Show simple item record

contributor authorHan, Yile
contributor authorHuang, Song
contributor authorHui, Hu
date accessioned2024-12-24T19:17:02Z
date available2024-12-24T19:17:02Z
date copyright2/26/2024 12:00:00 AM
date issued2024
identifier issn0094-9930
identifier otherpvt_146_02_021701.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4303653
description abstractThis paper compares the difference and accuracy of bursting pressure prediction based on the flow stress σf prediction method, plastic collapse prediction method, and ductile damage model prediction method in Inconel 690 steam generator tube (SGT) with volume defect. The tensile and smooth tube bursting tests determine the parameters required for the three prediction methods. The three methods predict the bursting pressures for four deep volume defects in SGT. The results are compared and analyzed with the experimental data. The results show that the ductile damage model prediction method is the best to predict the SGT bursting pressure error with volume defects simulating the structure's deformation and damage failure process.
publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
titleComparative Analysis of Bursting Pressure Prediction Methods for Steam Generator Tube With Volume Defect
typeJournal Paper
journal volume146
journal issue2
journal titleJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology
identifier doi10.1115/1.4064699
journal fristpage21701-1
journal lastpage21701-9
page9
treeJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology:;2024:;volume( 146 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record