Kang, Ju-Yeon;Chang, Dong-Joo;Kim, Jun-Young;Kim, Sang-Eun;Lee, Jong-Min;Huh, Nam-Su;Kim, Jong-Sung;Kim, Jin-Weon;Kim, Yun-Jae;Kim, Dae-Soo
19
In this study, to evaluate conservatism of various fatigue life evaluation procedures, fatigue tests were conducted using compact tension (CT) specimens with a round notch, made of A516 Gr.70 carbon steel and A240 TP304 stainless steel, under load-controlled cyclic condition. Experimental fatigue failure cycles were measured and compared with predicted fatigue lives using two different life evaluation methods; (1) Design-By-Analysis (DBA) procedure given in ASME B&PV Code, Sec. III, Div. 1, Subsec. NB-3200 and (2) structural stress-based approach provided in ASME B&PV Code, Sec. VIII, Div. 2, Part 5. To predict fatigue failure cycles, three-dimensional elastic finite element analysis was conducted. Fatigue lives were predicted by both design fatigue curve given in ASME B&PV Code, Sec. III, Div. 1, Appendices and best-fit fatigue curve suggested in NUREG/CR-6815 for the DBA procedure. Finally, fatigue lives evaluated by various methods were compared with test results, and then conservatism between each evaluation procedure was discussed.