Assessing the accuracy of time-fraction and ductility exhaustion approaches for creep-fatigue damage prediction through feature-test validation
Determining creep-fatigue damage formation is critical for elevated temperature components integrity. This study evaluates creep-fatigue assessments with emphasis on differences between creep damage models. Evaluated are the time-fraction model and the classical and stress-modified ductility exhaustion creep damage models. This work extends the domain of stress-modified ductility exhaustion models by introducing and validating such formalism to Ni-based alloys. The fidelity of the assessments was benchmarked against uniaxial creep-fatigue and multiaxial feature tests of Alloy 617. For uniaxial specimens, best estimate predictions rank ductility exhaustion as the most accurate and precise and time-fraction as markedly conservative. For feature tests, ductility exhaustion predictions are within < 4.0 times difference, whereas time-fraction underpredicts life by factors of 7–14. The observations suggest ductility exhaustion models as alternative to time-fraction models in design codes for situations requiring characterization of the design margin. Further work in employing such models to assess other relevant phenomena (e.g., stress relaxation cracking) is discussed.