Fatigue Crack Growth Study in P91 and 316LN Steels Using Acoustic Emission
Fatigue crack growth (FCG) behavior of ferritic steel P91 and austenitic stainless steel 316LN (SS 316LN) has been studied at ambient temperature. Acoustic emission (AE) signals generated during FCG tests were captured using 375 kHz resonant transducer. The FCG and AE results were compared for both steels in Paris and threshold regimes. The AE results indicated five and four substages of FCG for P91 steel and SS 316LN, respectively. Several parameters of AE signals such as rise time, peak amplitude and event duration were used to differentiate between various substages of the FCG. AE cumulative count was correlated with stress intensity factor range (ΔK) in Paris regime for both the steels. For SS 316LN, the exponent of the correlation of AE cumulative count with ΔK is in good agreement with Paris exponent. For P91 steel, higher value of the exponent of the AE cumulative count—stress intensity factor range correlation compared to Paris exponent is observed. Monitoring of AE continuously during fatigue crack growth of these two steels enables understanding the mechanisms of crack growth operative at different regions of the FCG curve.
KeywordsFatigue crack growth Acoustic emission P91 steel 316LN stainless steel Different substages
Authors are thankful to Dr. A.K. Bhaduri, Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) and Dr. G. Amarendra, Director, Metallurgy and Materials Group (MMG), IGCAR for support. Authors are also thankful to Dr. Shaju K. Albert, Associate Director, Materials Engineering Group, MMG, IGCAR for support.
- 2.Suresh S, and Ritchie R O, Int Met Rev 19 (1984) 445.Google Scholar
- 4.Suresh S, Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1991).Google Scholar
- 19.Land D D, and Lankford J, ASTM STP 811 (1983), p. 371.Google Scholar
- 20.Ohira T, Kishi T, and Horiuchi R, in The Fifth Int. Acoustic Emission Symposium, Tokyo, Japan (1980), p. 137.Google Scholar
- 21.Gong Z, Nyborg E O, and Oommen G, Mater Eval 50 (1992) 883.Google Scholar
- 23.Zain M S M, Jamaludin N, Sajuri Z, Yusof M F M, and Hanafi Z H, National Conf. in Mechanical Engineering Research and Postgraduate Studies (2nd NCMER), 3–4 Dec 2010, Pahang, Malaysia (2010), p. 82.Google Scholar
- 24.Daniel I M, LuoJ-J, Sifniotopoulos C G, Chun H-J, and McCormick R R, in Review of Progress in Quantitative Nondestructive Evaluation (Eds) Thompson D O, EChimenti D, Plenum Press, New York (1997), p. 451.Google Scholar
- 26.Standard Test Method for Measurement of Fatigue Crack Growth Rates, E647-08e1, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, PA, USA, 2010.Google Scholar
- 31.Kim Y H, Nam H W, Jung S W, and Han K S, in Proc. of the International Conference on Structural Integrity and Fracture, (Eds) Dyskin A V, Hu X, and Sahouryeh E, Perth, Australia, Sept. 25–27 (2002), p. 271.Google Scholar
- 36.Barsoum F F, Suleman J, Korcak A, and Hill E V K, J Acoust Emiss 27 (2009) 40.Google Scholar
- 38.Daniel S Jr, Heiple R, and Carpenter S, J Acoust Emiss 7 (1988) 9.Google Scholar