Dr Bin Yang asked an interesting question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_distinguish_between_creep_voids_and_dimples
I am currently working on a phenomenological creep damage model that takes account of (i) creep cavity nucleation, (ii) diffusion controlled creep cavity growth and (iii) plastic hole growth.
The model gives a good prediction of a wide range of creep-fatigue test data (164 tests) on; Cast 1CrMoV, Cast ½CrMoV, Wrought Grade 91, Cast Type 304L, Type 347 Weld Metal, Wrought Type 321, Wrought Type 316H and Type 316H Multi-Pass HAZ; Tested at Temperatures ranging from 538 to 650°C. (see attached plots).
(Note: The black lines show 1, 2 and 0.5, which are acceptable scatter bands. The red lines show a linear fit to the data and the upper and lower 95% prediction intervals to demonstrate whether the model meets the acceptance criterion. )
However, to achieve a good prediction for all of the 164 Creep-Fatigue tests I have to make some assumptions. I am therefore looking for other evidence (such as metallography or theoretical modelling) that supports these assumptions:
The main assumption that has been made is about the conditions under which Plastic Hole Growth dominates and when Plastic Hole Growth is negligible.
Are there any metallographic observations or theoretical modelling that suggests that; Plastic Hole Growth can only dominate; (i) when the total strain is monotonically increasing and/or (ii) when the total strain exceeds a certain value; or (iii) any other relevant observation regarding Plastic Hole Growth at elevated temperature?