Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-sp8b6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T05:54:55.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developments in Quantification and Use of Environmental Cracking Mechanisms for Design and Lifetime Prediction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Peter L. Andresen  and
F. Peter Ford
Peter L. Andresen
Affiliation:
Corporate Research & Development Center, General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY 12301
F. Peter Ford
Affiliation:
Corporate Research & Development Center, General Electric Company, Schenectady, NY 12301
Get access

Abstract

Following a long period of qualitative assessment of environmental cracking phenomenology, there has been recent emphasis on developing quantitative, mechanistically-based predictive models. This focus is driven by scientific and engineering concerns. For example, neither pressure vessel design nor evaluation codes incorporate the contribution of environmental cracking under static loading, nor do they differentiate between the large possible variations in both environment and material chemistry. Similarly, while numerous scientific hypotheses have been proposed to explain the crack advance process and related, contributing phenomena, ultimately their validity must withstand the scrutiny of quantification and comparison to measured cracking kinetics and observed component lifetimes.

The benefits and approaches involved in predicting environmental cracking based on mechanistic modeling of crack advance and its underlying phenomena are discussed. The benefits and approaches involved in predicting environmental cracking based on mechanistic modeling of crack advance and the underlying phenomena are discussed. The formulation of a quantitative model from fundamental mechanisms has progressed most rapidly for the film rupture / slip dissolution mechanism of environmental crack advance. Specifically, for iron and nickel base alloys in high temperature water, identification, quantification and integration of the important underlying parameters has led to algorithms which predict crack growth rates over a wide continuum in static and dynamic stressing, metallurgical microstructure and solution chemistry applicable to light water reactors. For widely studied systems, e.g., stainless and low alloy steels in 288°C water, the predictions are within a factor of 2–3 for 90% of the data which span “initiation”, the possible roles of contributing, “secondary” crack advance processes in oxidation-based mechanisms, such as environmentally enhanced cleavage, spontaneous oxidation, etc.

Similar efforts to identify and quantify the critical parameters and underlying processes in crack advance mechanisms involving hydrogen embrittlement, environmentally assisted cleavage, etc. are summarized. Conceptual approaches to and progress toward integrating these models with in-situ chemical and crack monitoring devices, with the goal of providing on-line evaluation, control and lifetime prediction of environmental cracking, are also discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 125: Symposium N – Materials Stability and Environmental Degradation , 1988 , 217
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. “Corrosion Fatigue, Chemistry, Mechanics and Microstructure”, Eds., McEvily, A J & Staehle, R W, NACE, Houston (1971).Google Scholar
2. “Mechanisms of Environment Sensitive Cracking of Materials”, Eds., Swann, P R, Ford, F P & Westwood, A R C, The Metals Society, London (1977).Google Scholar
3. “Stress Corrosion Cracking and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Iron-Base Alloys”, Eds., Staehle, R, Hochmann, J, McCright, R & Slater, J, NACE, Houston (1977).Google Scholar
4. “Corrosion Fatigue: Mechanics, Metallurgy, Electrochemistry and Engineering, STP 801”, Eds., Crooker, T W & Leis, B N, ASTM, Phila., PA (1984).Google Scholar
5. “Embrittlement by the Localized Crack Environment”, Ed., Gangloff, R P, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, p265–290 (1984).Google Scholar
6. “Modeling Environmental Effects on Crack Growth Processes“, Eds., Jones, R H & Gerberich, W W, TMSAIME, Warrendale, PA, p55–81 (1986).Google Scholar
7. Ford, F P, “Mechanisms of Environmental Cracking in Systems Peculiar to the Power Generation Industry”, EPRI Contract RP1332–1, EPRI Report NP2589 (1982).Google Scholar
8. Ford, F P, Taylor, D F, Andresen, P L, & Ballinger, R G, “Environmentally Controlled Cracking of Stainless and Low Alloy Steels in Light Water Reactor Environments”, NP-5064M, Final Report, EPRI (1987).Google Scholar
9. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sections III and XI (1980).Google Scholar
10. “Small Fatigue Cracks”, Eds., Ritchie, R O & Lankford, J, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA (1986).Google Scholar
11. Gangloff, R P & Duquette, D J, “Corrosion Fatigue of Metals: A Survey of Recent Advances and Issues”, in “Chemistry and Physics of Fracture”, Eds., Latanision, R M & Jones, R H, Martinus Nijhoff Publ BV, Netherlands (1986).Google Scholar
12. Ford, F P and Andresen, P L, ”Development And Use of a Predictive Model of Crack Propagation in 304/3161, A533B/A508 and Inconel 600/182 Alloys in 288°C Water”, 3rd lnt Conf on Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Industry, Traverse City, MI, August (1987).Google Scholar
13. “Fatigue Crack Growth Threshold Concepts, Eds., Davidson, D L & Suresh, S, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA (1984).Google Scholar
14. Amzallag, C & Bernard, J L, Proc IAEA Specialists Meeting on Subcritical Crack Growth, Freiburg, Germany, May 1981. NUREG CP 0044, Vol 2, p127–142.Google Scholar
15. Gilman, J D, Proc “Predictive Capabilities in Environmentally Assisted Cracking”, ASME, Miami, p1–16, (1985).Google Scholar
16. Devine, T M, “Quantitative Theory of Sensitization”, accepted for publication in J of Mat'ls Research. Presented at the Materials Research Society, Reno, April 5–9, 1987.Google Scholar
17. Strauss, B, Schottky, H and Hinnuber, J, Anorg, Z Allgem Chem, 188, p309 (1930).Google Scholar
18. E Bain, C, Aborn, R H and Rutherford, J J B, Trans Am Soc Steel Treat, 21, p481, (1933).Google Scholar
19. Stawstrom, C and Hillert, M, J.I.S.I., 207, P77 (1969).Google Scholar
20. Fullman, R L, Acta Met, 30, p1407 (1982).Google Scholar
21. Tedmon, C S, Vermilyea, D A and Rosolowski, J H, J Electrochem Soc, 118, p192 (1971).Google Scholar
22. Hall, E L and Briant, C L, Met Trans A, 15A, p793 (1984).Google Scholar
23. Bruemmer, S M, ”Composition-Based Correlations to Predict Sensitization Resistance of Austenitic Stainless Steel”, Corrosion 42, p27 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Bruemmer, S M, ”Grain Boundary Composition Effects on Environmentally Induced Cracking of Engineering Materials”, to be published in Corrosion. (see Paper #186, Corrosion/87, NACE, Houston.)Google Scholar
25. Bruemmer, S M and Charlot, L A, ”Measurement and Prediction of Thermo-Mechanical History Effects on Sensitization Development in Austenitic Stainless Steels”, Paper #242, Corrosion/86, NACE, Houston.Google Scholar
26. Atteridge, D G and Bruemmer, S M, “Evaluation of Welded and Repair-Welded Stainless Steel for LWR Service”, NUREG CR3613, Vol 3, No 2, (July 1986).Google Scholar
27. Solomon, H D, “Weld Sensitization”, Proceedings: Seminar on Countermeasures for Pipe Cracking in BWR's, WS-79–174, Volume 2, EPRI, May 1980. See also Corrosion 36, p395 (1980); Corrosion 40, pS1 (1984); Corrosion 41, p512 (1985).Google Scholar
28. Bruemmer, S M, Personal Communication, Pacific NW Labs, Richland, WA, (June 1987).Google Scholar
29. Wells, D B, Stewart, J, Herbert, A W, Scott, P M and Williams, D E, “The Use of Percolation Theory to Predict the Probability of Failure of Sensitized, Austenitic Stainless Steels by Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking”, Paper #289, Corrosion/88, NACE, Houston.Google Scholar
30. Tice, D R, Atkinson, J D and Scott, P M, Proc 2nd IAEA Specialists Mtg on Subcritical Crack Growth, Ed. Cullen, W H, Sendai, Japan, May 1985, NUREG/CP-0067, NRC, p251–282 (April 1986).Google Scholar
31. Andresen, P L, “Modeling of Water and Material Chemistry Effects On Crack Tip Chemistry and the Resulting Crack Growth Kinetics”, Proc 3rd Int Conf, “Environmental Degradation of Materials in Nuclear Power Systems - Water Reactors”, Traverse City, AIME (1987).Google Scholar
32. Andresen, P L, ”Modeling the Effect of Sulfur on the Threshold Environmental Cracking Rate of Steels in High Temperature Water“, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Fatigue and Fatigue Thresholds, U. of, V A, June 1987, Eng. Mtls. Advisory Services, W. Midlands, UK (1987).Google Scholar
33. Ford, F P and Andresen, P L, “Stress Corrosion Cracking in Low Alloy Steel / Water Systems at 288°C”, submitted to Corrosion Journal.Google Scholar
34. Proc IAEA Specialists Mtg on Subcritical Crack Growth, Ed. Cullen, W H, Freiburg, May 1981, NUREG/CP-0044, NRC (May 1983).Google Scholar
35. Proc 2nd IAEA Specialists Meeting on Subcritical Crack Growth, Ed. Cullen, W H, Sendai, Japan, May 1985, NUREG/CP-0067, NRC (April 1986).Google Scholar
36. Turnbull, A & Ferriss, D H, Proc Conf Corrosion Chemistry within Pits, Crevices and Cracks, Ed., Turnbull, A, NPL, Teddington, UK, in press (1987).Google Scholar
37. Turnbull, A, “Embrittlement by the Localized Crack Environment”, Ed., Gangloff, R P, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, p3–48 (1984).Google Scholar
38. Turnbull, A, Dolphin, A S & Rackley, F A, “Experimental Determination of the Electrochemistry in Corrosion Fatigue Cracks in Structural Steel in Artificial Sea Water”, Corrosion, in press.Google Scholar
39. Gangloff, R P & Turnbull, A, ”Crack Electrochemistry Modeling and Fracture Mechanics Measurement of the Hydrogen Embrittlement Threshold in Steel”, in “Modeling Environmental Effects on Crack Growth Processes”, Eds., Jones, R H & Gerberich, W W, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, p55–81 (1986).Google Scholar
40. Lidbury, D P G, “The Estimation of Crack Tip Strain Rate Parameters Characterizing Environment Assisted Crack Growth Data”, Proc. AIME Conf. on “Embrittlement by Localized Environment”, Ed. Gangloff, R P, Philadelphia, p149–172 (1983).Google Scholar
41. Shoji, T., “Quantitative Prediction of Environmentally Assisted Cracking Based on Crack Tip Strain Rate”, Proc, ASTM/PVP Symposium, “Predictive Capabilities in Environmentally Assisted Cracking”, Miami, November 1985, p12 7–142.Google Scholar
42. Gangloff, R P, “Crack Tip Modeling of Hydrogen Environment Embrittlement: Application to Fracture Mechanics Life Prediction”, submitted to Materials Science and Engineering.Google Scholar
43. Staehle, R W, “Stress Corrosion Cracking of the Fe-Cr-Ni Alloy System”, in “The Theory of Stress Corrosion Cracking in Alloys”, Ed. Scully, J C, NATO, Brussels, p223 (1971).Google Scholar
44. Parkins, R N, “The Stress Corrosion Spectrum”, Brit Corr J 14, p5 (1979).Google Scholar
45. Newman, R C and Sieradzki, K, Scripta Met. 17, 621 (1983).Google Scholar
46. Sieradzki, K and Newman, R C, Philos. Mag. A Vol. 51,95–132 (1985).Google Scholar
47. Sieradzki, K, “Modeling Effects of Thin Film Formation at Crack Tips on Fracture”, in “Modeling Environmental Effects on Crack Growth Processes”, Eds., Jones, R H & Gerberich, W W, TMS-AIME, Warrendale, PA, p187–198 (1986).Google Scholar
48. Taylor, D F and Caramihas, C, “Crevice Corrosion in High Temperature Aqueous Systems: Potential/pH Measurements in Alloy 600 Crevices at 288°C”, J. Electrochem. Soc. 129, p2458 (1982).Google Scholar
49. Taylor, D F and Caramihas, C-Foust, “Cooling Kinetics: Evidence for a Hydrogen Countercell in 304L Stainless Steel Crevices at High Temperatures”, J. Electrochem. Soc. 132, p1811 (1985).Google Scholar
50. Combrade, P, “Prediction of Environmental Crack Growth in Nuclear Power Plant Components”, Semiannual Technical Progress Report #4, June 1984, EPRI Contracts RP2006–1 and RP2006–8.Google Scholar
51. Gabetta, G (CISE, Italy), “Potential Measurements at the Tip of Propagating Cracks”, Minutes of the Int. Cyclic Crack Growth Rate Meeting, Warrington, UK, (May 1984).Google Scholar
52. Ford, F P and Emigh, P, “Prediction of the Maximum Corrosion Fatigue Crack Propagation Rate in Low Alloy Steel / Deoxygenated Water Systems at 288°C”, Corrosion Science, 2, 8/9, p673–692 (1985).Google Scholar
53. Andresen, P L, “Effect of Dissolved Oxygen, Solution Conductivity and Stress Intensity on the Interdendritic Stress Corrosion Cracking of Inconel 182 Weld Metal”, Paper #84, Corrosion/87, NACE, Houston.Google Scholar
54. Andresen, P L, Coffin, L F and Ford, F P, “Smart Monitor / Smart Life Prediction - Feasibility II”, Final Report, EPRI Contract RP2006–14, (September 1987).Google Scholar
55. Niedrach, L W, “A New Membrane Type pH Sensor for Use in High Temperature - High Pressure Water”, J. Electrochem. Soc. 127, p2122 (1980).Google Scholar
56. Niedrach, L W and Stoddard, W H, “Continuous Voltametric Monitoring of Hydrogen and Oxygen in Water”, Anal. Chem. 54, p1651 (1982).Google Scholar
57. Catlin, W R, Lord, D C, Prater, T A and Coffin, L F, “The Reversing DC Electrical Potential Method”, GE CRD TIC Report 83CRD293, December 1983. See also “Automated Test Methods for Fracture and Fatigue Crack Growth”, ASTM STP877, p67–85 (1985).Google Scholar
58. Prater, T A, Catlin, W R and Coffin, L F, “Environmental Crack Growth Measurement Techniques”, Final Report NP-4812M–3 (Sept. 1986).Google Scholar
59. Hazelton, W S, “Technical Report on Material Selection and Processing Guidelines for BWR Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping”. Draft Report NUREG 0313, Rev. 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
60. Jones, R L, “Introduction and Background to Proceedings of 2nd International Atomic Energy Agency Specialists Meeting on Subcritical Crack Growth”, Proc. of 2nd IAEA Specialists Mtg. on Subcritical Crack Growth, May 1985, Sendai, Japan. NRC Document NUREG CP0067, Vol.1, p1–9.Google Scholar
61. Hale, D A, Jewett, C W, and O'Toole, C S, “BWR Coolant Impurities Program”, First Annual Progress Report, EPRI Contract NP2293 (November 1985).Google Scholar