Proceedings of the ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PVP2016
July 17-21, 2016, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
CALCULATION METHODS FOR THICK WALLED COMPONENTS UNDER CREEP
FATIGUE – REVIEW AND ADVANCED CONCEPTS
Heiner Oesterlin
Fraunhofer Institute for
Mechanics of Materials IWM
Freiburg, Germany
ABSTRACT
A full scale creep-fatigue test component made of P91 was
developed and tested as part of the MACPLUS (European
Union FP7) project. Current international standards for lifetime
assessment for thick walled power plant components were
applied. In addition an advanced concept based on creep-
fatigue crack growth was also used in finite element
simulations. The results are compared with each other and the
measurements of the heavily instrumented component.
Individual strength and weaknesses as well as general
challenges for creep-fatigue lifetime assessment are analyzed
and discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Increased power production by fluctuating renewable
energy sources, have led to frequent load changes for
conventional power plants. The lifetime assessment of thick
walled components in the current and future environment hence
often requires accurate description of creep-fatigue interaction.
Current codes and standards like the EN 12952 (1,2), the
British assessment procedure R5 (3) or the ASME BPVC (III
NH T-1400) (4) have very different approaches to creep-fatigue
lifetime evaluation and are known to yield extremely different
results when applied to the same scenario. In addition the latter
two allow for either an elastic analysis with subsequent
(mostly) analytic corrections or an inelastic analysis.
A review of the existing design codes was an integral part
of work package 6 of the MACPLUS project. Real life power
plant components are often not (yet) run until crack initiation
and for damaged components the exact loads they experienced
over decades of service are often unclear. Hence an accurate
design code review based on real life components is very
difficult. Small scale lab experiments on the other hand often
suffer from unrealistic loading conditions. This led to the
development of the P91 creep fatigue test component described
in the first section of this work. Finite element (FE) simulations
were an integral part in designing the component and
evaluating its behavior during the test. Section 2 gives a short
introduction to the simulations for temperature distribution and
1 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
PVP2016-64021
Gerhard Maier
Fraunhofer Institute for
Mechanics of Materials IWM
Freiburg Germany
resulting deformation and damage. Results for temperature
distribution, cyclic short term deformation and long term creep
fatigue deformation are compared with measured data. The
lifetime assessment results of the three standards as well as the
advanced model are presented in section 3. The following
discussion explains some of the deviations of results and tries
to show some general challenges in creep-fatigue lifetime
modelling for future works.
THE COMPONENT TEST
The component was made from a 750 mm section of P91
pipe with wall thickness 50 mm and outer diameter 450 mm.
The component design and load was optimized with methods
described in (5). To this end the wall thickness was reduced to
15 mm in the rough middle of the pipe. This 250 mm long
“gauge length” ends in two radii of 5 mm with a 90 ° angle at
the top and a 120 ° angle at the bottom. The pipe was welded
shut with lids on both ends with the heat affected zones well
clear of the gauge length and radii. The component was heated
to 620 °C by heating mats on the outside of the pipe (but not in
the gauge length area). The component was pressurized to 67
bar by an inlet in the bottom lid. Every 6 hours the pressure was
released (through an outlet in the top lid) and the inside wall
radically cooled by a water spray jet specifically focused on the
gauge length (with the heating still working on the outside).
Afterwards the component was repressurized and heated back
to target temperature. Naturally the entire component was
strongly insulated on to keep energy loss at a minimum.

Figure 1: Schematic of the test component
The design aims were to have a failure within the project
runtime by a mostly fatigue driven crack in one of the radii.
This was done so the crack could be freely observed from the
outside without dismantling the component. A noncritical
amount of approximately 1 % creep strain in the gauge length
at failure was aimed for.
The component was heavily instrumented (6) for details
about exact placement of sensors) by project partner TÜV
Rheinland Werkstoffprüfung GmbH. This included about 60
thermocouples for both heating control and measurements
(focusing on the gauge length area). High temperature strain
gauges were placed close to the radii and in the middle of the
gauge length in both axial and circumferential direction.
Potential drop probes were placed over the radii in multiple
positions for crack detection. Ceramic insets were used for
offline deformation measurement via photogrammetric
methods. Project partner Imperial College London provided
additional strain measurements via experimental sensors (see
7,8).
As was expected the inside of the component experienced
rigorous thermal shock conditions. At the beginning of the test
the inside volume above and below the gauge length was filled
with ceramic balls in a cage structure. After 50 cycles, this
containment failed (due to thermal shock) and the component
was opened to permanently remove the cages and balls. Twice
– after a total of 148 and 371 cycles – the water spray jet was
replaced, after changes in temperature distribution implied that
it had been damaged by thermal shock (which turned out true
on both occasions). The water inlet was designed, such that this
was possible without opening the component or removing most
of the insulation.
After 381 cycles the potential drop signals showed clear
signs of a crack in the lower radius. The insulation was
2 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
removed and a crack in the lower radius, spanning 600 mm or
170 ° in circumferential direction was found (see figure 2). At
failure the component had a permanent deformation of about
0,6 % strain in circumferential direction in the middle of the
gauge length as reported by both the continuous strain gauges
and the offline ceramic inlets in very good accordance with
each other.
Figure 2: The crack in the lower radius spanned the component
for 170 ° in circumferential direction with the 90 ° position as
its approximate center
A full program of accompanying lab experiments from
another section of the same P91 pipe as the component was
done at Fraunhofer IWM Freiburg. This included tensile tests,
low cycle fatigue (LCF) experiments (some with a complex
pre-program), thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) experiments,
slow LCFs with low strain rates (down to 5e-5 1/s) and LCF
tests with 1 h dwell in tension. See (9) for some of the
experimental data. In addition creep experiments were
conducted by the project partner MPA Stuttgart.
FINITE ELEMENT SIMULATIONS
For the FE simulations an axisymmetric model of the
component was made in ABAQUS. The component was
modelled as homogenous, since the welds were deemed to be in
non-critical areas. Neither the inlet, outlet, nor insulation was
included in the model. Sensitivity analyses were done for both
the mesh and the time increment size in all simulation steps,
which led to a very fine mesh in the radii.

Figure 3: The boundary conditions for the FE-simulation (a)
and the three zones on the inside wall during the cooling (b)
For the thermal simulation the heating mats were
modelled by a boundary condition of constant temperature
(620 °C). Since the gauge length was only indirectly heated
from the top and bottom, but lost a small amount of heat
through the insulation a thermal gradient (~ 10K) along the
gauge length was measured in the stable state. This was
modelled by introducing a heat sink on the outside wall of the
gauge length with sink temperature 30 °C and the (fitted) heat
transfer coefficient of 0.45 W m-2 K-1. The water cooling during
the cooling phase was modelled by applying time dependent
heat transfer to three different zones on the inside wall (see
figure 3). The amplitudes of these heat transfers were
meticulously fitted to the measured temperatures during
cooling, first in the 180 ° angular position since this direction
had the most thermocouples available (eight) and afterwards
rescaled to the 90 ° position which showed slightly higher
thermal gradients (see figure 4). Thermophysical material
parameters for P91 were taken from (10).
3 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Figure 4: Results of the temperature measurements during
cooling (symbols) compared to simulation results (lines). TSG1
was at the upper end if the gauge length, TC2 in its middle,
TU3-4 at its bottom end, and TU13-14 on the lower chamfer.
The resulting temperature-time fields from the thermal
simulation were used as boundary conditions for the
deformation simulations. All movements except for radial
expansion were blocked for the lower edge of the component
(where it rested on a table). The time dependent pressure was
applied to the inside wall of the component. The thermal
expansion coefficient were derived from measurements on the
same batch of P91. Simulations were done with an elastic
material behavior (10) and with a Chaboche-type model
implemented in a user sub routine (UMAT).
The visco-plastic Chaboche model was calibrated to the
accompanying lab experiments. The model is able to describe
cyclic plasticity (including cyclic softening), time dependent
plasticity like strain rate dependency and creep as well as the
interactions between these effects. A detailed description of the
model can be found in (9). The model was found to match the
experimental date very well, with some examples shown in
figure 5.
 2.10

Length change in mm
2.05

End of cooling
2.00

1.95 Measurement
Simulation

Figure 5: Two experiments (symbols) with the fitted Chaboche
model (line). Top: Creep experiment at 620 °C and 107.4 MPa.
Bottom: Out of phase TMF 100 – 600 °C.
The simulations showed that due to the reduced wall
thickness and the deliberate focus of the water spray the gauge
length is cooled much more than the rest of the component.
This leads to a contraction of the gauge length which in term
overstretches the radii (see figure 6). Since the cooling was
faster (and reached lower minimum temperatures) in the lower
gauge length the lower radius is overstretched more compared
with the upper radius. Temperature gradients across the wall
itself were low in the gauge length, due to the small wall
thickness.
Figure 6: The deformation of the component and its
1.90
0 3600 7200 10800 14400 18000 21600
Cycle time
Figure 7: Length change in the middle of the gauge length (90°
position) in circumferential direction during a cycle as
determined by the strain gauge installed on the component and
the Chaboche model simulation.
After about 130 cycles the water jet broke which resulted
in a very sudden temperature drop in a small localized area.
This permanently caused a drastic “slight banana shape” global
deformation recorded by the strain sensors around the
component and confirmed by the photogrammetric
measurements after the experiment. The simulation of the long
term creep deformation was done twice with the Chaboche
model. Once as a pure creep deformation simulation with
constant (homogenous) temperature and inner pressure (the
maximum values during the cycle) and once including the
interaction with the load changes. Figure 8 shows the
circumferential creep strain in the middle of the gauge length
from the component and both simulations over the creep time
(time filtered for T > 550 °C and p > 50 bars). The thermocyclic
simulation matches the data much better than the static creep
simulation and quite well overall with exception of the sudden
jump due to the broken water jet.
Experimental data
8000 Experimental data without "jump"
Thermocyclic simulation 200 cycles
Creep Simulation (Pmax,Tmax)
creep strain [m/m]

temperature (as contour). For better visibility the deformation 6000

is enhanced by a factor of 50.
4000
The cyclic deformation recorded by the strain gauge ne
ted li
sensors was found to be matched very well by the Chaboche pola
extra
model simulation, as seen for example in figure 7. The 2000
intermediate peak at the end of cooling is believed to be caused
by a temperature difference between the sensor and the
calibrating thermocouple at the end of the rapid cooling; 0
0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680 1920
specifically it is not seen in the strain gauges at the chamfers
near the radii, which experience slower cooling rates, but are Creep time [s]
still well matched by the simulation.

4 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Figure 8: Permanent deformation as measured by the strain
gauge in the middle of the gauge length in circumferential
direction compared to simulation results. Only creep time (time
filtered for T > 550 °C and p > 50 bar) is counted on the x-axis.
Further details about the FE simulations can be found in
(11).
LIFETIME ASSESMENT RESULTS
All lifetime assessments were done for the lower radius
where the crack occurred in the component. With the exception
of the advanced fracture mechanics based approach (which
evaluated the entire component) no other locations were
checked for lower lifetimes.
The EN 12952 asks for separate creep and fatigue analysis
and assumes linear damage accumulation to 100 % total
damage.
𝐷𝐶 + 𝐷𝑓𝑎𝑡 ≤ 100%
The creep analysis is based on membrane stress (Tresca-
equivalent) under primary load only and uses the material
specific lower scatter band (20%-stress increase) to determine
creep lifetime. Using 4 h of dwell time per cycle at 620 °C and
a membrane stress of 68 MPa this comes to 26100 h or 6525
cycles till creep failure.
For the fatigue analysis the EN 12952 contains a catalog of
components to obtain geometry specific correction factors (like
stress concentration), but unsurprisingly the test component
was related to none of these. In this case a linear elastic FE-
analysis is allowed for to determine the (Tresca equivalent)
stress range. This stress range (noted 2fva) is then modified by a
factor Ck for welds and rough surfaces (not applicable here,
hence Ck=1). The effective temperature of the cycles is
calculated according to:
𝑇 ∗ = 0.75 𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 0.25 𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 503 °𝐶.
The stress range is modified twice again, first for potential
(partial) plastic behavior which is fully plastic here and second
by dividing by a temperature dependent factor CT*. Besides
depending on T*, CT* is also dependent on material class with
different formulas for austenites and ferrites. This rescaled
stress range (called the “virtual effective stress range“) is then
used to determine cycles till failure by a lifetime curve in the
code, which is a “mean line” according to the EN 12952-3 and
independent of material other than the ultimate tensile strength
at room temperature being used. As a safety factor the last step
in done twice: Once with the calculated stress range and
resulting cycles till failure divided by 10 and once with a stress
range multiplied by 1.5 – the lower number gives the allowed
cycles till failure under pure fatigue load. The individual
numbers of the fatigue analysis can be found in the following
table, it yields 815 allowed cycles till failure.
5 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Description Nomenclature Value
as in the code
Elastic stress range 2fva 848 MPa
Stress range with plastic 2fa* 1018 MPa
correction
Correction for surfaces CK 1
quality and welds
Correction for temperature Ct* 0.574
Virtual effective stress 2fa*T* 1772 MPa
range
Allowed cycles till failure N 815
Combining the creep and fatigue analysis by linear damage
accumulation gives 725 allowed cycles till failure with 89%
fatigue and 11% creep lifetime consumption. It should be
noted, that due to the ample use of safety factors, this should be
a minimum lifetime.
The British assessment procedure R5 also uses linear
damage accumulation for creep and fatigue to 100% total
damage. For the creep analysis a ductility exhaustion approach
is used, where creep strain is summed up to a fracture strain
(which can depend on temperature and strain rate).
𝜀̇𝐶 (𝑡)
𝐷𝐶 = ∫ 𝑑𝑡
𝑡 𝜀𝑓 (𝜀̇, 𝑇)
The fracture strain was derived from literature data (see
(11) for details) in addition to the project creep tests and found
to be independent of temperature and strain rate in the relevant
region. The fatigue analysis has a fracture mechanics approach
and separately counts cycle till crack initiation and for crack
growth till a fatal crack length af. Both the strain range for
fatigue analysis and the creep strain per cycle can either be
determined directly by inelastic analysis or by separate elastic
analysis of the primary and secondary loads with subsequent
calculations for inelastic corrections and interactions. All used
non creep material parameters were derived from the available
lab experiments. In absence of such data the R5 recommends to
use data from other codes (such as the ASME BPVC).
Using the Chaboche model for inelastic analysis the strain
range was determined to be 0,473 % which gave 4820 cycles
till fatigue failure by using af = 1 mm. As opposed to the EN
12952-3, the highest cycle temperature (620 °C) is used for
fatigue lifetime assessment. Creep strain increment per cycle
was determined to be 3e-3 % and which gave a creep lifetime
3200. Total combined lifetime was hence 1923 cycles with 60%
creep damage and 40 % fatigue damage.
Using elastic analysis the fatigue strain range was adjusted
for plasticity with a Neuber rule using a Ramberg-Osgood
stress strain relation. Additionally a creep ratcheting strain
contribution depending on primary loads and an enhancement
due to the constant volume deformation is added. Total fatigue
strain range was determined to be 2.07% which gave 350 cycles
 pure fatigue lifetime. The stress for creep analysis is determined
by calculating a stress relaxation from peak stress levels and
was found to be 133 MPa at the end of the cycle. Using the
ductility exhaustion principle this gave a creep lifetime of 61
cycles and a total combined lifetime 52 cycles with 85 % creep
lifetime and 15 % fatigue lifetime consumed. It should be noted
that throughout the calculations mean lines were used and no
safety factors involved other than the conservatism inherent in
code formulas themselves.
The ASME BPVC (Section III Subsection NH T-1400)
uses a material specific failure curve for the interaction of creep
and fatigue damage (see figure 9).
𝐷𝐶 + 𝐷𝑓𝑎𝑡 ≤ 𝐷
1.0
ASME 9Cr-1Mo-V
Creep damage DC
0.8
2 1/4Cr-
0.6
1Mo + 8
0.4 EN
ASM
E 30
00H
0.2 4+
306
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Fatigue damage Dfat
Figure 9: Material specific creep fatigue envelope of the ASME
BPVC and the 100 % line of the EN 12952 and R5. Of all
materials covered the P91 has the worst creep fatigue
properties (dashed line) according to the code.
As in the R5 either inelastic analysis or separate elastic
analysis of primary and secondary loads with follow-up
calculations can be used.
Creep damage in the inelastic analysis is done by a
continuous time fracture approach
𝑑𝑡
𝐷𝐶 = ∫
𝑡 𝑇𝑑 (𝜎𝑒 , 𝑇)
where Td is the allowable time duration at the current
equivalent stress and temperature and material dependent
curves are given in the code. Equivalent stress is calculated by
a formula which bases on the von Mises equivalent stress and
additionally increases in multiaxial stress conditions. Fatigue
damage is simply calculated by tacking the highest equivalent
von Mises strange range and using a material specific number-
of-allowable-cycles-curve for the highest cycle temperature.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Unfortunately only a curve for 540 °C is given in the code. For
the analysis this curve was used, but lifetime was decreased by
5% which was found the approximate drop in lifetimes between
the two temperatures in the conducted lab experiments. Fatigue
strain range was found to be 0,473 % which corresponds to a
lifetime of 1340 allowed cycles. The continuous time fracture
approach gave a creep lifetime of 110 cycles till failure. This
gives a combined lifetime of 61 cycles.
The follow-up calculation of the elastic analysis uses a
similar general approach as the R5 but different formulas for
most steps. Elastic strain range is compensated for plasticity by
using a hysteresis loop constructed from material and
temperature dependent stress-strain curves supplied in the code.
The strain range was increased by a factor KV (1.13 here) which
incooperates both a volume deformation and the multiaxiality
of the stress states (which was no factor here). In addition a
creep ratcheting strain of 0.09% was calculated. Total strain
range was hence 0.531 % which gives 665 cycles till fatigue
failure.
Also similar to the R5 the creep stress level is determined
by relaxation from a peak stress. The low bound for the
relaxation 𝑆𝐿𝐵 is given by:
𝑆𝐿𝐵 = 1.25 ⋅ 𝑍 ⋅ 𝑆𝑌,𝐿
12
95 where 𝑆𝑌,𝐿 is the yield stress of the lower cycle temperature and
2 Z (=0.4 here) is factor calculated from the stress states under
+
R5 primary and secondary loads. This yielded 𝑆𝐿𝐵 = 222 MPa
which leads at a temperature of 620 °C to component failure in
0.8 1.0 less than a cycle due to creep.
The advanced model for lifetime assessment is based on
the DTMF-Parameter and is a fracture mechanics based model
that determines fatigue and creep-fatigue lifetime based on the
growth of microcracks (crack initiation is assumed to be
negligible for total lifetime). The model uses the ZD parameter
as developed by Heitmann et al. (12) and combines it with a
temperature-stress-time dependent F-function for additional
crack growth.
𝑍𝐷
𝐷𝑇𝑀𝐹 = 𝐹 ⋅
𝜎𝑐𝑦
The model has been shown (13) to give very accurate
results for scenarios where creep damage is small compared to
fatigue damage. It has been and is successfully applied by many
automotive companies around the world for the design of
exhaust components. However it is known to give increasingly
unconservative results with increasing creep damage portion.
6 Copyright © 2016 by ASME

Figure 10: The DTMF model calibrated for P91 with the lab
experiments in comparison
The model was calibrated to the lab experiments (see
figure 10) and was able to describe all experiments regardless
of temperature, strain rate and hold times in a factor 2 scatter
band. A recently published crack opening stress formula
developed by Fisher et al. (14) specifically for cycles with high
temperature ranges was used to determine the effective stress
range 𝜎𝑒𝑓𝑓 in the calculation of ZD. The model is applied by a
post processing program which automatically finds the most
damaging cycle for each location in a FE-model (see EMPA
PAPER for details). The post processor requires an inelastic
stress analysis as a basis; hence the Chaboche model simulation
was used.
Figure 11: Damage prediction of the DTMF-model postprocessor
7 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
The procedure correctly identified the lower radius as the
critical location and yielded 688 cycles till failure there. Since
the time (creep) and temperature (both creep and fatigue)
dependent effects are both handled in the F-function it is
impossible to give exact fractions of lifetime consumption for
creep and fatigue.
DISCUSSION
The MACPLUS work package 6 test component was
successfully tested under creep fatigue load. Simulations of an
FE-model of the component were able to describe the
temperature distribution during the rapid cooling phase well.
The Chaboche model calibrated to the accompanying lab
experiments on the same batch of P91 were able to describe the
lab experiments very well. An application of the model to the
component simulation matched the measured strains during
cyclic deformation, especially the strain range with good
accuracy. Long term permanent deformation was
underestimated using a classic creep analysis with constant
temperature and loads (see figure 8). Since the model was able
to describe lab experiments in the same stress region quite well
(see figure 5) this was not caused by model inaccuracies. A full
thermocyclic simulation with all load changes increased the
predicted creep strains to almost the measured levels.
Significantly the creep increase per cycle was very accurately
predicted except for the regions of creep time around 480 h
(where the broken water jet prevented this) and 600 – 700 h
where the measured creep per cycle increased temporarily for
unknown reasons.
This is strong evidence that the Chaboche model is capable
to not only calculate creep and fatigue load changes but also
their interaction and is very suited for an inelastic creep-fatigue
analysis as allowed in the British Assessment Procedure R5 and
the ASME BPVC III NH T-1400.
The different codes as well as the advanced model showed
very different approaches and resulting lifetimes. The EN
12952 has by far the simplest approach and it should be noted
that it has does not take any creep-fatigue interaction into
account. While the R5 also assumes linear damage
accumulation to 100 % total damage, the total fatigue strain
range has a creep ratcheting contribution and the stress used in
the creep analysis is calculated by stress relaxation from the
fatigue peak. The EN 12952 however only uses primary
stresses in the creep calculation and only uses the (elastic)
stress range in fatigue deformation. It is hence unsurprising that
it calculates by far the longest pure creep life of all methods
and its 68 MPa creep stress seems to low when compared with
the results of the Chaboche model. When considering the only
slightly too high number of 815 fatigue cycles till failure it
should be considered that it uses a safety factor of 10 from the
mean line given in the code. In order to assess the accuracy of
this mean line for P91, the lab experiments were evaluated by
the code, by transforming their strain range to a stress range
with elastic temperature dependent modulus from (10) and
 using all subsequent correction factors as in the code (see figure
12 for results).
Lifetime by EN 12952-3
104
tor1
fa c
nd
r ba
e when comparable to the other codes when following inelastic
103 att
sc
e
tiv
r va
e e
102 ns tiv
n -co erva
no ons
c Looking at the development in creep lifetime consumption
102
Experimental lifetime
Figure 12: Lifetime predictions of the lab experiments by the
EN 12952-3 compared to experimental results show it to be
conservative for shorter lifetimes. The code claims its S-N
curve to be a mean line with safety factors applied afterwards.
As can be seen the lifetime estimate by the EN 12952-3
mean line is very close to experimental data in the relevant
region of 8150 cycles (the 815 comes from dividing with the
safety factor 10) if not slightly conservative. Hence the rather
high fatigue lifetime estimate is not due to the S-N curve being
inapplicable for P91 of this batch. Instead it is noteworthy that
the increase in stress range from 848 MPa to 1018 MPa to
account for plasticity effects seems small. The formula for this
correction in the fully plastic case is:
(2𝑓𝑣𝑎 )2
2𝑓𝑎∗ =
2 ⋅ 𝜎𝑦,𝑇 ∗
with the yield stress 𝜎𝑦,𝑇 ∗ at temperature T*. There is a
significant drop in yield stress between the effective
temperature (504 °C) and the maximum temperature (620 °C)
of the cycle. This softening towards the hot end is not reflected
in the calculation in any way. If one would have used the yield
stress of the hot end of the cycle (620 °C) instead, the resulting
lifetime would have been 2480 without or 248 with safety
factor.
While the chosen scenario is extreme, it seems to show
problems in the EN 12952-3 when the cycles have a wide
temperature range and reach the point of significant yield stress
loss and shortcomings in the EN 12952-4 when plastification
from load changes has a measurable effect on creep stress
levels.
The British Energy R5 and ASME BPVC (Section III
Subsection NH T-1400) show similar behavior for both the
elastic and inelastic evaluation even though some differents in
resulting numbers. Most major differences come from the used
material data and failure curves. The ASME BPVC provides its
own data which seem to be conservative minimum values for
the most part while the R5 was applied with mean values from
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
the accompanying experiments. Naturally the R5 gives higher
number of cycles till failure under these circumstances which
can be best seen in the fatigue lifetime derived from inelastic
stress analysis which are more than three times as high for R5
while using the same strange range.
Concerning creep damage assessment the R5 takes the
0
much different route of ductility exhaustion compared to the
Isothermal
20 °C other codes. While the method seems to give a reasonable result
200 °C
400 °C
500 °C stress analysis here, it also heavily depends on the accuracy of
550 °C the used deformation model.
600 °C
The creep assessment of the ASME BPVC following
650 °C
TMF inelastic stress analysis yields a far shorter lifetime than the R5.
100-600°C
103 104
through a cycle reveals that all most all of it is consumed in the
short period of the second tensile stress peak (3000 – 4000 s
cycle time in figure 13). The following dwell time adds very
little creep damage. Alternatively analyzing a 620 °C LCF
experiment shows a similar behavior: the high stresses consume
measurable amounts of creep lifetime even in the short cycle
times. It seems that the ASME BPVC has the tendency that
short stress peaks leave an overly high mark in the creep
analysis.
Projected Stress in MPa
200 600
Temperatur in °C
0
400
-200
200
-400
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Cycle time in s
Figure 13: Stress and temperature in the critical location in the
lower radius from the inelastic Chaboche model analysis. The
sudden drop in stress due to depressurization is followed by
tensile stresses from the overbending of the radius due to the
cooling. When the thermal gradient decreases and stress drops
the repressurization causes a second stress peak. After the
thermal gradient has disappeared the stress settles to the static
level due to the inner pressure.
The small creep fatigue damage envelope for P91 in
addition to the small creep lifetimes makes the total lifetime
from the ASME BPVC the smallest with the exception of the
linear stresses analyses.
The linear stress analysis of the R5 and ASME BPVC
follow similar approaches for compensating for plasticity in the
fatigue assessment. The actual numbers for volumetric and
creep ratcheting strains are even similar. Both get very small
8 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
 creep lifetimes due to using very high stress levels when
compared to the dwell stress in the Chaboche-model simulation
(as seen in figure 13). The reason is that both try to calculate
the stress levels assuming a dwell time with stress relaxation
from peak stress – which is not the case here. The drop after the
second stress peak is mostly due to the easing of the thermal
gradients, so stress relaxation and unloading are slowly
happening simultaneously and the resulting stresses in the
actual dwell time are much smaller than what both codes
assume. Hence the elastic stress analysis of both codes should
yield very conservative results when the dwell times are during
or simultaneous with the unloading. Fortunately this effect
might be unique to the test component and far more unusual in
real life power plant components.
For both codes the assessment based on inelastic stress
analysis showed to be more accurate than the one based on
elastic stress analysis. Also once an inelastic stress analysis is
done, the following steps are actually less time intensive and
very straightforward.
The advanced model based on the DTMF-Parameter was
very accurate in predicting the critical location and while its
predicted lifetime was closest of all applied methods to the
actual component lifetime was still too high by about than
factor 2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank their colleague Philipp Günther
for original implementation of the R5 Evaluation in Python and
discussion. In addition the authors wish to thank Dr. Ansgar
Kranz and his team from TÜV Rheinland Werkstoffprüfung
GmbH for providing, filtering, and discussing the component
data. Additional gratitude to Dr. Ralf Mohrmann of RWE
Generation SE for his contributions during the design stage and
very fruitful discussion throughout the project. Further thanks
go to Tim Kalbitzer and Dr. Gereon Lüdenbach from StandZeit
GmbH for preparing and conducting the component test, and
the European Commission for funding the MACPLUS project
in the FP7 program.
REFERENCES
(1) EN 12952-3 Wasserrohrkessel und
Anlagenkomponenten - Teil 3: Konstruktion und
Berechnung für drucktragende Kesselteile, 2012
(2) EN 12952-4 Wasserrohrkessel und
Anlagenkomponenten - Teil 4: Betriebsbegleitende
Berechnung der Lebensdauererwartung, 2011
(3) Assessment Procedure R5, Issue 3, Creep-Fatigue
crack initiation procedure for defect-free structures,
2003
(4) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III,
2015
(5) Oesterlin, H.; Maier, G.: Numerical assessment of
thick walled power plant components under creep
fatigue load with advanced models for deformation
and lifetime, Materials at High Temperature, Vol. 31
Number 4, 364-369, 2014
9 Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/90488/ on 03/23/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
(6) Kranz, A.; Mohrmann, R.; Lüdenbach, G.; Maier, G.;
Oesterlin, H.: Novel high temperature component
testing methods with respect to flexible operation and
advanced materials, Proc. of Power-Gen Europe 2015,
09-11 June 2015, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
(7) Davies, C. M.; Nagy, P. B.; Narayanan, A. and Cawley,
P.: Continuous Creep Damage Monitoring using a
Novel Potential Drop Technique, in ASME 2011
Pressure Vessels & Piping Division / K-PVP
Conference, July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA, ASME, PVP2011-57325.
(8) Narayanan, A.; Morris, A.; Davies, C. M. and Dear, J.
P.: Optical Strain Monitoring Techniques, in ASME
2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference,
July 15-19, 2012, Toronto, Canada, ASME, PVP2012-
78515.
(9) Maier, G.; Günther, P.; Oesterlin, H.: Comparison of
superheater header designs made of P91 and Alloy
617B under creep-fatigue loading using standard EN
12952 and advanced models, 40. MPA Seminar,
October 6 – 7, 2014, Stuttgart, Germany
(10) Haarmann, K.; Vaillant, J.C.; Vandenberghe, B.: The
T91/P91 Book, Vallourec & Mannesmann Tubes, 2nd
Edition, 2002
(11) Quintus, C.: Berechnung der Lebensdauer eines
Rohrprüfkörpers unter thermo-mechanischer
Belastung mit fortschrittlichen und herkömmlichen
Methoden, Master Thesis, Offenburg 2015
(12) Heitmann, H. H.; Vehoff, H.; Neumann, P.: Life
prediction for random load fatigue based on the
growth behavior of microcracks, in: S.R. Valluri et al.
(Eds.), Advances in Fracture Research 1984 -–
Proceedings. of ICF6, Vol. 5, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
New York, pp. 3599-3606 ,1984
(13) Seifert, T.; Schweizer, C.; Schlesinger, M.; Möser, M.;
Eibl, M.: Thermomechanical fatigue of 1.4849 cast
steel – experiments and life prediction using a fracture
mechanics approach, International Journal of Materials
Research 101, 2010, 942-950, doi:10.3139/146.110363
(14) Fischer, C.; Schweizer, C.; Seifert, T.: A crack opening
stress equation for in-phase and out-of-phase
thermomechanical fatigue loading, International
Journal of Fatigue, March 2016,
doi:10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.03.011