Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHan, Yile
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Song
dc.contributor.authorHui, Hu
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-24T19:17:02Z
dc.date.available2024-12-24T19:17:02Z
dc.date.copyright2/26/2024 12:00:00 AM
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.issn0094-9930
dc.identifier.otherpvt_146_02_021701.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4303653
dc.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.
dc.publisherThe American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
dc.titleComparative Analysis of Bursting Pressure Prediction Methods for Steam Generator Tube With Volume Defect
dc.typeJournal Paper
dc.journal.volume146
dc.journal.issue2
dc.journal.titleJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology
dc.identifier.doi10.1115/1.4064699
dc.journal.fristpage21701-1
dc.journal.lastpage21701-9
dc.page9
dc.treeJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology:;2024:;volume( 146 ):;issue: 002
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record