6 0. The geometry of a Tjoint is shown in Fig.10 0. 7. Fig. .6. Strain allowance for Tjoint under creep conditions Tjoint is another important piping component in high temperature plants.00 0.15 Strain 0. the strain permitted in the knuckle region shall be less than 4.10 0. 0.08 Pi=20MPa t=20000h Strain 0. Fig.10 0. 0.2 0.134 JiaNan Chen et al. To ensure that the design life of the weld can be achieved. Creep damage of the component at an internal pressure of 20MPa is simulated by the CDMFEM approach.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 Distance (mm) Fig. there exists significant stress concentration. Strain distributions along the two paths are obtained as shown in Fig.4 0.12 0. the usable strain in the Tjoint (e3) is 16. The strain decreases continuously along the axial direction (Path1).05 0.04 0.00 1.8 0.9. Finite element analysis shows that the failure first occurred in the outer surface of the intersection of the Tjoint.2% whereas the usable strain in the corresponding straight pipe is only 3. The strain along the Path2 is also given which verifies the strain at point A is the maximum. This means if 1% strain is allowed in the straight pipe. Model designation.5%(e1).6. 4.15 0. 7.05 Fig. The model with strain paths of interest is shown in Fig. Strain allowance for weldment The presence of weld in a structure subjected to high temperature condition will generally cause reduction of service life of the structure. Strain development in the critical points of bend and straight pipe. The ratio e3/e1 is 4.8 and Fig.06 0. The ASME allowance for local strain (5%) is hence nonconservative. 6. Dimension of the Tjoint.0 Generalized Time Fig.6%. 4.0 0. 5.20 0. / Case study of strain based criterion for high temperature design 5. Due to geometry discontinuity in the knuckle region.02 0. A unique strain reduction factor of 50% is prescribed in ASME Code Case N47. The current design methodology is to use the parent material properties with appropriate reduction to account for the welding effect. The strain at point A can thus be considered peak strain. Damage variation at the inner/outer arc (θ=45°).20 bend pipe straight pipe 0. 0.
Int. Int. Gong JM. continuum damage mechanics approach incorporated into FEM code is used to account for the effect of the stress state during the creep damage evolution in high temperature structure. [3] Udoguchi T. 58: 345. It has been suggested that the inelastic strain in the design analysis should be limited to 0. Ph. ASM. China 1998. 48: 1313. Conf. Proc. In this case the code rule is properly right.5Mo0. & Piping 1994. [4] Phaniraj C et al.05 0. which can be several tens to hundreds times in reduction [15]. 59th ASTM Annual Meeting 1956.12 0. Tentative conclusions have been drawn from the study. Sandstrom R.04 0. [12] Tu ST.02 0. OMMI 2002.75% so that the lifetime of welded pipe can be correctly estimated. 1975. Pres. the code rule can be extremely nonconservative.Journal of China Pressure Vessel Technology 1 (2003) 131135 0. On Advanced Exper.06 0. Variation of strain along Path2. Tjoint and weldment are hence studied.08 135 Pi=20MPa t=20000h 0. Distance (mm) 0. a simple calculation in terms of rupture equation gives a very considerable reduction in lifetime. p. In: Damage Mechanism and Life Assessment of High Temperature Components. Conclusions In order to develop the strain allowances for inelastic design analysis. Ves & Piping 1996.15 0. 2003. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Contract No.6% if 1% strain is allowed in the straight pipe. which is exact the allowance prescribed in ASME Code Case N47. Further computation and experimental verification work will be needed to form a systematical strainbased criterion for high temperature design of various structures.35 0. [7] Tu ST. This implies that the reduction factor can be smaller than 1/10 . Int. [15] Tu ST.20 0. The structures of different stress states such as straight pipe. Tu ST. Thesis.2 0. 1990.J. the allowance for membrane strain plus bending strain can be twice times (e2/e1) larger than that for membrane strain. Mech. For creep design of the pipe bend. Structural Integrity Principle for High Temperature Components. [13] Hide TH.10 0. Tianjing. Pres. & Piping 1994. 10. Southwestern Jiaotong University. J. Scripta Materialia 2003. pp.6 Normalized time 0. Pres. 6. 1990. [14] Tu ST. Pres. Gong JM. Int. which is about 1/3 of the total calculated inelastic strain accumulated in the parent pipe when failure occurs. The application of ASME Code rule in this case would lead to ridiculous estimation. 77: 243. Nerger D. [6] In: ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel code. [8] Liu Y. The ASME code allowance for local strain (5%) is hence nonconservative. it is suggested that the strain permitted in the knuckle region shall be less than 4. Science Press. Mech. [5] Hahn B.30 0. J.0 Straight pipe T_joint age evolution in high temperature structure. Strain development in the critical points of Tjoint and straight pipe the strain reduction is required and can be defined as the ratio of the creep life of welded structure over that of the structure without weld [14].25V welded pipe.10 0. Int. Wu R.1/100. Int. section III—class I components in elevated temperature service. Int. 57: 335.8 1. & Piping 2000. References [1] Viswanathan R. Ves. Num. Sandstrom R. 66: 171.00 0.25 Strain 0. Engng.D. 1418 April. J. 1: 1. Ves. [11] Comeau I.4 0. [10] Ling X. Tokyo.0 0. 142147. J. J. Bühl G. the continuum damage mechanics simulation was performed [12].. Yang WB. Code Case N4729. Conf. [2] Mankman FC. Proc. New York. 9. Chengdu.00 0 50 100 150 200 Fig. For the 0. 799855. For creep design of the Tjoint. 1989. bend. Strain . 59.59875039).5Cr0.110. Fig. For creep design of weldment. Int. For the AISI 316 welded pipe (cold worked). Beijing. 9: 109. Segle P. Grant NJ. [9] Tu ST. 1986. Ves. This means that ASME code rule is nonconservative. Press Vessel & Piping 2002. on Creep.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.