Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis

Géraud Blatman, Jean-Christophe Roux, Kim Wallin, Jussi Solin, Thomas Métais, Ertugrul Karabaki, Wolfgang Mayinger

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference article in proceedingsScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Fatigue curves are receiving nowadays an increased level of attention in the wake of experimental campaigns showing that the original ASME III mean air curve, also known as the Langer curve [1], does not represent accurately part of the recently obtained laboratory data. EDF, VTT and E.ON have been working towards a relevant fatigue assessment strategy. The three organizations recently exchanged HCF databases, providing a common benchmark to test and compare the various analysis methods. Following the 2014 PVP paper [2], several statistical approaches are being investigated. A special focus is given to methods able to properly account for run-out data points, which do not have the same statistical significance as failed data points. Besides, it has to be noted that only a limited number of material grades are used in NPP primary loop components and in each case, the material batches are identified and specified in de-tail. Therefore, a more accurate and relevant fatigue assessment might be obtained by splitting large datasets that generally mix various testing conditions and material grades. A comparison is made between a "mixed" approach and a "separated" one, in which the fatigue assessment is performed successively for two or more subsets, e.g. associated with two testing temperature ranges and/or steel grades. Both "mixed" and "separated" strategies are applied to the EDF and the E.ON databases containing fatigue data in different temperatures for non-stabilized and stabilized austenitic stainless steels. The resulting data scatters are compared and the significance of these statistical approaches to fatigue assessment is discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
PublisherAmerican Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME
ISBN (Print)978-0-7918-5036-7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016
MoE publication typeA4 Article in a conference publication
EventASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference - Vancouver, Canada
Duration: 17 Jul 201621 Jul 2016

Conference

ConferenceASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference
CountryCanada
CityVancouver
Period17/07/1621/07/16

Fingerprint

Statistical methods
Fatigue of materials
Testing
Austenitic stainless steel
Temperature
Steel
Air

Cite this

Blatman, G., Roux, J-C., Wallin, K., Solin, J., Métais, T., Karabaki, E., & Mayinger, W. (2016). Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis. In ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2016-63141
Blatman, Géraud ; Roux, Jean-Christophe ; Wallin, Kim ; Solin, Jussi ; Métais, Thomas ; Karabaki, Ertugrul ; Mayinger, Wolfgang. / Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis. ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME, 2016.
@inproceedings{c85a5b03df2d446fb319c8a6381f86b7,
title = "Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis",
abstract = "Fatigue curves are receiving nowadays an increased level of attention in the wake of experimental campaigns showing that the original ASME III mean air curve, also known as the Langer curve [1], does not represent accurately part of the recently obtained laboratory data. EDF, VTT and E.ON have been working towards a relevant fatigue assessment strategy. The three organizations recently exchanged HCF databases, providing a common benchmark to test and compare the various analysis methods. Following the 2014 PVP paper [2], several statistical approaches are being investigated. A special focus is given to methods able to properly account for run-out data points, which do not have the same statistical significance as failed data points. Besides, it has to be noted that only a limited number of material grades are used in NPP primary loop components and in each case, the material batches are identified and specified in de-tail. Therefore, a more accurate and relevant fatigue assessment might be obtained by splitting large datasets that generally mix various testing conditions and material grades. A comparison is made between a {"}mixed{"} approach and a {"}separated{"} one, in which the fatigue assessment is performed successively for two or more subsets, e.g. associated with two testing temperature ranges and/or steel grades. Both {"}mixed{"} and {"}separated{"} strategies are applied to the EDF and the E.ON databases containing fatigue data in different temperatures for non-stabilized and stabilized austenitic stainless steels. The resulting data scatters are compared and the significance of these statistical approaches to fatigue assessment is discussed.",
author = "G{\'e}raud Blatman and Jean-Christophe Roux and Kim Wallin and Jussi Solin and Thomas M{\'e}tais and Ertugrul Karabaki and Wolfgang Mayinger",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1115/PVP2016-63141",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-0-7918-5036-7",
booktitle = "ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference",
publisher = "American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME",
address = "United States",

}

Blatman, G, Roux, J-C, Wallin, K, Solin, J, Métais, T, Karabaki, E & Mayinger, W 2016, Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis. in ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME, ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vancouver, Canada, 17/07/16. https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2016-63141

Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis. / Blatman, Géraud; Roux, Jean-Christophe; Wallin, Kim; Solin, Jussi; Métais, Thomas; Karabaki, Ertugrul; Mayinger, Wolfgang.

ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME, 2016.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference article in proceedingsScientificpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis

AU - Blatman, Géraud

AU - Roux, Jean-Christophe

AU - Wallin, Kim

AU - Solin, Jussi

AU - Métais, Thomas

AU - Karabaki, Ertugrul

AU - Mayinger, Wolfgang

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Fatigue curves are receiving nowadays an increased level of attention in the wake of experimental campaigns showing that the original ASME III mean air curve, also known as the Langer curve [1], does not represent accurately part of the recently obtained laboratory data. EDF, VTT and E.ON have been working towards a relevant fatigue assessment strategy. The three organizations recently exchanged HCF databases, providing a common benchmark to test and compare the various analysis methods. Following the 2014 PVP paper [2], several statistical approaches are being investigated. A special focus is given to methods able to properly account for run-out data points, which do not have the same statistical significance as failed data points. Besides, it has to be noted that only a limited number of material grades are used in NPP primary loop components and in each case, the material batches are identified and specified in de-tail. Therefore, a more accurate and relevant fatigue assessment might be obtained by splitting large datasets that generally mix various testing conditions and material grades. A comparison is made between a "mixed" approach and a "separated" one, in which the fatigue assessment is performed successively for two or more subsets, e.g. associated with two testing temperature ranges and/or steel grades. Both "mixed" and "separated" strategies are applied to the EDF and the E.ON databases containing fatigue data in different temperatures for non-stabilized and stabilized austenitic stainless steels. The resulting data scatters are compared and the significance of these statistical approaches to fatigue assessment is discussed.

AB - Fatigue curves are receiving nowadays an increased level of attention in the wake of experimental campaigns showing that the original ASME III mean air curve, also known as the Langer curve [1], does not represent accurately part of the recently obtained laboratory data. EDF, VTT and E.ON have been working towards a relevant fatigue assessment strategy. The three organizations recently exchanged HCF databases, providing a common benchmark to test and compare the various analysis methods. Following the 2014 PVP paper [2], several statistical approaches are being investigated. A special focus is given to methods able to properly account for run-out data points, which do not have the same statistical significance as failed data points. Besides, it has to be noted that only a limited number of material grades are used in NPP primary loop components and in each case, the material batches are identified and specified in de-tail. Therefore, a more accurate and relevant fatigue assessment might be obtained by splitting large datasets that generally mix various testing conditions and material grades. A comparison is made between a "mixed" approach and a "separated" one, in which the fatigue assessment is performed successively for two or more subsets, e.g. associated with two testing temperature ranges and/or steel grades. Both "mixed" and "separated" strategies are applied to the EDF and the E.ON databases containing fatigue data in different temperatures for non-stabilized and stabilized austenitic stainless steels. The resulting data scatters are compared and the significance of these statistical approaches to fatigue assessment is discussed.

U2 - 10.1115/PVP2016-63141

DO - 10.1115/PVP2016-63141

M3 - Conference article in proceedings

SN - 978-0-7918-5036-7

BT - ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference

PB - American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME

ER -

Blatman G, Roux J-C, Wallin K, Solin J, Métais T, Karabaki E et al. Statistical methods and database splitting for hcf data analysis. In ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME. 2016 https://doi.org/10.1115/PVP2016-63141