Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4)
- Vortrag (1)
- Sonstiges (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (7)
Schlagworte
- ISO 6892-1 (2)
- Test methods (2)
- Analysis (1)
- Fatigue (1)
- Force controlled TMF testing (1)
- Ni-base superalloy (1)
- Nickel-base superalloys (1)
- Standardisation (1)
- TENSTAND WP4 Final Report (1)
- TENSTAND WP4 Report (1)
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
A major international inter-comparison exercise on strain-controlled thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) has been undertaken to validate a new European Code of Practice for TMF Testing and to provide underpinning information for an ISO Standard. This paper focuses on (a) distribution of samples of Nimonic 90, (b) the establishment of a protocol for testing and reporting results, and (c) the analysis of the results. Participants in the inter-comparison exercise comprised eight inner-circle partners who primarily used test pieces which were all manufactured at the same workshop, albeit of three different test piece geometries, and ten outer-circle participants who manufactured their own test pieces, of their own in-house geometry. Each participant undertook three repeat in-phase (IP) tests and three repeat out-of-phase (OP) tests. The tests were conducted at temperatures cycling between 400 °C and 850 °C, with a strain range selected to give a failure life of approximately 1000 cycles, resulting in a stress range of up to ~1000 MPa. The testing conditions were chosen following a preliminary evaluation of critical testing parameters. Results from solid circular and solid flat test piece geometries, together with hollow tubular test pieces have been compared. The influence of temperature measurement using different types of temperature sensors has also been investigated. In-house repeatability has been assessed, together with inter-laboratory reproducibility. The results have been correlated with modulus and thermal expansion data for individual tests. Initially, the largest contribution to scatter in the results was attributed to human errors in reporting the results, compounded by computer assisted cut-and-paste errors. Once these obvious discrepancies had been corrected, it was possible to use the data sets to point to some recommendations regarding testing procedures that can be incorporated into the Code of Testing Practice [Hähner P et al. Code of practice for thermo-mechanical fatigue testing TMF-Standard-Work Package 6 Report, September 2005] and provide technical underpinning for the ISO Standard. The results and the procedures used for analysis are presented.
The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval.
DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many Arguments presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals.
The authors, Li et al., of the paper entitled “Analysis on the Issues in ISO 6892-1 and
TENSTAND WP4 Report Based on Data to Confirm Tests by 21 Laboratories” (J. Test. Eval.
DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150479 (online only)) have expressed views that the authors of this
rebuttal believe to be based on fundamental misunderstandings and misinterpretations of
the tensile testing standard ISO 6892-1:2009, ISO 6892-1:2016, and its former versions, thus
leading to erroneous conclusions. This refutation is intended to clarify the understanding of
ISO 6892-1 and to address the misunderstandings and the misinterpretations of the authors of the paper. The present standard ISO 6892-1:2016 has a long history dating back to the 1970s. At that time, the tensile testing procedure was standardized on the National and
International scale in parallel. To understand the present standard, the knowledge of the
history helps to understand the background of details of the testing procedure implemented today. The history of the tensile testing standard has been discussed extensively during the
annual international standardization meeting of ISO committee TC 164 SC1 for the last few years, at which some of the authors of the Li et al. paper attended. The authors continue to disagree with facts that were agreed by the consortium of the European
research project TENSTAND and by the present international experts involved in ISO TC 164 SC1. It appears that the principal objective of the authors regarding their present publication was to increase the testing speed during tensile testing. However, the international standardization community has previously declined similar proposals by some of the authors. Many arguments
presented by Li et al. were thus refuted. The conclusions of their paper are misleading and the international standardization community for tensile testing refused to revise the present standard, ISO 6892-1 (2016), according the authors’ proposals.
Thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) testing plays an increasingly important role in the design, the reliability assessment and the lifecycle management of safety critical components used, for instance, for power generation, in the process industry and in aeronautical and automotive applications, with a view to increasing the fuel efficiency, safety and service intervals, while reducing production (and material) costs. In a European Commission funded research project (acronym: TMF-Standard) of the 5th Framework Programme, 20 European laboratories have undertaken a joint research effort to establish a validated code-of-practice (CoP) for strain-controlled TMF testing. Starting from a survey of the testing protocols and procedures previously used by the partners, a comprehensive pre-normative research activity into various issues has been completed, addressing the dynamic temperature control, the effects of deviations in nominal temperatures and phase angles, the influences of temperature gradients, as well as the practicalities of test interruption and restart procedures. Meaningful allowable tolerances for the various test parameters were identified and practical recommendations as to the test techniques were formulated. From this a preliminary CoP was compiled and used to guide an extensive round robin exercise among the project partners. From the statistical analysis of that exercise, a validated CoP was derived dealing with strain-controlled constant amplitude TMF of nominally homogeneous metallic materials subjected to spatially uniform temperature fields and uniaxial mechanical loading. It is intended to give advice and guidance on the appropriate test setup, testing procedures and the analysis of results, in particular for newcomers in the field of strain-controlled TMF. This paper highlights some of the results of the TMF-Standard project. Moreover, commonalities and differences of the present CoP with respect to the standard documents for strain-controlled TMF, which have been developed at ISO and ASTM levels, are presented in this paper.
Components in the Aerospace, Power and Automotive engineering sectors are frequently subjected to cyclic stresses induced by thermal fluctuations and mechanical loads. For the design of such components, reliable material property data are required which need to be acquired using well accepted and reproducible test procedures for thermo-mechanical fatigue (TMF) loading. Available materials TMF property data are limited so that there is a need for further TMF data generated by TMF testing. The TMF behaviour of materials is often desired to be simulated in models which describe the cyclic stress-strain behaviour, the fatigue life and the cyclic crack growth behaviour. There is a continuous need for the development and amendment of such models. Models can be validated by using materials in industrial applications which are subjected to TMF loading.