文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：核电高温设备蠕变强度评价方法对比研究

英文题名：A comparative study on creep evaluation methods of elevated temperature equipment in nuclear applications

作者：莫亚飞[1];龚程[2,3];高付海[1,2];宫建国[2];轩福贞[2]

机构：[1]中国原子能科学研究院,北京102413;[2]华东理工大学承压系统与安全教育部重点实验室,上海200237;[3]武汉工程大学机电工程学院,武汉430205

年份：2022

卷号：39

期号：7

起止页码：35

中文期刊名：压力容器

外文期刊名：Pressure Vessel Technology

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2020】；

基金：国家自然科学基金项目(52175139)。

语种：中文

中文关键词：高温设备;蠕变;结构完整性;ASME规范;RCC-MRx;R5

外文关键词：high temperature equipment;creep;structural integrity;ASME code;RCC-MRx;R5

摘要：蠕变是核电高温设备的主要损伤模式之一,其强度评价是高温设备强度设计中需要重点关注的内容。为系统分析不同蠕变强度评价方法的差异,基于现有主流高温规范规程(ASME,RCC-MRx, R5)中的蠕变强度评价方法,结合典型结构件蠕变试验数据,开展不同蠕变评价方法的定量对比,系统分析保守度差异及产生原因。结果表明:无论ASME规范还是RCC-MRx中的弹性分析方法,其所得蠕变强度评价结果均过于保守;而非弹性分析方法的保守度显著低于弹性分析方法。R5中分析方法的保守度大幅小于ASME规范与RCC-MRx规范,主要由R5中蠕变损伤评价限值S的低安全系数所致。
Creep is one of the main damage modes of the high temperature equipment in nuclear applications, and the corresponding creep evaluation is essential for the structural design of nuclear components.In order to discuss the differences between creep evaluation methods, the creep design methods in current design codes and standards(e.g.,ASME,RCC-MRx, R5) around the world were provided.A comparative study on conservativeness of these methods was conducted in combination with the creep test data of typical engineering components.The causes for the differences of the creep design conservativeness was analyzed.The results show that the creep strength evaluation results obtained by the elastic analysis method in ASME or RCC-MRx are too conservative, while the inelastic analysis method shows substantially smaller conservativeness than the elastic analysis method.The conservativeness of the analysis method in R5 is significantly lower than that in ASME and RCC-MRx, mainly due to the low safety factor of creep damage evaluation limit S.