4.5 Article

Environmental Effect on Fatigue Crack Initiation under Equi-Biaxial Loading of an Austenitic Stainless Steel

期刊

METALS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met11020203

关键词

fatigue; multi-axial fatigue; environmental fatigue; experimental; fatigue life criteria; Fen; austenitic stainless steel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces a new device, FABIME2e, developed for quantifying the effect of a PWR environment on disk specimens, combining structural effects and environmental penalty effects.
The lifetime extension of nuclear power stations is considered an energy challenge worldwide. That is why the risk analysis and the study of various effects of different factors that could potentially prevent safe long-term operation are necessary. These structures, often of great dimensions, are subjected during their life to complex loading combining varying multiaxial mechanical loads with non-zero mean values associated with temperature fluctuations under a PWR (pressure water reactor) environment. Based on more recent fatigue data (including tests at 300 degrees C in air and a PWR environment, etc.), some international codes (RCC-M, ASME, and others) have proposed and suggested a modification of the austenitic stainless steels fatigue curve combined with a calculation of an environmental penalty factor, namely Fen, which has to be multiplied by the usual fatigue usage factor. The determination of the field of validation of the application of this penalty factor requires obtaining experimental data. The aim of this paper is to present a new device, FABIME2e developed in the LISN (Laboratory of Integrity of Structures and Normalization) in collaboration with EDF (Electricity of France) and Framatome. These new tests allow the effect of a PWR environment on a disk specimen to be quantified. This new device combines structural effects such as equibiaxiality and mean strain and the environmental penalty effect with the use of a PWR environment during fatigue tests.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据