Advertisement

Materials pp 167-174 | Cite as

Superconductor Conduits: Fatigue Crack Growth Rate and Near-Threshold Behavior of Three Alloys

  • A. Bussiba
  • R. L. Tobler
  • J. R. Berger
Part of the Advances in Cryogenic Engineering book series (ACRE, volume 38)

Abstract

Three superconductor sheath alloys were fatigue-tested at 4 K to evaluate their suitability for International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor magnets. The alloys tested were low carbon 316LN (0.018C), niobium-modified 316LN (0.0090, 0.05Nb) and nickel-based alloy 908. Threshold stress intensity factors ΔKth at 10−10m/cycle and near threshold fatigue crack growth rates were measured using the short crack simulation technique which avoids crack closure. Results indicate some advantage of 908 over the 316LN alloys. Also, microstructural effects on fatigue resistance are identified, mainly for 316LN (0.018C), where ΔKth increases with decreasing grain size.

Keywords

Stress Intensity Factor Crack Closure Intergranular Fracture Fatigue Crack Growth Rate International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Ohta, E. Sasaki, M. Nikei, N. Kanao, and M. Inagaki, Int. J. Fat. 4:233–237 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Geary and J.E. King, Int. J. Fat. 9:11–16 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.E. Allison and C.P. You, Fatigue 90 EMAS Ltd (1990).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. Doker, V. Bachman, and G. Marci, Fatigue Thresholds EMAS Ltd (1982).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Hertzberg, W. Herman, T. Clark, and R. Jaccard, Symposium on Small-Crack Test Methods Nov. 14, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Tobler, J.R. Berger, and A. Bussiba, Long Crack Fatigue Thresholds and Short Crack Simulation at Liquid Helium Temperature, this volume.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Shimada and S. Tone, Adv. Cryo. Eng. 34:131–139 (1988).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.L. Tobler and Y.W. Cheng, Int. J. Fat. 7:191–197 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.K. Musava and J.C. Radon, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Fract. Cannes,France, 1365 (1981).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Higo, A.C. Pickard, and J.F. Knott, Met. Sci. 15: 233–240 (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.E. King, Met. Sci. 16: 345 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Hornbogen and K.H.Z. Gahr, Acta Metall. 24: 581–592 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Bussiba
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. L. Tobler
    • 1
  • J. R. Berger
    • 1
  1. 1.Materials Reliability DivisionNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyBoulderUSA
  2. 2.the Nuclear Research Center-NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations