Abstract
Existing low cycle fatigue evaluation methods are applied to notched C(T) specimens test data of low alloy and stainless steels to quantify conservatism embedded in evaluation methods. Three methods are considered: American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code Sec. III simplified elastic-plastic analysis method, elastic-plastic fatigue analysis method given in the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers (JSME) Code Case (CC) and elastic-plastic fatigue analysis method using the cyclic void growth-shrinkage model (CVGSM). The conservatism is quantified via cumulative usage factor (CUF). The simplified elastic-plastic analysis method given in ASME B&PV Code Sec. III is the most conservative. Using the best-estimate fatigue curve, calculated CUF values are around 5 to 7 using the simplified elastic-plastic analysis method. Elastic-plastic fatigue evaluation methods improve the accuracy. Calculated CUF values decrease to 2 to 3 when the JSME Code Case and the CVGSM are used. Effects of the cyclic hardening model for elastic-plastic finite element (FE) analysis and material input data (fatigue curve or fracture strain) on calculated CUF values are also investigated.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 105151 |
Journal | International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping |
Volume | 209 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2024 Jun |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2024 Elsevier Ltd
Keywords
- Conservatism in fatigue life evaluation
- Elastic-plastic FE analysis
- Experimental validation
- Low cycle fatigue evaluation methods
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- General Materials Science
- Mechanics of Materials
- Mechanical Engineering