Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
National Technical University Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute Chair Dynamics & Strength of Machines Ukraine 61002 Kharkiv
III
& = g w (s ,H, w ,T ) w
n3
2 > 1
n2
I
& = g (s ,H, w ,T ) H H
& cr = g e (s ,H, w ,T ) e
Time (t)
n1
e & cr = g e (s ,H, w ,T ), etcr Creep Constitutive Equation =0 = 0 & H = g H (s ,H, w ,T ), H t = 0 = 0 Evolution Equation (Hardening/Recovery) w & = g w (s ,H, w ,T ), wt = 0 = 0 Evolution Equation (Softening/Damage)
Sigma () After: Yavari & Langdon (1982), Ashby & Jones (1996), Dimmler et al. (2002, 2008)
2.2 Primary creep stage fitting of the test creep curves at 600C
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 2500 5000
2.3 Primary creep strain vs. stress for the steel P91 at 600C
Low Stress Moderate Stress High Stress
10 1
Minimum Creep Strain Rate (cr) Experimental data at 600C, after [1, 2, 3] Experimental data at 625C, after [1, 4] Experimental data at 650C, after [1, 5] Transition from viscous creep to power-law creep mechanism 600C n -1 s cr & = A(T ) s 1 + 625C Model: e s ( T ) 0 650C
-Q A(T ) = Ac exp c RT and -Q s0 (T ) = As exp s RT
cr epr
0.007
cr epr
0.008
cr -3 epr max = 7.76 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
-1
-2
12
0.007
= 125 MPa
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
= 120 MPa
7500 10000 12500 15000 17500
0.01 0
-3
1
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 200 400
Time (t), h
0.12
Time (t), h
Primary creep constants of the steel P91 at 600C: a = 0.5, b = 300 e
cr pr
-4
-5
-6
Ac = 2300 MPa
-1
h ,
-1
-7
Secondary creep constants of the steel P91 at 600C: A = 2.5 10-9 MPa -1 / h, n = 12, s0 = 100 MPa
cr epr
Primary creep strain function (Boltzmann Function produces a sigmoidal curve): , s -s 1 + exp C where the transition constant C = 9.5 and the transition stress s = 87 MPa corresponding to mean primary cr creep strain epr = 4.56 10-3 + e (s ) = e
cr pr cr pr max cr cr epr min - epr max
0.003 0.002
-8
1 1 1 10
Stress (), MPa
-9
Qs = 36364 J mol , n = 12
-1
= 150 MPa
600 800 1000 1200
0.02 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
= 200 MPa
30 35 40 45
0.001 0
100
1000
Time (t), h Model without strain hardening function H( ) Model with strain hardening function H(cr)
cr
Time (t), h Test creep curves, after Sklenika et al. (2002) Test creep curves, after Orlov et al. (1998)
Reference: [1] Kloc & Sklenika (1997); [2] Kloc & Sklenika (2004); [3] Sklenika et al. (2005); [4] Gaffard et al. (2005); [5] Kloc & Fiala (2005).
50 100 s = 87 MPa
200
II
250
Power-law breakdown
300
3.4 Creep curves of the steel P91 for low and moderate stresses at 600C
0.1 0.09 0.08
t * (s ) =
B
1- k n-k % n -1 + svM smax t s0
High
550C
600C
625C
650C
0.1
11.5 1
0.5 1
%0 s
0.01
Moderate
100
Model: 550C 600C 625C 650C
Stress (), MPa Application Range Experimental creep-rupture data, after Polcik et al. (1999), Sklenika et al. (2002), Wu et al. (2004), Kimura (2006) Primary creep strain e (s ) in the form of Eq. (2.3)
cr pr
410
610
810
110
1.210 1.410
1.610
1.810
-0.5
sI %0 s
Time (t), h
B = 1.25 10 h MPa
%0 sII s
Low
1 0.5
4
Creep strain accumulated during secondary and tertiary stages before the rupture t* : l + 1 s n -1 l + 1 C = 0.009 2 %s 1 AB + k = 0.5 l1 s0 l2 + 1 - n cr k es/ t (s ) = = C s with n -1 %0 s1- k s + s n-k l1 = 0.532 l2 = 17.383 Rupture creep strain: e* (s ) = ecr (s ) + ecr (s )
pr s/ t
10 10 10
H (e ) = 1 + a e
cr
- b ecr
1 t * (l1 + 1) (1 - wb )l1
10
10
10
-Q s0 (T ) = As exp s RT
+ s n-k
Q B(T ) = Bf exp f RT
and
4.4 Redistribution of the maximum tensile stress max t in the location of brittle rupture
max t, MPa
78.08 71.68 65.28 58.88 52.48 46.08 39.68 33.28 26.88 20.48 14.08 7.68 1.28
4.5 Redistribution of the von Mises effective stress vM in the location of ductile rupture
vM, MPa
90.28 83.13 75.99 68.85 61.71 54.56 47.42 40.28 33.13 25.99 18.85 11.70 4.56
max t, MPa
63.80 58.59 53.39 48.18 42.97 37.76 32.56 27.35 22.14 16.94 11.73 6.52 1.32
vM, MPa
82.36 75.82 69.28 62.74 56.20 49.66 43.11 36.57 30.03 23.49 16.95 10.41 3.87
Damage evolution equations: 1 1 &b = * &d = * w and w l1 t (l1 + 1) (1 - wb ) t (l2 + 1) (1 - wd )l2 with time-to-rupture function:
t * (s ) = B
1- k n-k % n -1 + svM smax t s0
l1 = 0.532,
k = 0.5,
l2 = 17.383
% 0 = 100 MPa, s
Stress, MPa
Stress, MPa
4.2 Typical installation of the steam turbine quick-stop valve (VQS) in a power station
Control Components Inc.
70 60
b a
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0
Time, h
Brittle damage parameter d
Damage Parameter
Steam Turbine
Brittle damage parameter (b) Ductile damage parameter (d) max t, MPa
69.64 63.64 57.65 51.65 45.65 39.66 33.66 27.66 21.66 15.67 9.67 3.67 0.00
Time, h
VQS VPC
Condenser
0.996 0.922 0.849 0.775 0.701 0.628 0.554 0.480 0.407 0.333 0.260 0.186 0.112
Condensate Pump
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
Time, h
Location of ductile rupture (Fig. 4.5) Location of brittle rupture (Fig. 4.4)
The 3D-solid geometry of the valve casing designed in the CAD-software SolidWorks is transferred to the FEMbased CAE-software ABAQUS, meshed and provided with elastic material properties and initial-boundary conditions, as illustrated on Fig. 4.3. The FE-simulation was performed in two analysis steps (linear static and non-linear transient) with the following FEA results: The creep behavior simulation has predicted the failure of the component in t* = 164000 hours = 18.7 years. The obtained FEA results show the critical damage accumulation in 2 locations in the final moment of time t*. The first location is situated on the outer surface of the valve casing, as illustrated on Fig. 4.4, and is caused
Time, h
by the brittle damage parameter b critical concentration. In this possible place of brittle rupture initiation the damage accumulation is dominantly governed by the maximum tensile stress max t, as shown on Fig. 4.4. The second location is situated on the inner surface of the valve casing as illustrated on Fig. 4.5 and is caused by the ductile damage parameter d critical concentration. In this possible place of ductile rupture initiation the damage accumulation is dominantly governed by the von Mises effective stress vM, as shown on Fig. 4.5. Since the character of the both damage parameters ( b and d) evolution is found out to be equal in the both locations (see Fig. 4.6), the decision about the type of
rupture is done basing on the redistribution character of the stress parameters ( max t and vM) . Thus, the dominant stress parameter ( max t or vM) defines the type of rupture (brittle or ductile, respectively). Additionally, this assumption is proved by the different evolution character of the first principal total strain tot in different rupture locations, illustrated on Fig. 4.7. The comparison of the creep curves shows, that the ductile rupture location has accumulated almost two times more creep strain than the brittle rupture location. Due to Fig. 4.7, the ductile rupture location has more prevalent tertiary creep stage of the creep curve, but in the both locations the rupture occurs in the same time t*.