Lifetime Assessment at High Temperatures
A classical power plant was generally expected to last for about 20 years or more (nuclear plant for 35–40 years). It would not normally be in operation continuously throughout the whole of this time, however, and the design was usually based on a life of 100000 hours, which is about 11 years.
Typical operating conditions of the different power plant units have changed during the last decades, they often differed from the conditions assumed at the design state. This fact was one of the reasons, why the damage analysis, failure prevention methods and life extension possibilities became so important in the nineties.
KeywordsDynamic Strain Ageing Residual Life Parent Metal Steam Pipeline Typical Operating Condition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.J.Ginsztler - A.Penninger -L.Szeidl -P.Várlaki “Stochastic Modelling of Stress Processes in Power Plant Boiler Walls” International Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping (1996), pp. 119124., Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
- 2.P.P. Benham - R.Hoyle: Thermal Stress. p. 280. Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd, London, 1964.Google Scholar
- 3.D.Armstrong - G.J.Neate. Crack growth in bainitic O,5Cr-Mo-V steel under creep-fatigue conditions. Materials Science and Technology, January 1985.Vo1.1. p.19–24Google Scholar
- 4.I.Masumoto et al: Electron Microscopic Examination of a Service Embrittled 2,25 Cr-1 Mo Steel. Transaction of the Japan Welding Society, Vol. 17. No. 2 Oct.1986. p. 36–42.Google Scholar
- 5.S.S. Manson, Thermal Stress and Low-Cycle Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, New York, 254 (1966.)Google Scholar
- 6.J.E. Dorn, Mechanical Behaviour of Materials at Elevated Temperatures, McGraw-Hill, New York, 361 (1961.)Google Scholar
- 7.A.J. Kennedy, High Temperature Materials. The Controlling Physical Processes, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 23–24 (1968.)Google Scholar
- 8.R.P. Skelton and J.I. Bucklow, “Cyclic oxidation and crack growth during high strain fatigue of low alloy steel”, Metal Science 12 (2), 64–70 (1978)Google Scholar
- 9.S.S. Manson, Thermal Stress and Low-Cycle Fatigue, McGraw-Hill, New York, 245 (1966)Google Scholar
- 10.Gillemot, “Zur rechnerischen Ermittlung der Brucharbeit”, Materialprufung 3, 330–336 (1961), L. Gillemot, “Low-cycle fatigue by constant amplitude mean stress”, First Internat. Conf. on Fracture, Sendai, Japan, 47–80 (1965), L. Gillemot, “ Criterion of crack initiation and spreading”, Engrg. Fracture Mech. 8,239–253 (1976))Google Scholar
- 11.J.C. Radon and E. Czoboly, Proc. Internat. Cord. on Mech. Behaviour of Materials, Kyoto, 543 (1972)Google Scholar
- 12.I. Havas et al. Materialprufung 16, 349 (1974)Google Scholar
- 13.F. Gillemot, Internat. Conf on Creep and Fatigue in Elevated Temp. Appl. Sheffield (1974)Google Scholar
- 14.P. Romvari and L. Toth, Gep. 8, 281 (1981)Google Scholar
- 16.E. Czoboly, I. Havas and J. Ginsztler, “Relation between low cycle fatigue data and the absorbed specific energy”, Fifth European Conf on Fracture, Lisboa, 1–12 (1984)Google Scholar
- 17.J. Ginsztler and K. Kormi, in: Process Condition Monitoring and Revalidation of Pressure Vessels and Pipe Line Elements Subject to Fluctuating Pressure and Temperature, Leeds Polytechnic Short Course, 1–151 (1984)Google Scholar
- 19.Nonyashi Maeda - Msahiro Otaka - Sadato Shimizu:“Development of an advanced SQUID system for non-destructive evaluations of material degradation in power plants.” International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping. Vol. 71 No.1. April 1997. p.13–17Google Scholar
- 20.J.Ginsztler - L. Dévényi: Lecture at the International Conference on “Residual Life of Power Plant Equipment Prediction and Extension.” January 23–25,1989, Hyderabad, India.p. 4B. 5Google Scholar