See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319711011

Notched Bar Creep of Type 316H at 550°C; Testing and Finite Element Analysis.

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 371

2 authors, including:

Michael William Spindler

Électricité de France (EDF)
59 PUBLICATIONS   643 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Relaxation Cracking (Reheat Cracking) in Austenitic Stainless Steel Welds View project

Improving the Accuracy of Elevated Temperature Design and Life Assessment Procedures. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael William Spindler on 14 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
__________________ __________________________________________________

Notched Bar Creep of Type 316H at 550°C; Testing and Finite Element Analysis.
Narmeen Rehman and Michael W Spindler
EDF Energy, UK

Contact data
Michael Spindler, EDF Energy, mike.spindler@edf-energy.com

Summary
Constant load notched bar creep tests have been conducted on Type 316H at 550°C. During testing the surface
hoop strain at the root of the notch was monitored using a diametral extensometer. Finite element analysis has
been used to predict the initial plastic and creep strains and the final rupture that were observed during these tests.
Comparison between the test observations and the finite element analysis predictions are used to validate creep
deformation and creep damage models for Type 316H under triaxial states of stress. The results show that the
RCC-MR creep model for Type 316L(N) gives a good estimate of primary and secondary creep deformation
behaviour under triaxial states of stress in Type 316H. Both the test data and the predictions show only a small
amount of tertiary creep, as evinced by a small acceleration in the surface hoop creep strain rate. The
comparisons at rupture show that a ductility exhaustion approach to calculate creep damage with a model for the
effect of triaxial states of stress on creep ductility gives a realistic prediction of both the rupture life and the creep
strain at failure.

Key Words
Multiaxial Creep, Multiaxial Ductility, Finite Element Analysis, Type 316H

Introduction
The procedures for the design and life assessment of elevated temperature plant are generally based on uniaxial
creep properties. The application of these procedures to pressurised components such as pipework and vessels is
usually made following simple and generally conservative assumptions, such as that failure is controlled by the
maximum principal stress and that deformation is controlled by the von Mises stress. The in-service failure of
operating elevated temperature plant is rare. However, when failures do happen they invariably occur at complex
features, such as weldments, branches, changes in section thickness and stress concentrations. In the case of
weldments a significant factor in these failures is the effect of the welding cycles on the microstructure and
mechanical properties of the heat affected zone. However, while these metallurgical factors are often the main
focus of failure investigations and research programmes the role of the multiaxial state of stress, which is enhanced
even for simple girth welds in pressurised pipes, is often overlooked. Indeed, for the in-service failures that occur
at branches, changes in section thickness and stress concentrations the multiaxial state of stress is likely to be the
main factor in causing these plant failures. Investigations into the effect of multiaxial states of stress upon the
creep properties of engineering alloys require practical multiaxial creep test methods.

Uniaxial testing is very convenient for deriving creep properties. This is because it is very simple to calculate the
stress and strain from the load, extension and the dimensions of the specimen. For uniaxial testing, the axial
stress and axial strain are equal to the maximum principal and von Mises stress and strain. Thin walled tubes are
also convenient for biaxial creep testing (for example [1],[2],[3]) and by applying a combination of either axial load
and internal pressure or axial load and torsion it is possible to test every biaxial state of stress between pure shear
(torsion) and equi-biaxial tension. However, it is not advisable to test under compression and torsion since
buckling becomes increasingly likely. Furthermore, for thin walled tubes analytical expressions have been derived
for the surface, mean and reference stresses. Measurements of the axial extension and the diameter during axial
load and internal pressure tests or measurements of the axial extension and the angular rotation during axial load
and torsion tests are sufficient to characterise biaxial strains. These analytical expressions and strain
measurements mean that it is possible to calculate either the direct stresses and strains or two of the three
principal stresses and strains (the third (through thickness) principal stress can be assumed to be zero for thin
walled tubes and the third principal strain can be calculated from constant volume). It is therefore possible to
calculate the von Mises stress and strain for all possible biaxial states of stress in a thin walled tube. Furthermore,
because the wall is relatively thin, although the stresses and strains vary from the outside to inside surfaces, it is
usual to assume that a single value such as the reference stress and reference strain characterises the stresses
 2
__________________ __________________________________________________
and strains in the whole specimen. Therefore, thin walled biaxial creep tests are a very convenient method to
investigate creep properties under multiaxial states of stress.

Notwithstanding the benefits of thin walled biaxial creep tests they can only examine the single plane of multiaxial
stress space at which the third principal stress is zero. With regards to triaxial creep testing there is no such
comprehensive test method. Hayhurst and Felce [4], have built a triaxial cruciform creep testing machine which
can apply triaxial tension to a central cube of material. However, since the principal stresses within the loading
extensions of the specimen are considerably higher than the maximum principal stress within the cube of material
these loading extensions always rupture long before the centre of the cube of material approached failure. This
means that creep failure under equi-triaxial tension cannot be investigated using the triaxial cruciform creep tests.
Nevertheless, some useful creep deformation measurements were made and creep cavities were observed to form
within the cube under equi-triaxial tension.

The most commonly used method to perform triaxial creep tests is to apply an axial load to a circumferentially
notched bar. Originally, this testing method was used to investigate the effects of V-notches such as those on
threaded fasteners and the effect of stress concentrations on creep failure. Bridgeman [5] realised that semi-
circular notch profiles and the neck in uniform round bar specimens experience a triaxial state of stress and the
advent of finite element analysis enabled the state of stress in a wide range of different notch geometries to be
quantified. Although the notched bars are only loaded axially the axial strain at the root of the notch results in
negative hoop and radial strains. The constraint of the notch profile means that these negative hoop and radial
strains are resisted by positive hoop and radial stresses and therefore a state of triaxial tension is created in a
notched specimen, simply from an axially applied load. Varying the notch profile enables a range of different
triaxial states of stress to be investigated. The challenging aspect of notched bar creep testing is the analysis of
the results. This is because the state of stress varies across the section and the distribution of the stresses is not
constant with time (they redistribute over time due to creep). Therefore the assessment of notched bars is typically
addressed by considering the skeletal point approach, i.e. establishing a location, where the stresses are
considered to vary negligibly with time and the skeletal stresses are then taken as representative of the whole
section behaviour. The skeletal point is also unaffected by a large range of different creep deformation models
(although not all models give the same results). Nevertheless, this does mean that the skeletal point approach can
be adapted to simplified analysis methods and a code of practice [6] has been written to enable estimates of
multiaxial creep properties such as rupture strength and rupture ductility to be derived. Indeed, many of the
notched bar creep tests that have been used in this report were previously analysed using simplified methods by
Spindler et al [7] and Loveday [8].

This paper presents an update of the tests from [7],[8] and includes other notched bar creep tests on the same cast
of ex-service Type 316H. However, the main focus of this paper are the results of diametral strain measurements
which were made continuously during many of the tests and upon the finite element analysis predictions of creep
deformation and creep damage.

Experimental
Notched bar creep specimens were made from ex-service Type 316H, which had been exposed to temperatures in
the range 490 to 520°C for approximately 58,000 hours. The majority of the specimens were of the double notched
type although two were single notch. The chemical composition of the material is shown in Table 1. The tests were
conducted by 5 different laboratories using their own specimen designs, therefore to save space in this paper the
five specimen drawings have not been reproduced. Nevertheless, all designs conform to the code of practice for
notched bar creep rupture testing [6] and the range of notch diameters was from 5.64 to 7.14mm, and all other
dimensions scale from these according to the code of practice. Notch acuities (dno/rno) of 1.06, 3, 4.82, 10 and 30
were chosen to give a wide range of triaxial states of stress. All tests were performed at 550°C and the stresses
are shown in Table 2. The double notched specimens were tested on standard constant load test machines where
the loads were applied incrementally. The single notched specimens were tested on servo-electric creep machines
and loading was carried out at constant extension rate using an axial extensometer attached to ridges on the
parallel portion of the specimen. The test machine transferred to load control once the specified stress was
reached. For thirteen of the 23 tests the diameter of one of the notches was monitored during loading, and
subsequent creep, using a diametral extensometer. After failure all notches were measured on a profile projector.

Table 1: Chemical Composition of the Type 316H in Weight Percent.

C Si Mn S P Ni Cr Mo Co B
0.06 0.4 1.98 0.014 0.021 11.83 17.17 2.19 0.1 0.005
 3
__________________ __________________________________________________
Results
The rupture results of the tests are reported in Table 2 and are shown graphically in [7]. The surface hoop strains,
in a notched bar, have been calculated from
 h  lna a0  (1)
where a is the net section radii and a0 is the initial radii. The instrumented notch was not necessarily the notch that
failed and it has been assumed that the loading strains will be the same for both notches.

Table 2: Rupture Results of Notched bar Creep Rupture Tests on ex-service Type 316H at 550°C.
dno/rno Net Stress, Rupture Surface Hoop Strains Specimen Diametral
MPa Time, hours Loading  h , Total at Failure type Extensometer
mm/mm  h , mm/mm
1.06 330 23 nr -0.1885 Double No
1.06 330 79 nr -0.1319 Double No
3 350 343 nr -0.0837 Double No
3 350 151 nr -0.0935 Double No
3 357 374 -0.0134 -0.1111 Double Yes
4.82 484 127 -0.0841 -0.1796 Single Yes
4.82 441 146 -0.0326 -0.1224 Double Yes
4.82 400 429 -0.0399 -0.1300 Single Yes
4.82 382 175 -0.0288 -0.1036 Double Yes
4.82 382 248 -0.0228 -0.0839 Double Yes
4.82 340 2241 nr -0.0722 Double No
4.82 320 5673 nr -0.0745 Double No
4.82 320 5926 -0.0127 -0.1021 Double Yes
4.82 300 15923 nr -0.0989 Double No
10 500 15 -0.0624 -0.1208 Double Yes
10 438 55 -0.0391 -0.0860 Double Yes
10 405 92 -0.0163 -0.0772 Double Yes
10 374 267 -0.0228 -0.0738 Double Yes
10 340 1940 nr -0.0656 Double No
10 320 5718 nr -0.0546 Double No
10 300 33336 nr -0.0508 Double No
30 429 47 -0.0381 -0.0684 Double Yes
30 397 108 -0.0188 -0.0618 Double Yes

The rupture results in Table 2 have been discussed previously in [7], whereas the aim of this paper is to validate
models for effect of triaxial states of stress on creep deformation and damage. Therefore, the surface hoop creep
strain measurements will be compared with the results of finite element analysis made using models for creep
deformation and damage.

Finite Element Analysis

Non-linear FE analyses of the notched bars have been conducted using Abaqus 6.9, [9]. A 2-D axi-symmetric
mesh of the specimen was modelled with a zero axial displacement boundary condition on the plane of symmetry.
Axial loads were applied at the end of the specimen to give the required net section stress across the notch.

The geometries of all the different sized specimens were reproduced. A structured mesh with refinement towards
the notch root was used with quadratic axi-symmetric reduced integration elements; CAX8R with 8 nodes. Several
mesh partitions were used for the mesh refinement near the notch. A sensitivity study of the most appropriate
number and distribution of elements around the notch and the effect of the seed bias ratio was conducted and a
typical number of 24 elements around the quarter notch (Fig. 1) was found to give an appropriate level of accuracy
and efficiency. It was shown that the NLGEOM option to account for large displacements had better agreement
with the test data than the small displacement method. Therefore the NLGEOM option was selected for all of the
analyses.

The majority of the tests were performed on double notched specimens. However a comparison of 2D axi-
symmetric FE models of a double and of a single notched bar showed the stress and strain differences to be
insignificant. Hence it was shown that the double notch does not impact directly on the final results and the two
notches are sufficiently spaced apart in the specimen not to interact with each other. Therefore, it was judged
appropriate to model all the specimens as a single axi-symmetric notch for the analysis.
 4
__________________ __________________________________________________
Material Properties
The elastic properties used for the model at 550°C were; Young’s modulus, E of 155 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of
0.3. The isotropic mean coefficient of thermal expansion of 1.78E-5 (/°C) was used. The plasticity behaviour was
initially taken from uniaxial tensile tests at 550°C. The FE results acquired from using this initial plasticity data were
compared with the experimentally observed notched bar surface hoop strains and found to be in slight
disagreement. The initial FE model materials data was shown to work harden more than the observed results
during loading. Hence, it was necessary to obtain improved plasticity data which better followed the actual test
material behaviour observed during loading. This was judged necessary because the loading and plastic behaviour
of the material would have a significant impact on the subsequent creep. Therefore in order to make the best FE
model for comparison and validation of the creep behaviour and material model, the plasticity data (in terms of true
stress-strain) was improved iteratively to more closely follow the observed loading behaviour of the notched tests.

Figure 1: Example Mesh for a Notch with dno/rno=10.

Initial Loading
A tensile load was applied to the test specimen top surface and increased until the net section stress across the
plane of the notch reached the specified value. This final load was calculated by a simple force balance across the
radii of the notch ligament. This stress was applied in Abaqus as a negative pressure in a general static step.

Creep Behaviour
Abaqus has no built-in creep deformation and damage functionality required for this analysis. Hence it was
necessary to develop a FORTRAN user defined subroutine to compile and link the required material model into the
standard Abaqus code. Creep was applied in a dynamic viscoelastic step defined by a FORTRAN user subroutine
and set up in the Abaqus job description. Automatic incremental control was selected for efficiency and the size of
the first increment was refined for some models as appropriate for convergence. The creep strain error tolerance
parameter was generally set to 1E-5 (or 1E-4 for a few tests) to aid convergence.

Creep Deformation
The creep deformation model used is the RCC-MR [10] model for Type 316L(N) stainless. This model is being
used here for Type 316H as no comprehensive creep deformation model exists for Type 316H and it can be noted
that the 1985 version of the RCC-MR model is being used as this has previously been shown to give good
agreement to the uniaxial creep deformation of Type 316H. The primary creep model is defined by Eq. (2) up to
the time for the end of primary creep, tfp (in hours) and beyond this time a primary and secondary creep model is
defined by Eq. (3), where  c is the creep strain (in %),  is the stress (in MPa), t is the creep time (in hours) and
the material constants C,C1,C2, n and n1 are functions of temperature, T (in °C). The material constants for 550°C
have been taken from [10].
Primary creep strain  c  C1t C 2  n1 (2)
Primary plus secondary creep strain
C2 n1
 c  C1tfp  n
 100.C t  tfp   (3)
The RCC-MR equations presented above cover only primary and secondary creep. Tertiary creep behaviour was
included in the model by multiplying the primary and secondary creep strain rates of Eq. (2) and (3) by a factor of
 3

1 1  Dc , where Dc is the creep damage. It is noted that the equations presented above have been transformed
into strain hardening incremental form for the FEA calculations. Multiaxial creep behaviour is considered by using
the von Mises stress,  , and von Mises strain,  , in Eqs. (2) and (3).
 5
__________________ __________________________________________________
Creep Damage
The creep damage calculated in this paper is based on the multiaxial strain rate dependent model as stated in the
R5 Life Assessment procedure [11]. The creep damage model used is R5 Option 2 from Volume 2/3 of [11], in
which the ductility is a function of creep strain rate.

The damage function is used to model the accumulation of increments of creep damage with time. The initial value
of zero is incrementally increased to a maximum value of one, which represents exhaustion of the material ductility.
Once the creep damage reaches one the initiation of a creep crack is conceded. The multiaxial creep damage, D
c, is given by

t ε

Dc   0 c dt (4)
ε (ε )f c

where εc is the instantaneous von Mises equivalent creep strain rate, and εf (εc ) is the multiaxial rate dependent
creep ductility. The relationship between creep strain at failure and creep strain rate takes the form of a lower shelf
at low strain rates, L, and an upper shelf at high strain rates, U, which are connected by a transition region in
which the ductility is a function of the creep strain rate. In the uniaxial form this relationship can be represented by
  
εf  MIN εU , MAX εL , B εc
m
(5)
where B and m are material parameters. The material parameters that were used for this study are given in Table
3. In R5 the effect of multiaxial states of stress on creep damage are considered by using the von Mises creep
strain at failure and the von Mises creep strain rate. The von Mises creep strain at failure is calculated by
multiplying the uniaxial creep strain at failure by a multiaxial ductility factor, MDF, which is given by

        σ 
σ 
 1 3 σ m 
εf εc  εf εc . MDF  εf εc . exp  p 1  1   q    (6)
   2 2 σ 
where,  1,  ,  m are the maximum principal, von Mises equivalent and mean or hydrostatic stress respectively (in
MPa). The constants p=2.38 and q=1.04 are empirically derived for austenitic stainless steels using the results of
thin walled biaxial creep tests [12]. For the upper shelf the Rice and Tracey model is used in which p=0 and q=1.

Table 3: Uniaxial Creep Ductility of ex-service Type 316H at 550°C.

U (%) B (%sm) m L (%)
Mean 52.68 6.9002 0.8529 15.71

For the purposes of this work, the FE analyses were continued until the first integration point across the notch
ligament approached one.

Analysis Results
Initial Loading
All of these tests were loaded above the proof strength and plasticity occurred on loading. In a notched bar this
results in significant stress redistribution and it was judged to be very important to have a close prediction of the
initial loading, otherwise the stress distribution due to creep would not have been correct. It can be seen from
Figure 2 that good agreement between the observed and predicted initial surface hoop strains has been achieved.
While in some tests, such as the dno/rno=10 test at 500MPa, the surface hoop loading strain measurments are
somewhat different from the other tests, nevertheless the tests at dno/rno=4.82 show good reproducibility. In
particular the two tests on servo-electric creep machines match closely.

Creep Deformation
An example of the finite element predictions for a notch specimen is shown in Figure 3. However, such contour
plots give little quantitative information and are difficult to compare with test data. Comparisons between the
measured surface hoop creep strain and the predicted surface hoop strains are given in Figures 4 to 7. In addition,
line plots of the predicted creep damage across the notch section are shown in Figure 8 (note the analysis was
stopped when the first integration point approaches 1).

The measured creep data (Figs. 4 to 7) show typical primary followed by secondary creep behaviour with a modest
amount of tertiary creep. However, the later strain measurements for the dno/rno=30 test may be questionable. The
predicted surface creep strains also show predominatly primary and secondary creep, with only a tiny acceleration
towards the ends of the predictions. It should be noted that no attempt has been made to match the creep model
to this particular cast of Type 316H and differences between the measurements and predictions are consistent with
this cast of Type 316H creeping a little more quickly than the mean RCC-MR model.
 6
__________________ __________________________________________________
500 500

450 450

400 400
Net Section Stress (MPa)

Net Section Stress (MPa)

350 350

300 300

250 250
482MPa, 127h
200 200 441MPa, 146h
357MPa, 374h
400MPa, 429h
150 FEA Prediction 150 382MPa, 248h
320MPa, 5926h
100 100
FEA Prediction
50 50

0 0
0 -0.002 -0.004 -0.006 -0.008 -0.01 -0.012 -0.014 0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.1
Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 2a: Initial Loading for tests with dno/rno=3 Figure 2b: Initial Loading for tests with dno/rno=4.82
600 500

450
500
400
Net Section Stress (MPa)

Net Section Stress (MPa)

350
400
300

300 250
500MPa, 15h
200 429MPa, 47h
438MPa, 55h
200
405MPa, 92h 150 FEA Prediction
374MPa, 267h
100
100 FEA Prediction to 438MPa
50

0 0
0 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 0 -0.005 -0.01 -0.015 -0.02 -0.025 -0.03 -0.035 -0.04
Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm)

Figure 2c: Initial Loading for tests with dno/rno=10 Figure 2d: Initial Loading for tests with dno/rno=30

Von Mises Creep Damage

Stress

Figure 3: Example FEA Results for the test with dno/rno=4.82 and 400MPa.
 7
__________________ __________________________________________________
0.018 0.1

0.016

- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

0.014
0.01

0.012

0.01
0.001
0.008

0.006 357MPa, 374h Prediction 357MPa

0.0001
0.004
357MPa, 374h Prediction 357MPa

0.002

0 0.00001
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Creep Time (hrs) Creep Time (hrs)

Figure 4a: Linear Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=3 Figure 4b: Logarithmic Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=3
0.1 0.1
484MPa, 127h Prediction 484MPa 484MPa, 127h Prediction 484MPa
0.09 441MPa, 146h Prediction 441MPa 441MPa, 146h Prediction 441MPa
400MPa, 429h Prediction 400MPa 400MPa, 429h Prediction 400MPa
- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

0.08 320MPa, 5926h Prediction 320MPa 320MPa, 5926h Prediction 320MPa
382MPa, 248h Prediction 382MPa 0.01 382MPa, 248h Prediction 382MPa
0.07

0.06

0.05 0.001

0.04

0.03
0.0001
0.02

0.01

0 0.00001
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Creep Time (hrs) Creep Time (hrs)

Figure 5a: Linear Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=4.82 Figure 5b: Logarithmic Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=4.82
0.01 0.01
500MPa, 15h Prediction 500MPa
0.009
438MPa, 55h Prediction 438MPa
- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

0.008 405MPa, 92h Prediction 405MPa

0.007 374MPa, 267h Prediction 374MPa

0.001

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.0001 500MPa, 15h Prediction 500MPa

0.003
438MPa, 55h Prediction 438MPa
0.002
405MPa, 92h Prediction 405MPa

0.001 374MPa, 267h Prediction 374MPa

0 0.00001
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Creep Time (hrs) Creep Time (hrs)

Figure 6a: Linear Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=10 Figure 6b: Logarithmic Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=10
0.02 0.1

427MPa, 47h Prediction 427MPa 427MPa, 47h Prediction 427MPa

0.018
- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

- Creep Surface Hoop Strain (mm/mm) )

0.016

0.014
0.01

0.012

0.01

0.008

0.001
0.006

0.004

0.002

0 0.0001
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Creep Time (hrs) Creep Time (hrs)

Figure 7a: Linear Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=30 Figure 7b: Logarithmic Creep Strain for Notch dno/rno=30
 8
__________________ __________________________________________________
1.2 1.2

FEA Failed to Converge 484MPa

1.0 1.0 Predicted 441MPa

Prediction 357 MPa
Predicted 400MPa
Predicted 382MPa
0.8 0.8
Predicted 320MPa
Damage (abs)

Damage (abs)
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Normalised Radius (abs) Normalised Radius (abs)

Figure 8a: Creep Damage at Dc=1 for tests with dno/rno=3 Figure 8b: Creep Damage at Dc=1 for tests with dno/rno=4.82
1.2 1.2

Prediction 500MPa
1.0 1.0
Prediction 429 MPa
Prediction 438MPa

0.8 0.8
Prediction 405MPa
Damage (abs)

Damage (abs)
0.6 Prediction 374MPa 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Normalised Radius (abs) Normalised Radius (abs)

Figure 8c: Creep Damage at Dc=1 for tests with dno/rno=10 Figure 8d: Creep Damage at Dc=1 for tests with dno/rno=30

Failure Predictions
Failure is conceded when the first integration point approaches 1. Comparison between the observed and
predicted creep strain at failure and the times at failure are shown in Figures 9 and 10.
100 100 1 d/r=3, 357MPa
1 d/r=3, 357MPa d/r=4.82, 484MPa d/r=4.82, 441MPa
Observed Surface Creep Strain / Predicted,

d/r=4.82, 484MPa d/r=4.82, 441MPa d/r=4.82, 400MPa d/r=4.82, 382MPa

d/r=4.82, 400MPa d/r=4.82, 382MPa d/r=4.82, 320MPa d/r=10, 500MPa
Observed Creep Time / Predicted,

d/r=4.82, 320MPa d/r=10, 500MPa d/r=10, 438MPa d/r=10, 405MPa

d/r=10, 438MPa d/r=10, 405MPa d/r=10, 374MPa d/r=30, 429MPa
d/r=10, 374MPa d/r=30, 429MPa
10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1
300 350 400 450 500 300 350 400 450 500
Net Stress (MPa) Net Stress (MPa)
Figure 9: Comparison of Observed and Predicted Creep Strain Figure 10: : Comparison of Observed and Predicted Time at
at failure Failure

There is clearly a large variability in the experimental measurement of the surface hoop strain at failure.
Nevertheless, the values of observed divided by predicted strain are scattered symmetrically about one (Fig. 9),
there are no clear trends with either stress magnitude or notch geometry. The values of observed divided by
predicted times at failure (Fig. 10) tend to be less than 1. It is suggested here that this is because the creep rate of
this cast of Type 316H is higher than that predicted by the mean RCC-MR model.

Discussion
Constant load notched bar creep tests are a practical method for investigating the effect of triaxial states of stress
on creep deformation and creep failure. However, the complexity of the stress and strain distributions which exist
in the notch plane should be taken into account before comparisons are made between finite element analysis
 9
__________________ __________________________________________________
predictions and experimental observations. For the Type 316H austenitic stainless steel tested at 550°C, which is
investigated in this paper, it has been found that it is necessary to make use of a large strain finite element analysis
(the NLGEOM option in Abaqus) and to model plastic as well as elastic and creep strains. Nevertheless, it should
be noted that for these analyses the plastic properties were adjusted to give agreement between the observed and
predicted loading strains, Fig. 2. This was done to ensure that the experimental and predicted stress distributions
at the start of the creep phase of each test were as close as possible.

There is an acceptable agreement between the observed and predicted surface hoop creep strains (see Figs. 4 to
7). This observation is used here to conclude that the use of the von Mises stress and strain in the RCC-MR creep
deformation model for primary and secondary creep gives a reasonable prediction of the effect of triaxial states of
stress on creep deformation. It is suggest here that better agreement might be possible by producing a cast
specific version of the RCC-MR creep deformation parameters C, n, C1, n1 and m2 by fitting them to uniaxial creep
data on the same cast of Type 316H.

The FE analysis has been used to take account of the considerable variation of stresses across the notch plane
(see Fig. 11) and of the redistribution of the stresses which occurs due to the accumulation of both plastic and
creep strain. For the example shown in Figs. 11 and 12 (dno/rno=4.82 and 400MPa) and for all of the other notch
geometries, the von Mises stress increases towards the surface at the root of the notch (note the perturbations in
the von Mises stress are caused by the different stress dependencies of plasticity and creep, which affect stress
redistribution differently). As the von Mises stress increases so too does the total von Mises strain increase
towards the surface at the root of the notch, Fig. 12. However, the principal stresses all show a peak below the
surface and therefore the mean stress also shows a peak below the surface. These observations explain why the
predicted creep damage also peaks below the surface (see Fig. 8b). The factors that affect creep damage are the
accumulated von Mises creep strain (see Eq. (4)), which peaks at the surface and the triaxial state of stress which
through Eq. (6) is defined by the stress ratios  1  and  m  and which both peak below the surface. For values
of p and q close to zero Eq. (6) approaches 1 and therefore the creep damage would be dominated by the
accumulated von Mises creep strain and hence creep damage would peak at the surface. However, for the values
of p=2.38 and q=1.04, which are used here the creep damage peaks below the surface (see Fig. 8). This is
because for these values of p and q the effect of the triaxial state of stress on the creep ductility dominates the
calculated creep damage. It should be rememberd that these values of p and q were derived from thin walled
baixial creep tests [12] and hence the results in this paper show that these values of p and q can be reliably
extended to predict failure under triaxial states of stress.
450 0.2
dno/rno=4.82, 400MPa, analysis time 154 hrs
dno/rno=4.82, 400MPa, analysis time 154 hrs
400
0.15

350

0.1
Total Strain (mm/mm)

300
Stress (MPa)

250 0.05

200
0

150
-0.05
100

von Mises Max. Principal (Axial) -0.1

50 von Mises Radial Axial Hoop Shear
Min. Principal (Radial) Mean
Mid. Principal (Hoop)
0 -0.15
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Radius from Notch Centre (mm) Radius from Notch Centre (mm)

Figure 11: Predicted Stresses in a Notched Bar Specimen Figure 12: Predicted Strains in a Notched Bar Specimen

A similar behaviour occurs in the other notch geometries (dno/rno=3, 10 or 30). Nevertheless, in the blunt notches
(dno/rno=3) the strain distribution is flatter and the principal stresses peak further from the surface of the notch.
Hence, the creep damage with dno/rno=3 peaks further below the surface of the notch root (Fig. 8a). Whereas, in
the sharper notches (dno/rno=10 or 30) the von Mises strain varies steeply and the principal stresses peak close
below the surface and therefore the creep damage also peaks close below the surface (Figs. 8c and 8d).

With regards to the prediction of tertiary creep, although a small amount of acceleration due to tertiary creep was
observed in the tests the FE predictions showed only the smallest of upturn due to the prediction of creep damage.
It is therefore not possible to make any firm conclusions regarding the assumed acceleration due to tertiary creep,
3
which was given by the factor of 1 (1  Dc ) on the RCC-MR creep rate. Nevertheless, since the creep damage
peaks below the surface and since the creep strain is measured at the surface of the notch root the actual values of
creep damage at the surface are typically between 0.3 and 0.7 (see Fig. 8). It is therefore not surprising that the
predicted surface hoop creep strains show very little acceleration due to teriary creep.
 10
__________________ __________________________________________________

Conclusion
Constant load notched bar creep tests have been performed on a cast of Type 316H at 550°C. In 13 of these tests
with surface hoop strain was monitored continuously using a diametral extensometer. The observed surface hoop
strains have been compared with the predictions of finite element analysis. Constant load notched bar creep tests
are shown to be a practical method that can be used to validate models for creep deformation and creep damage
under triaxial states of stress. It has been shown in this paper that the RCC-MR creep model, which was derived
from uniaxial creep tests, gives a realistic prediction of the effect of triaxial states of stress on primary and
secondary creep. In addition, it is shown that a ductility exhaustion model in conjunction with a model for the effect
of stress state on creep ductility, which was derived from biaxial creep tests, can be reliably extended to predict the
effect of triaxial states of stress on both the creep strain at failure and the time at failure of notched bar creep tests.

Abbreviations
Symbol Full Description
a, a0 Radius of the notch plane (net section), initial radius of the notch plane.
B, m Parameters in the model for uniaxial creep strain at failure, Eq. (5).
C, n Parameters describing secondary creep.
C1, n1, m1 Parameters describing primary creep.
Dc Creep damage.
dno Initial diameter at the notch plane
rno Initial notch root radius
p, q Parameters in the multiaxial ductility factor, Eq (6).
t, tfp Time, time at the end of primary creep.
c Creep strain.
h Surface hoop strain
 , c von Mises strain and von Mises creep strain rate.
 von Mises stress.
 1,  m maximum principal and mean of the principal stresses (or hydrostatic stress).

Acknowledgments
This paper is published by permission of EDF Energy, UK. Special thanks are given to Peter Skelton and Malcolm
Loveday who performed 11 of the tests that used diametral extensometers at Imperial College and NPL
respectively.

References
[1] Huddleston R. L.: An Improved Multiaxial Creep Rupture Strength Criterion, ASME J. of Press. Vess.
Tech.; Vol. 107, (1985), P. 421-429
[2] Chubb E. J.; Bolton C. J.: Stress State Dependence of Creep Deformation and Fracture in AISI Type 316
Stainless Steel, Engineering Aspects of Creep, IMechE, London, UK. (1980). P. 39-48,
[3] Delobelle P.; Trivaudey F.; Oytana C.: High Temperature Creep Damage Under Biaxial Loading INCO 718
and 316 (17-12 SPH) Steels, Nucl. Eng. & Des.; Vol. 114, (1989). P. 365-377.
[4] Hayhurst, D. R.; Felce, I.D.,: Creep Rupture under Tri-Axial Tension, Engineering Fracture Mechanics; Vol.
25(5-6) (1986), P. 645-664
[5] Bridgman, P. W.: Studies in large plastic flow and fracture with special emphasis on the effects of
hydrostatic pressure; New York, McGraw-Hill, 1952.
[6] Webster G.A; Holdsworth S. R.; Loveday M. S.; Nikbin K., Perrin I. J., Purper H., Skelton R. P.; Spindler M.
W.: A Code of Practice for Conducting Notched Bar Creep Tests and For Interpreting the Data, Fatigue
Fract. Engng. Mater. and Struct. Vol. 27, Issue 4, (2004), P. 319
[7] Spindler M. W.; Hales R.; Skelton R. P.: The Multiaxial Creep Ductility of an Ex-Service Type 316H
Stainless Steel; 9th Int. Conf. on Creep and Fract. of Eng. Mater. and Struct., 1-6 April 2001, Swansea, P.
679-688, pub. IOM, London, UK, 2001.
[8] Loveday M.S.: Considerations on the measurement of creep strain in Bridgman notches Materials at High
Temperatures, 21(3), (2004), P. 169-174 ·
[9] ABAQUS/CAE User’s Manual, Version 6.9, Dassault Systemes, 2009.
[10] RCC-MR, (1985), Section 1, Sub-section Z, Technical Appendix A3, AFCEN, Paris, France.
[11] R5, (2014), Assessment Procedure for the High Temperature Response of Structures Issue 3, Revision
002, EDF Energy, Gloucester, UK
[12] Spindler M. W.: The Multiaxial Creep Ductility of Austenitic Stainless Steels, Fatigue Fract. Engng. Mater.
and Struct. Vol. 27, Issue 4, (2004), P. 273-281

View publication stats