Abstract
The R5 volume 2/3 procedures [1] were developed by British Energy (now EDF Energy) to assess the high temperature response of uncracked metallic structures under steady state or cyclic loading. They contain the basic principles of:
Application of reference stress methods
Consideration of elastic follow up
A ductility exhaustion approach to calculate creep damage accumulation.
These considerations represent a fundamental distinction from ASME BPVC Section III, Subsection NH [2].
This paper draws on literature review and experience to explain the principal differences in the limits of application, cycle construction and damage calculation between these codes/procedures focusing on creep-fatigue damage determination. The implications of the differences between the codes and standards are explored.
The output of this work is aimed at two groups of structural integrity engineers; those using these codes and standards to assess existing conventional and nuclear plant, and also those looking to ASME and R5 to design Generation IV PWRs with design temperatures much elevated from those of Generation III and III+.
The conclusions from this paper offer some practical guidance to structural integrity engineers which may assist in selecting the more appropriate procedure to assess creep-fatigue damage for a particular situation.
Application of reference stress methods
Consideration of elastic follow up
A ductility exhaustion approach to calculate creep damage accumulation.
These considerations represent a fundamental distinction from ASME BPVC Section III, Subsection NH [2].
This paper draws on literature review and experience to explain the principal differences in the limits of application, cycle construction and damage calculation between these codes/procedures focusing on creep-fatigue damage determination. The implications of the differences between the codes and standards are explored.
The output of this work is aimed at two groups of structural integrity engineers; those using these codes and standards to assess existing conventional and nuclear plant, and also those looking to ASME and R5 to design Generation IV PWRs with design temperatures much elevated from those of Generation III and III+.
The conclusions from this paper offer some practical guidance to structural integrity engineers which may assist in selecting the more appropriate procedure to assess creep-fatigue damage for a particular situation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Proceedings of the Asme Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference |
| Publisher | American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) |
| Publication status | Published - 2014 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of R5 and Asme Nh Creep-Fatigue Damage Assessment Methodologies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Professor David M Knowles
- School of Electrical, Electronic and Mechanical Engineering - Professor of Nuclear Engineering/Director (Engineering) of South West Hub
- Solid Mechanics
- Cabot Institute for the Environment
Person: Academic , Member