Data‐driven prediction of the probability of creep–fatigue crack initiation in 316H stainless steel
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Stainless steel components in advanced gas‐cooled reactors (AGRs) are susceptible to creep–fatigue cracking at high temperatures. Quantifying the probability of creep–fatigue crack initiation requires probabilistic numerical simulations; these are complex and computationally intensive. Here, we present a data‐driven approach to develop fast probabilistic surrogate models of creep–fatigue crack initiation in 316H stainless steel. We perform a set of Monte Carlo simulations based on the R5V2/3 high temperature assessment procedure and determine the sensitivity of the probability of crack initiation to loads and operating conditions. The data are used to train different supervised machine learning models considering Bayesian hyperparameter optimization. We discuss the relative performance of such models and show that a gradient tree boosting algorithm results in surrogate models with the highest accuracy.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nuclear Materials and Properties · High Temperature Alloys and Creep · Fatigue and fracture mechanics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Materials University of Oxford Oxford UK
Department of Aeronautics Imperial College London London UK
References (63)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1111/ffe.1357210.1111/ffe.13572 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.10802810.1016/j.engfracmech.2021.108028 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2013.08.00210.1016/j.ijpvp.2013.08.002 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.05.00710.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.05.007 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.10470910.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104709 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.10494810.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104948 ↗
7. Kroese DP · 2013
8. 10.1007/s11740-010-0282-x10.1007/s11740-010-0282-x ↗
9. 10.1007/s00170-010-2897-710.1007/s00170-010-2897-7 ↗
10. 10.1007/s12289-009-0679-210.1007/s12289-009-0679-2 ↗
11. 10.2478/s13531-011-0074-x10.2478/s13531-011-0074-x ↗
12. 10.1007/s11740-010-0232-710.1007/s11740-010-0232-7 ↗
13. Modelling of surface roughness in CNC face milling of alloy stellite 6
14. 10.1016/j.addma.2020.10153810.1016/j.addma.2020.101538 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11251410.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112514 ↗
16. 10.1038/srep0281010.1038/srep02810 ↗
17. 10.1038/s41524-017-0056-510.1038/s41524-017-0056-5 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.cma.2020.11329910.1016/j.cma.2020.113299 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.cma.2020.11348210.1016/j.cma.2020.113482 ↗
20. 10.1038/s41598-021-94957-010.1038/s41598-021-94957-0 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.10519410.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.105194 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10750810.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107508 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10552710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105527 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.04310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2019.02.043 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.eswa.2020.11431610.1016/j.eswa.2020.114316 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10594110.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.105941 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.10673010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2022.106730 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10671610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106716 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10619010.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106190 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.10613610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2020.106136 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10635610.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106356 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.10996210.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109962 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.10740210.1016/j.engfracmech.2020.107402 ↗
34. 10.1016/j.jmps.2018.03.00710.1016/j.jmps.2018.03.007 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.10656710.1016/j.engfracmech.2019.106567 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.actamat.2020.05.00110.1016/j.actamat.2020.05.001 ↗
37. 10.1115/1.404728110.1115/1.4047281 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.actamat.2019.02.01710.1016/j.actamat.2019.02.017 ↗
39. 10.1007/s11837-020-04423-x10.1007/s11837-020-04423-x ↗
40. 10.1038/s41598-020-72969-610.1038/s41598-020-72969-6 ↗
41. 10.1016/S0142-1123(03)00064-110.1016/S0142-1123(03)00064-1 ↗
42. 10.1016/S0142-1123(98)00071-110.1016/S0142-1123(98)00071-1 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.ast.2019.10543910.1016/j.ast.2019.105439 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.10.00510.1016/j.ijfatigue.2018.10.005 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.10507410.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.105074 ↗
46. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10667710.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106677 ↗
47. 10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.10653310.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106533 ↗
48. EDF Energy
49. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code
50. Moffat A · 2015
51. Spindler MW · 2013
52. Scikit‐learn: machine learning in Python
53. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11350510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113505 ↗
54. 10.1214/aos/101320345110.1214/aos/1013203451 ↗
55. 10.1007/978-1-4614-6849-310.1007/978-1-4614-6849-3 ↗
56. Linear model. scikit‐learn.org.https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/linear_model.html
57. 10.1090/conm/443/0855510.1090/conm/443/08555 ↗
58. 10.1145/1015330.101533210.1145/1015330.1015332 ↗
59. Stochastic gradient descent. scikit‐learn.org.https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/sgd.html#id16
60. 10.1023/A:101093340432410.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
61. Breiman L · 1984
62. 10.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.8810.1023/B:STCO.0000035301.49549.88 ↗
63. McClelland JL · 1986