Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/236559064
CITATIONS READS
14 1,028
3 authors:
Sam Sham
Argonne National Laboratory
78 PUBLICATIONS 476 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by George A. Young on 30 May 2014.
PVP2008-61129
PVP2008-61129
Creep data are often analyzed using derived Project Prometheus was initiated to develop a
engineering parameters to correlate creep life (either space nuclear/electric reactor system for a wide range of
time to rupture, or time to a specified strain) to applied deep space and terrestrial missions. The basic concept was a
stress and temperature. Commonly used formulations compact fast reactor coupled with a direct gas Brayton cycle
include Larson-Miller, Orr-Sherby-Dorn, Manson- turbine that would drive on-board generators for electrical
Haferd, and Manson-Succop parameterizations. In this power. The Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO) mission was
paper, it is shown that these parameterizations are all selected as the first mission and required operation for up to
special cases of a common general framework based on 15 years. The following represents part of the efforts to
a linear statistical model. Recognition of this fact allows support the development of preliminary structural design
for statistically efficient estimation of material model procedures for pre-conceptual structural component sizing
parameters and quantitative statistical comparisons analyses.
among the various parameterizations in terms of their
ability to fit a material database, including assessment of Creep data are often analyzed using derived engineering
a stress-temperature interaction in creep behavior. This parameters to correlate creep life (either time to rupture, or
provides a rational basis for choosing the best time to a specified strain) to applied stress and temperature.
parameterization to describe a particular material. Commonly used formulations include Larson-Miller, Orr-
Furthermore, using the technique of maximum Sherby-Dorn, Manson-Haferd, and Manson-Succop
likelihood estimation to estimate model parameters parameterizations. In this paper, it is shown that these
allows for a statistically proper treatment of runouts in a parameterizations are all special cases of a common general
test database via censored data analysis methods, and for framework based on a linear statistical model. Recognition
construction of probabilistically interpretable upper and of this fact allows for statistically efficient estimation of
lower bounds on creep rate. Comparisons are made to a material model parameters, and quantitative statistical
generalization of the commonly used Larson-Miller comparisons among the various parameterizations in terms
parameterization (namely, the Mendelson-Roberts- of their ability to fit a material database, including
Manson parameterization), which is comparable in assessment of a stress-temperature interaction in creep
complexity to the Manson-Haferd parameter, but utilizes behavior. This provides a rational basis for choosing the
a reciprocal temperature dependence. The general best parameterization to describe a particular material.
framework for analysis of creep data is illustrated with Furthermore, using the technique of maximum likelihood
analysis of Alloy 617 and HAYNES® 230® alloy1 (Alloy estimation to estimate model parameters allows for a
230) test data. statistically proper treatment of runouts in a test database
via censored data analysis methods, and for construction of
* This paper has been authored by a contractor of the U.S. Government under
contract No. DE-AC12-00-SN39357. Accordingly, the U.S. Government probabilistically interpretable upper and lower bounds on
retains a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the creep rate. Comparisons are made to a generalization of the
published form of this paper, or allows others to do so, for U.S. Government commonly used Larson-Miller parameterization (namely,
purposes.
the Mendelson-Roberts-Manson parameterization), which is
1
HAYNES and 230 are trademarks of Haynes International, Inc. comparable in complexity to the Manson-Haferd
σ1
σ2
σ3 C
σ4
0
1
T
0
T
Figure 3. M-R-M parameterization.
Figure 2. Manson-Haferd creep parameterization.
Like Larson-Miller, the Orr-Sherby-Dorn formulation
In the Larson-Miller formulation, the intersection point assumes that log(t) is a linear function of 1/T. But, rather
(1/Ta, log(ta)) could be allowed to be arbitrary rather than than assuming a common intersection of the lines (log(t),
fixed at a reciprocal temperature of zero. Now, the slope 1/T) lines, an assumption of no intersection is made (parallel
of each line is iso-stress lines; see Figure 4).
log(t ) σ1
log(t ) − log(ta )
. [7]
(1/ T ) − (1/ Ta ) σ2
σ3
With the additional assumption that the slope is a linear σ4
function of log(σ) (or, equivalently, log(σ) is a linear
function of the slope), it follows that:
⎛ log(t ) − log(ta ) ⎞
log(σ ) = a + b ⋅ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ . [8]
⎝ (1/ T ) − (1/ Ta ) ⎠ 0
1
T
This implies:
Figure 4. Orr-Sherby-Dorn creep parameterization.
⎛ a⎞ ⎛1⎞
log(t ) = ⎜ log(ta ) − ⎟ + a ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ Finally, the Manson-Succop formulation is similar to
⎝ Ta ⎠ ⎝T ⎠ Manson-Haferd in that straight temperature (vice reciprocal
, [9]
b ⎛1⎞ temperature) is used as the predictor of log(t), but no
+ ⋅ log(σ ) + b ⋅ log(σ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ intersection of the iso-stress lines is allowed (see Figure 5).
Ta ⎝T ⎠
log(t ) From the results of the last section it can be seen that each
of the engineering creep parameterizations is a special case
of one of the following linear models:
σ1 ⎛1⎞
log10 (t ) = β 0 + β1 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ + β 2 ⋅ log10 (σ )
⎝T ⎠
σ2 , [10]
⎛1⎞
σ3 + β3 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
C
⎝T ⎠
σ4
0
T
log10 (t ) = β 0 + β1 ⋅ T + β 2 ⋅ log10 (σ )
. [11]
+ β3 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ T
Figure 5. Manson-Succop creep parameterization.
The parameters β0, β1, β2, and β3 can be estimated from
Difficulty in comparing the available model creep data, or some of the parameters can be forced to equal
formulations was acknowledged by Conway in zero. Specifically, assuming a power law stress
Reference 2 (p. 208 – 209), where he notes that dependence, the common formulations can be interpreted as
preference for the Manson-Haferd approach “might follows:
appear to follow from the fact that this parametric - Larson-Miller uses Equation 10, with the
approach involves one more constant than employed in parameter β2 fixed at zero;
the Dorn or Larson-Miller parameters.” He continues, - Orr-Sherby-Dorn uses Equation 10, with the
“Unfortunately, it is not possible to view a set of stress-
parameter β3 fixed at zero;
rupture data, complete with several isotherms, and tell at
- Manson-Haferd uses Equation 11 (no
a glance which parametric approach would be the best to
parameters fixed at zero);
use.” The common framework for data analysis
- Manson-Succop uses Equation 11, with the
presented in this paper allows for objective, quantitative
comparison of the applicability of the different model parameter β3 fixed at zero.
formulations, which properly accounts for the number of
parameters fit in each formulation. In addition, the M-R-M approach falls into this framework,
using Equation 10 with no parameters fixed at zero. This
2.0 COMMON GENERAL LINEAR MODEL approach allows the same degree of flexibility of the
Manson-Haferd approach, but with a reciprocal temperature
As noted above, modeling a material database is often dependence vice a straight linear temperature dependence.
treated as a two-step process, with the first step This reciprocal temperature dependence may be desirable,
normalizing the data to an iso-stress condition and the since Arrhenius-type, solid state diffusion is involved, even
second step fitting a temperature dependence. A more if not rate controlling, in most creep mechanisms.
direct view of a creep experiment is as a simple input-
output system, in which the inputs are the variables that 2.1 Maximum Likelihood Estimation Of Model Parameters
are controlled by the experimenter, namely temperature
and stress, and the output is the measured quantity in the The parameters β0, β1, β2, and β3 can be estimated from
experiment, namely time to rupture or 1% strain. This creep data, using the method of maximum likelihood
direct view clarifies the relationship between applied estimation (MLE). This is an established statistical
experimental conditions and the measured response, and methodology, with well-understood statistical properties
suggests the most direct way of applying statistical based on asymptotic theory (see, e.g., Reference 3). In
analysis to the problem of estimating model parameters. particular, the MLE method is asymptotically efficient,
Statistical fitting is based on the response variable, t, meaning that for large datasets, no other estimation
with the applied conditions (temperature T and applied procedure will yield more precise model parameter
stress σ) treated as predictor variables in a regression estimates. Furthermore, formal quantitative inferences can
model. be made through MLE theory, such as confidence interval
estimation of model parameters and hypothesis tests to
determine the statistical significance of individual model whether the specimen is an exact time, a right-censored
terms. By comparing the optimized likelihood function time, or a left-censored time. Specifically,
for different formulations (based on the different
engineering creep parameters), the goodness-of-fit of the ⎧ f (ti ;θ ) (exact time)
⎪
formulations can be objectively and quantitatively Li ( ti ; β ) = ⎨1 − F (ti ;θ ) (right censored ) , [13]
compared. ⎪ F (t ;θ )
⎩ i (left censored )
MLE has the advantage of readily being able to
accommodate censored data, which can occur in two where f(ti, θ) and F(ti, θ) are the probability density function
distinct forms. Right-censored data, or runouts, are (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF)
specimens that have not ruptured (or reached the corresponding to the assumed probability model,
specified 1% strain condition) at the conclusion of the respectively. For fitting the models of Equation 10 and
experiment; all that can be stated about such specimens Equation 11, with a log-normally distributed time response,
is that their rupture time is longer than the test duration. the PDF is given by
Left-censored data arise from an experiment in which
the lack of in-situ monitoring prevents direct observation 1 1 ⎛ X2 ⎞
of rupture time (or time to 1% strain). If specimens are f (ti ;θ ) = exp ⎜ − ⎟
tested for a fixed time t, and are found to be ruptured at 2π γ ⎝ 2 ⎠
[14]
the conclusion of the test, all that can be stated is that 1 ⎛ log(ti ) − [ β 0 + β1 ⋅ x + β 2 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⎞
their lifetimes were less than the fixed test duration t. X≡ ⎜ ⎟
γ ⎝ + β3 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ x] ⎠
MLE requires that the form of the random variability
distribution describing data scatter around the best- where x denotes either temperature T or reciprocal
estimate creep model be specified (e.g., log-normal, temperature 1/T, as appropriate, and γ represents the
Weibull, etc.). Although this specification is an a priori residual standard deviation (which quantifies the data
assumption, it can be critically evaluated based on scatter in log(t) space). The parameter vector θ consists of
analysis of residuals from the fitted model to ensure that the regression parameters β0, β1, β2, and β3, and the residual
the assumption is warranted for a given database. standard deviation γ. The CDF is given by
Standard statistical software is available for fitting linear
models via MLE, including the incorporation of F (ti ;θ ) = ∫
ti
f ( y;θ ) d log( y ) . [15]
censoring. For the analyses presented herein, SAS −∞
the next sections, which present analysis of two specific model. The 95th percentile of the chi-squared distribution
material databases. with one degree of freedom is 3.84; since the observed
improvement in -2 log-likelihood afforded by the M-R-M
3.0 APPLICATION TO ALLOY 617 model is 8.5, it can be concluded that the M-R-M model
provides a statistically significant improvement in fit as
Alloy 617 is a Ni-Cr-Co-Mo alloy that has good high compared to the Larson-Miller model.
temperature properties, in particular creep strength. It
was chosen as the focus of an effort in the early 1980’s Table 1. Fit Summary for Alloy 617 Time To Rupture
to draft a Code Case for the ASME Boiler and Pressure Formulation Model Parameters log-
Vessel Code, Section III, Elevated Temperature, because Form Fixed at likelihood*
it was a leading candidate of designers, and there existed Zero
a considerable material properties database at the M-R-M Eq. [10] None -56.74
temperatures of interest. A property data package Larson-Miller Eq. [10] β2 -60.99
compiled by Bassford, Reference 4, was used by the Orr-Sherby-Dorn Eq. [10] β3 -129.64
ASME Task Force – Very High Temperature Design for Manson-Haferd Eq. [11] None -76.95
the development of the Code Case. The Code Case Manson-Succop Eq. [11] β3 -77.71
effort for Alloy 617 was suspended in the late 1980’s * Larger (less negative) values indicate better fit to the database.
when the Department of Energy canceled the Very High
Temperature Reactor Project and funding for the Code The fit of the M-R-M model is given by:
Case effort ceased. The Reference 4 data tables were
obtained from the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel
⎛1⎞
(B&PV) Committee, Subgroup on Elevated Temperature log10 (t ) = −20.07 + 37531 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
Design of Subcommittee on Design. The Alloy 617 ⎝T ⎠
database contains 173 exact failure time values and 62 +1.20 ⋅ log10 (σ ) . [16]
right-censored values (specimens for which the test was ⎛1⎞
stopped before rupture was observed). −7568 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝T ⎠
3.1 Time To Rupture
This fit is displayed with the database in Figures 6(a) and
For the analysis of the Alloy 617 data, the four standard 6(b). Blue crosses represent exact failure time data; green
formulations described above were applied. In addition, triangles represent right-censored (lower bound) failure time
the M-R-M approach was evaluated. Equations 10 and data.
11 were fit to the data via the method of maximum
likelihood estimation. Normally distributed random
errors were assumed in log10(t) space. Comparisons of
fit quality among the standard formulations and the M-R- 1e+18
M formulation were made using the -2LL criterion. The 1e+17
1e+16
1e+15
fitting was done with SAS PROC LIFEREG. The 1e+14
1e+13
1e+12
quality of each of the five models considered is 1e+11
Rupture Life (hrs)
1e+10
summarized in Table 1.
1e+9
1e+8
1e+7
1e+6
1e+5
1e+4
From Table 1, it is apparent that the M-R-M model most 1e+3
1e+2
1e+1
effectively summarizes the Alloy 617 database. The 1e+0
1e-1
1e-2
statistical significance of the improvement in fit of this 1e-3
1e-4
1e-5 900
800
)
model relative to the Larson-Miller model (the nearest 1e-6
0
100
1100
1000
atu
re
(K
r
competitor) can be made based on the improvement in - 200
300
400
1200
1300 Te
mp
e
Stre
2LL of the former model relative to the latter. ss (MP
a)
500
600
1400
1e+11
1e+10
1e+9 6
1e+8
1e+7
1e+6
1e+5
1e+4 5
1e+3
1e+2
actual test data will never fall exactly on a straight line. .99
1e+9
1e+8
model is selected as the most appropriate summary of 1e+7
1e+6
pera
1000
900
500
400
Stre
ss (
600
Manson-Haferd Eq. [11] None -116.26 ture
(K)
800
4
1e+8
1e+7
1e+6
3
1e+5
1e+4
1e+3
2
1e+2
1e+1
1e+0 1
1e-1
1e-2
ture (K)
1e-3 800 0
1e-4 900
1e-5 1000
1e-6 1100
Tempera
-1
1e-7 1200
1e-8
1e-9 1300 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 100 200 1400
300 400 500 Predicted log(Time to 1% Strain, hr)
600
Stress (MPa)
.01
2
.05
.1
1
.2
Probit(1-Surv)
800
.4
0
.6
900 .8
-1
.9
.95
1000 -2
Temperature (K)
.99
-3
1100 .04 .07 .1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 20 30 50 70
1200
MPa is 0.419 (2.62x in time). The residual standard 4.0 APPLICATION TO ALLOY 230
deviation is 0.591 (3.90x in time). The combined
predictive standard deviation based on these two 4.1 Time to Rupture
components is 0.724 (5.30x in time). A 100·P percent
lower prediction bound on log10(t) can be computed as A database of Alloy 230 creep test results was obtained
from Reference 5. The Alloy 230 database contains 142
⎛1⎞ exact rupture time values and 75 right-censored values
log10 (t ) = −11.69 + 27018 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ (specimens for which the test was stopped before rupture
⎝T ⎠ . [21]
was observed). The quality of fit of each of the five models
−5.77 ⋅ log10 (σ ) − z ⋅ 0.724 considered is summarized in Table 4. From Table 4, it is
apparent that the M-R-M model most effectively
For example, a 95% lower prediction bound on log10(t) summarizes the Alloy 230 database. The improvement in
is fit of this model relative to the Manson-Haferd model (the
nearest competitor) can be made based on the -2LL
⎛1⎞ criterion, as described above. That is, the magnitude of the
log10 (t ) = −12.88 + 27018 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝T ⎠, [22] improvement in fit of the M-R-M model relative to the other
models is sufficiently large that it cannot be explained
−5.77 ⋅ log10 (σ )
purely by the random variability exhibited by the database.
and a lower 95% prediction bound on log10(σ) can be Table 4. Fit Summary for Alloy 230 Time To Rupture
derived as Formulation Model Parameters log-
Form Fixed at Zero likelihood*
1 Eq. [10] None 25.36
log10 (σ ) = − ⋅ log10 (t ) M-R-M
5.77 Larson-Miller Eq. [10] β2 -58.66
. [23a]
−
12.88 27018 1
+ ⋅
Orr-Sherby-Dorn Eq. [10] β3 -136.23
5.77 5.77 T Manson-Haferd Eq. [11] None -4.31
Manson-Succop Eq. [11] β3 -75.80
This equation can be rearranged to arrive at the 95% * Larger (less negative) values indicate better fit to the database.
lower bound stress-to-1%-strain, S1%,min , as: The fit of the M-R-M model is given by:
Probit(1-Surv)
deficiencies. 0
.4
.6
.8
-1
.9
.95
1e+13 -2
1e+12 .99
1e+11
1e+10
-3
1e+9 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1
1e+8
Rupture Life (hrs)
900
to the conditions of 800 K ≤ T ≤ 1200 K, 0 < t ≤ 175,000
m
1000
pe
1100
hr, σ ≤ 500 MPa, is given as
r
600
at
1200 500
ur
1300 400
e
300
(K
1400 200
)
1500 100
(MPa)
⎛1⎞
0
Stress
log10 (t ) = −26.64 + 44158 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝T ⎠
Figure 13. Creep rupture life regression model. +4.72 ⋅ log10 (σ ) [25a]
⎛1⎞
−11337 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝T ⎠
6
3
S r ,min = Lesser of
2
⎧⎪ ⎛⎜ 44158 − 26.64T ⎞
⎟
−T ⎫⎪ . [25b]
⎨ 10 ⎝ 11337 − 4.72T ⎠
⋅ t 11337 − 4.72T
MPa, Su ⎬
1
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Predicted log(Time to Rupture, hr) with the conditions
800 K ≤ T ≤ 1200 K,
. [25c]
Figure 14. Actual vs. predicted log10(time-to-rupture). 0 < t ≤ 175,000 hours
1
This fit is displayed with the database in Figure 17. Figure
18 displays the measured vs. predicted log10 time to rupture;
from this figure, it can be seen that the model fits the data
Residual
1e+7
1e+6
most closely summarizes the behavior of the Alloy 230 1e+5
1e+4
database. The Manson-Haferd model is a close 1e+3
1e+2
competitor, but is not as effective as the M-R-M model 1e+1
1e+0
for this database. 1e-1
1e-2
1e-3
1200
M-R-M Eq. [10] None -142.05 1300
re
1400 600
(K)
500
Eq. [10] β2 -156.29 300 400
Larson-Miller 1500
0 100 200
1
majority of the residuals displayed in Figure 20 (the purple
symbols), so the lower bound is considered appropriately
0 conservative in spite of the model deficiencies. The
0 1 2 3
Predicted log(Time to 1% Strain, hr)
4 5
majority of the ruptured specimens would be bounded by a
95% lower prediction bound, which would appear on these
residual plots as a horizontal line at a height of
Figure 18. Actual vs. predicted log10(time-to-1%- approximately –0.82. An exception to this is combinations
strain). of temperature greater than 1300 K and stress less than 20
3
MPa, where some observed times to 1% strain were less
.01
than the 95% lower prediction bound.
2
.05
.1
2
1
.2
Probit(1-Surv)
.4
0
.6
1
.8
-1
.9
Residual
.95
-2
.99
0
-3
.01 .02 .04 .07 .1 .2 .3 .5 .7 1 2 3 5 7 10 20 30
. [27a] 0
⎛1⎞
−9320 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ ⎜ ⎟
⎝T ⎠
-1
⎧⎪ ⎛⎜ 37336 − 22.60T ⎞
⎟
−T
⎪⎫ . [27b]
⎨10
⎝ 9320 − 3.16T ⎠
⋅ t 9320 −3.16T MPa, S y ⎬ Figure 20. Residuals from the 1% strain fit vs. temperature
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭ (upper), and applied stress (lower).
5.0 REASONABLENESS OF PARAMETERS • 100% of the average stress to cause rupture at the
end of 100,000 hr
While the M-R-M approach is empirical, the equation
form encompasses both an apparent activation energy • 80% of the minimum stress to cause rupture at the
term: β1 ⋅ (1 / T ) , as well as a stress-activation energy end of 100,000 hr
interaction term: β 3 ⋅ log10 (σ ) ⋅ (1 / T ) . Realistic
Although there is no indication in the stress tables as to
activation energies lend confidence to these which of the three criteria controls the S value at a specific
extrapolations and can give some insight into the temperature, it is generally considered that 80% of the
mechanism or mechanisms that control creep damage. minimum creep rupture strengths at 100,000 hours governs
In order to assess the reasonableness of the M-R-M the S values at higher temperatures. Figure 21 compares
method, the minimum and maximum apparent activation
the values of S r , min for Alloy 617 from Equation 19b at
energies were estimated for both the Alloy 617 and
Alloy 230 failure data, using the minimum and 100,000 hours to those from the Stress Tables of Reference
maximum stresses in the database. As shown in Table 6, 7. The minimum creep rupture strengths at 100,000 hours
the maximum apparent activation energies for creep in from the Draft Alloy 617 Code Case, Reference 8, are also
both Alloy 617 (262 kJ/mol) and Alloy 230 (322 kJ/mol) shown in Figure 21. The comparison is quite good,
are consistent with either the self diffusion of nickel particularly at high temperatures. Similar comparison is
(~290 kJ/mol) or some slow diffusing solute (e.g. shown in Figure 22 for Alloy 230 and they compare
tungsten diffusion in nickel with an activation energy of reasonably well at high temperatures.
~299 kJ/mol). The apparent activation energies are
decreased as the applied stress increases, but even at the Alloy 617 - Annealed
highest levels tested (~ 550MPa), they remain positive 100,000 hr Minimum Creep Rupture Strength - Current Model
and physically realistic. 1.25 times S values (Maximum Allowable Stress) for Sec I and VIII-1 Appl.
100,000 hr Minimum Creep Rupture Strength - Draft Alloy 617 Code Case
250
Table 6. Comparison of the Apparent Activation
Energies for Creep and Substitutional Diffusion in Ni 200
Apparent Activation
Stress (MPa)
150
Energy (kJ/mol) Reference
Maximum Minimum 100
5.1 Comparisons Figure 21. Alloy 617. Comparison of (i) 100,000 hour 95%
lower bound creep rupture strength from the present work;
In Section II, Part D, Subpart 1B of the ASME B&PV (ii) 1.25 times maximum allowable stress value ( S ) from
Code, Reference 7, the maximum allowable stress ASME B&PV Code for Section I and Section VIII Div 1
values, S , for Alloy 617 and Alloy 230 are tabulated for applications, and (iii) 100,000 hour minimum creep rupture
Section I and Section VIII, Division 1 applications for strength from Alloy 617 Draft Code Case.
non-nuclear components. The S values are determined,
per the Mandatory Appendix 1 of Reference 7, as the
smallest of:
Figure 22. Alloy 230. Comparison of (i) 100,000 hour 5. Katcher, M, “Haynes 230 creep database in Excel
95% lower bound creep rupture strength from the spreadsheet,” Haynes International, Inc. 2005
present work, and (ii) 1.25 times maximum allowable
stress value ( S ) from ASME B&PV Code for Section I 6. J. Askill, Tracer Diffusion Data for Metals, Alloys, and
and Section VIII Div 1 applications. Simple Oxides, Plenum Press, New York, 1970
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 7. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part
D Properties (Metric) Materials, 2007 Edition, The
By viewing engineering creep parameters within the American Society for Mechanical Engineers, New
framework of a common underlying statistical York, New York. 2007
framework, many advantages are realized. The models
can be fit to a database in a statistically efficient way, 8. ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Draft Alloy 617
and compared to one another with objective and Code Case, Subgroup on Elevated Temperature Design,
quantified statistical procedures. Censored data can be Task Force – Very High Temperature Design, 1988
accommodated in a straightforward and rigorous way.
The question of the appropriate form of the temperature
dependence (straight temperature or reciprocal
temperature) can be separated from the question of
interaction between stress and temperature
dependencies. However, reciprocal temperature fits for
Alloy 617 and Alloy 230 give reasonable apparent
activation energies. Probabilistically interpretable lower
bounds can be generated from the fitted models. These
advantages have been illustrated with application to the
commercial materials Alloy 617 and Alloy 230.