Materials pp 1-10 | Cite as

Mechanical Properties of Incoloy 908 — An Update

  • I. S. Hwang
  • R. G. Ballinger
  • M. M. Morra
  • M. M. Steeves
Part of the Advances in Cryogenic Engineering book series (ACRE, volume 38)


Incoloy 908 is a nickel-iron base superalloy with its coefficient of thermal expansion and mechanical properties optimized for use in Nb3Sn superconducting magnets. Thermoelastic, tensile, fatigue crack growth, fracture toughness,and Charpy impact properties, and the results of conduit pressurization tests are summarized for base and weld metal.A limited number of stress rupture tests were also performed in air. The average yield strength (0.2% offset) for the solution annealed and aged base metal is 1200 MPa at 4.2 K. The fracture toughness,KIC, is greater than 230 MPa√m at 4.2 K. The fatigue behavior at 4.2K is comparable to austenitic stainless steels. Fatigue crack growth rates are a factor of three lower at 4.2 K than 298 K and are independent of heat treatment. At 4.2 K, the 20% cold-work-then-aged material has a 20% higher yield strength and a 10% higher ultimate tensile strength. Gas tungsten arc weld (GTAW) metal with or without Incoloy 908 filler metal exhibited comparable yield and about 10% lower tensile strength when compared with that of the base metal after a 200 hour age at 650°C. Fracture toughness, tensile elongation and Charpy absorbed energy were about 40% of those of the base metal. Leak-before-break behavior was observed in an internal pressurization test at room temperature for a geometry identical to that of the US-Demonstration Poloidal Coil conduit. The stress rupture performance is better than other low COE alloys of a similar type to that of Incoloy 908.


Fracture Toughness Base Metal Weld Metal Crack Growth Rate Austenitic Stainless Steel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M.M. Steeves, et al., “Test Results, US-DPC Program,” CEC-ICMC Conf., Huntsville, AL, (June 1991).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.W. Ekin, Report SR–724–34–84, U.S NBS, Boulder, Colorado (1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.W. Ekin, Report SR–724–28–86, U.S NBS, Boulder, Colorado (1986).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Ledbetter, private communication with M.M. Morra, U.S. NIST, Boulder, Colorado (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.M. Mona, et al., Proc.of MT-11, Tsukuba, Japan, 831–838 (August 28-September 1 1989 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.L. Tobler, ASTM Symp. on Elastic-Plastic Frac. Mechanics, Bueno Vista, FL., (November 1989).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Saxena, S.J. Hudak, Jr., Int’l J. Frac., 14: 5 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    I.S. Hwang, et al., submitted to the Journal of Testing and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.L. Tobler, et al., J. of Testing and Evaluation, 19: 1: 34–40 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.L. Tobler, Report NISTIR 3944–13, U.S. NIST, Boulder Colorado, ( September, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R.L. Tobler, private communication with I.S. Hwang, (May 1991).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.L. Tobler, Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 16: 669–674 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.K. Liaw, et al., Austenitic Steels at Low Temperatures, Plenum, NY, 171–185 (1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.P. Birth, J. Lothe, “Theory of.Dislocations,” John Wiley and Sons, NY, 681 (1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. S. Hwang
    • 1
  • R. G. Ballinger
    • 1
  • M. M. Morra
    • 1
  • M. M. Steeves
    • 1
  1. 1.Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Materials Science and EngineeringPlasma Fusion CenterCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations