Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 64 72

www.elsevier.com/locate/msea

Assessment of damage and life prediction of austenitic stainless

steel under high temperature creepfatigue interaction condition
Soo Woo Nam *
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Korea Ad6anced Institute of Science and Technology, 373 -1 Gusong-dong, Yusong-gu,
Taejon 305 -701, South Korea

Abstract

It is understood that grain boundary cavitation is one of the detrimental processes for the degradation of austenitic stainless
steels that reduces the creepfatigue life at high temperatures. A new damage function based on a model for the creepfatigue
life prediction in terms of nucleation and growth of grain boundary cavities is proposed for austenitic stainless steel. This damage
function is a combination of the fatigue and creep terms related to the cavitational damage (cavity nucleation and growth) in the
life prediction equation and is found to be generally applicable to all the materials in which failure is controlled by the grain
boundary cavitational damage. The creepfatigue data from the present and other investigations are used to check the validity
of the proposed damage function, and it is shown that they satisfy the general reliability of damage function. Additionally, using
this damage function, one may realize that all the Coffin Manson plots at the various levels of tensile hold time and temperature
under strain controlled creepfatigue tests can be normalized to make the master curve. Using this master curve, one may easily
calculate the expected creepfatigue life for austenitic stainless steels under tensile hold high temperature low cycle fatigue test
conditions to save much of the testing time and effort. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Austenitic stainless steel; Creepfatigue; Grain boundary cavitation; Damage function; Hold time

1. Introduction increasing test temperature and/or hold time [48]. It is

Many components operating in power-generating
plant are subjected to complex stress-loading cycles at
high temperatures. In order to simulate these loading
cycles under laboratory conditions, numerous tests have
been carried out in which creep and fatigue deforma-
tion are applied simultaneously [1 4]. Among them,
many tests under strain-controlled with different tensile
dwell time (i.e. creep fatigue interaction condition) are
frequently used to simulate the practical loading cycles.
High temperature low cycle fatigue (LCF) experiment
with a tensile hold time at the peak tensile strain
(creep fatigue interaction) is one of the tests commonly
employed for understanding life limiting phenomena in
many components used in power generation and
aeronautics.
Generally, in studies on total strain-controlled
creep fatigue testing, the fatigue life decreases with
* Tel.: +82-42-8693318; fax: +82-42-8693310.
E-mail address: namsw@cais.kaist.ac.kr (S.W. Nam).
well known that the tensile hold time may have the
most pronounced effect on cyclic life in austenitic stain-
less steels, and life reduction occurs as a result of grain
boundary cavitation [79]. Correspondingly, many lit-
eratures have been focused on tensile hold time effects
and creep fatigue life predictions [10,11].
Under low-cycle fatigue condition with or without
hold time, the relation between the number of cycles to
failure (Nf) and the plastic strain range (Dmp) is known
to have the following relationship [12,13]:
DmpN af = constant, (1)
which is known to be the Coffin Manson equation. In
a LCF test, as the tensile hold time increases, the
fatigue life decreases at a fixed test temperature and a
given plastic strain range. Also, if the test temperature
is varied with a given plastic strain range and hold time,
the fatigue life also changes. Therefore, if one plots the
plastic strain range with respect to the fatigue life
obtained under different test temperatures and dura-
tions of hold time, one may get as many straight lines

0921-5093/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 5 0 9 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 1 1 1 8 - 2
 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472 65

as the temperature and hold time vary. Accordingly,
using a Coffin Manson relation obtained for a given
condition, one cannot predict the expected fatigue life
for other conditions.
This presentation introduces a new concept of the
damage function which can normalize all the Coffin
Manson relations generated under the various condi-
tions of different strain range, tensile hold time and
temperature. A model for the creep fatigue life predic-
tion in terms of nucleation and growth of grain
boundary cavities [4] is used in the derivation of the
damage function. In addition to this function, a new
parameter called the cavity nucleation factor, is intro-
duced to explain the relationship between the probabil-
ity of cavity nucleation and the density of grain
boundary carbides.
2. Main damage
It has been reported by the present author that the
grain boundary cavities are formed and grown at car-
bides at the grain boundaries in austenitic stainless steel
under tensile hold during strain-controlled low cycle
fatigue [4].
The cavities were found to have nucleated during the
fatigue cycle. In other words, the number of cavities
increased with increasing the number of fatigue cycles.
The cavities were observed to grow only under tensile
hold part of strain and not under compressive hold.
During the tensile hold period, the peak stress relaxes
with time to give a creep effect thereby leading to cavity
cycle is proportional to the plastic strain range. There-
fore, the number of nucleated cavities during cyclic
loading per unit area of grain boundary, n, is assumed
to be
n= P Dmp N, (2)
where P, Dmp and N are the cavity nucleation factor, the
plastic strain range, and the number of cycles,
respectively.
These generated cavities are assumed to grow during
the hold time period at the tensile peak strain by grain
boundary diffusion of vacancies. The Hull Rimmer
model [14] for the diffusional growth of cavities at grain
boundary is introduced into the model to provide a
good approximation of cavity growth, but the stress
term of the original HullRimmer equation had to be
modified as a function of hold time, t, because load
relaxation occurs during the tensile hold time in creep
fatigue interaction;
dA 2ylDgV|(t)
= , (3)
dt kTl
where A is the cavitated area of a given cavity, l is the
thickness of grain boundary, l is the cavity spacing, Dg
is the grain boundary diffusivity, d is the atomic vol-
ume, |(t) is the tensile peak stress relaxation term
during hold time, k and T are the Boltzmans constant
and temperature in absolute scale, respectively.
It is assumed that the same repeated process is con-
tinued throughout fatigue cycling until the total cavi-
tated area on grain boundaries reaches its critical value.
The expression for the total cavitated area is given by

&
growth. For steels which have well-defined grain the following Eq. (4).
boundaries and thermodynamically stable phases (for
2 2ylDgV t
example, austenitic stainless steel), the main damage At = P 3/2Dm 3/2
p N
5/2
|(t) dt. (4)
under high temperature creep fatigue interaction is 5 kT 0

reported to be the nucleation and growth of grain
boundary cavities.
3. Proposed life prediction model
In 1985, the present author published a paper to
introduce a model for life prediction during low-cycle
fatigue with a hold time at tensile peak strains. This
At the critical number of cycles to failure (Ncr), it is
assumed that the load carrying capacity is drastically
reduced by coalescence of grain boundary cavities and
unstable crack growth begins. The failure due to the
creepfatigue interaction is then controlled by creep
cavitational damage rather than by a process of fatigue
crack initiation and propagation. Thus, from the above
equation, the critical number of cycles to failure by the
mechanism of cavity formation and growth at the grain

 &
model was based on the idea of cavity nucleation and boundaries is given by [4],
growth at the grain boundaries under creep fatigue
cycling conditions. It was assumed that the mechani- Ncr = C(P Dmp) 3/5
exp( Qg/RT) t
|(t) dt
n 2/5
,
cally generated vacancies during tensile portion of fa- T 0
(5)
tigue lead to cavity nucleation (fatigue effect), which

 
subsequently grow during the tensile hold time period where,
(creep effect). 2/5
4yVlD0
This model rationalized that vacancies are formed C= ,
athermally by plastic deformation during fatigue cycle 5kAt
and cluster to form cavities at the grain boundaries. where Qg is the activation energy of grain boundary
Also, it is assumed that the number of cavities in a diffusion and C is a material-dependent constant. Using
66 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472
the experimentally obtained fatigue life at a given con-
dition (i.e. a specific temperature, strain range and
tensile hold time), P in Eq. (5) is calculated by formu-
lating the experimental life to be the same as the
predicted life at the given condition. Using the calcu-
lated value of P, the creep fatigue lives with other
strain ranges and hold times can be calculated.
This equation for life prediction was verified with
published experimental data obtained over a limited
strain range test conditions [4]. It was shown that the
predicted creepfatigue lives were in good agreement
Fig. 1. Comparison between predicted lives calculated from Eq. (5)
and experimental lives for AISI 316 stainless steel [2]. The number
adjacent to each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in
minutes.
Fig. 2. Variation of the cavity nucleation factor with plastic strain
range for AISI 316 stainless steel [2].
with the experimental data for AISI 304 stainless steel
and AISI 316 stainless steel for various hold time
periods [4].
However, the available data used to check the reli-
ability of the model was very limited, since they covered
with only one or two strain ranges.
Recently, as shown in Fig. 1, the present investigator
observed that the predictions from Eq. (5) using a
constant value of P were poor for various strain range
tests due to the dependence of the cavity nucleation
factor on the plastic strain range (Fig. 2) [7].
This systematic deviation indicates that if different
values of P is used for the different strain range test one
may bring all the plots on one straight line. Therefore,
the cavity nucleation factor, P, in Eq. (2) was assumed
to be a function of plastic strain range [7],
P= P%Dm m%
p , (6)
where P% is a new cavity nucleation factor related with
the density of grain boundary carbide and m% is a
numerical constant whose value is found to be in the
range of 0.5 2. Having the values of P% and m% from
the very limited number of tests for a given tempera-
ture, one may predict fatigue lives for many different
temperature regime.
Substituting Eq. (6) into Eq. (2), the number of
cavities in a cycle is represented by the equation.
n= P%Dm m
p N, (7)
where m= m% +1. From this expression, the modified
equation for life prediction is obtained as follows [7];
Ncr = C%(Dmp) 3m/5
exp( Qg/RT) n 2/5
, (8)
T
where,
2/5
4yVlD0
C%= (p%) 3/5.
5kAt
Using Eq. (8), it is confirmed that the predicted lives
are found to be in good agreement with the experimen-
tal ones, as shown in Fig. 3 [7].
In Eq. (8), C% involves only the material and physical
constants. Excluding C%, the right side of Eq. (8) re-
mains the terms which is related with the cavity nucle-
ation and growth. Therefore, using these terms, one
may derive the cavitational damage function.
4. Physical meaning of the cavity nucleation factor
It is generally believed that cavities are nucleated at
geometrical irregularities on the grain boundaries where
high stress concentration can be developed [1517].
Therefore, it can be assumed that the modified cavity
nucleation factor, P%, is associated with the characteris-
tics of grain boundary precipitates acting as cavity
nucleation sites. The creepfatigue test results of the
 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472
Fig. 3. Comparison between predicted lives calculated from Eq. (8)
and experimental lives for AISI 316 stainless steel [2]. The number at
each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in minutes.
three different phosphorus-containing AISI 304L stain-
less steels were discussed in a previous publication to
establish a physical meaning of P% [7]. Since the segre-
Fig. 4. SEM micrographs showing the distribution of grain boundary carbides for three different AISI 304L stainless steels containing: (a) 0.028
wt.% (CSS); (b) 0.09 wt.% (PSS1); (c) 0.209 wt.% (PSS2) of phosphorus.
67
gation of phosphorus slow down the diffusion rate to
retard the precipitation of grain boundary carbides, the
density of grain boundary carbides is decreased with
increasing the content of phosphorus as shown in Fig.
4. To quantify the distribution of the grain boundary
carbides, the linear density of the carbides was mea-
sured by an image analyzer with SEM micrographs.
The relationship between the calculated values of P%
and the linear densities of grain boundary precipitates
for the three materials is shown in Fig. 5. P% is found to
be closely related with the density of grain boundary
precipitates giving a linear relationship between them.
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that P% is a material
constant associated with the characteristics of grain
boundary precipitates.
5. Normalized Coffin Manson relation
The Coffin Manson equation has been shown to
provide a good method for correlating the continuous
LCF test results for a variety of materials under a wide
range of temperature [18]. The plastic strain range (Dmp)
is the only material deformation parameter required for
measuring damage in this case. However, under creep
68 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472
Dm m
Fig. 5. Relationship between the linear density of grain boundary
carbides and new cavity nucleation factor, P%.
fatigue interaction conditions, the important life limit-
ing factors are test temperature, stress relaxation during
hold time, wave shape and strain range. Based on a
micro-damaging mechanism of a material, the expres-
sion of the damage formation process in terms of these
experimental variables may be defined as the damage
function.
Eq. (8), which is proposed for the life prediction on
the basis of the grain boundary cavitation, contains
above mentioned experimental variables. Rearranging
this equation by considering the constant terms (P%, d,
l, D0, k and At ) in Eq. (8) are considered to be one
constant term, one may get a simplified equation which
is similar to the Coffin Manson relation as follow:
 !
Dm m
p
exp( Qg/RT) & t
|(t)dt
"n
2/3
N 5/3
cr =constant.
T 0
(9)
And it can be found that the terms in the square
brackets are inherently related with cavitational dam-
age. Since Dm mp is related to the number of cavities
nucleated in every fatigue cycle and the experimental
term originates from cavity growth by grain boundary
diffusion due to stress relaxation during the hold time
period. The physical meaning of the product of these
two terms is that it represents the amount of critical
damage generated by the interaction between creep and
fatigue effects under creep fatigue interaction tests
with tensile hold. Therefore, one may think this product
term as a damage function, and the above equation can
be used for normalizing all the experimental data under
creepfatigue interaction with many different test
conditions.
6. Damage function
From the above consideration, the damage function,
! & "
DC F, is defined.
t 2/3
exp( Qg/RT)
DC F
p |(t)dt . (10)
T 0
According to this definition, the Eq. (9) can be reduced
to be the following type.
DC FN 5/3
cr = constant or
ln DC F = lnconstant+( 5/3)lnNcr. (11)
It is realized that Eq. (11) expresses a quantitative
relation between the new cavitational damage function
and the creepfatigue life. It can be seen that Eq. (11)
becomes a mathematical expression of a master curve
which normalizes all the experimental data under many
different creepfatigue test conditions. Therefore, this
equation can be expressed as a normalized Coffin
Manson relation.The theoretical slope of the double
logarithmic plot between DC F and Ncr is found to be
5/3 or 1.67.
7. Results and discussion
Depending on the damage mechanism under creep
fatigue conditions, many high temperature materials
fail by two different failure modes. One represented by
austenitic stainless steels and the other by CrMo( V)
type steels and superalloys. Recently, Choi [8] has
shown that tension hold times leading to grain
boundary cavitation are the more damaging in stainless
steels than equivalent hold time in compression or
tension and compression hold time [1933]. However,
Cr Mo( V) steels and superalloys are most damaged
by the crack-tip deformation mechanisms [3444] dur-
ing compression or tension and compression hold times
due to strain concentration within the process zone by
Oh and Nam [45]. Similarly, Ostegren [46] also
classified the materials into two groups. In both investi-
gations, it was suggested that the austenitic stainless
steels are damaged by cavitation under creepfatigue
cycling. So, in this study, the creepfatigue results of
austenitic stainless steels are used to check the proposed
model.
The validity of the concept of the new cavitational
damage function has been checked using the experi-
mental results obtained by the present author and other
investigators [2,19,20], independently. There are numer-
ous test results for creepfatigue interaction of the
austenitic stainless steels. However, only the above
mentioned results could be used to check the model,
simply because only they have the data for the stress
relaxation during hold time in various strain ranges and
tensile hold time.
 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472 69

Fig. 6a and Fig. 7a show a typical example of

Coffin Manson plot on creep fatigue result for AISI
304 and AISI 316 stainless steel tested by the present
authors. In this plot, each straight line is needed to
represent the particular relationship between plastic
strain range and fatigue life at each tensile hold time
and temperature. This result implies that the Coffin
Manson relation cannot be used as a generalized
parameters for describing the damaging process occur-
ring during different creep fatigue cycling conditions.
Fig. 6b, Fig. 7b and Fig. 8 show Coffin Manson plots
for the creepfatigue results obtained by other investi-
gators on AISI 316 [2], AISI 304 [19] and INCOLOY
800 stainless steel [20], respectively. These figures also
show that for each experimental condition there is an
equivalent Coffin Manson equation for the particular

Fig. 7. (a) Coffin Manson plot for AISI 316 stainless steel for
different tensile hold time; (b) Coffin Manson plot for AISI 316
stainless steel [2]. The number at each datum point indicates the
tensile hold time in minutes.

Fig. 6. (a) Coffin Manson plot for AISI 304 stainless steel. The
number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in
minutes; (b) Coffin Manson plot for AISI 304 stainless steel [19].
condition.
In Eq. (10), the value of the numerical constant,
m(= m%+1), has to be known for calculating the dam-
age function (DC F). As stated previously [7], regarding
the dependence of the cavity nucleation factor on plas-
tic strain range, the value of m% can be calculated from
the slope of a log (plastic strain range)log (cavity
nucleation factor) plot. Fig. 9 shows the variation of
the values of the cavity nucleation factor with plastic
strain range for various materials, and the calculated
value of m% is indicated in the figure.
Substituting the results of the creepfatigue tests
listed in the Tables III through VII in reference [47] and
the values of the numerical constant, m%, for these
alloys into Eq. (11), one may get the plots shown in
70 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472
Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. As shown in these figures, a linear
relationship between the damage function and the
creepfatigue life is obtained in a double logarithmic
plot, and one can know that it is a normalized form of
Coffin Manson plot with various test conditions. To
see whether our model is valid for other experimental
results conducted by other investigators, as in the pre-
ceding analysis, the other experimental data were used
to check the above concept. Fig. 12a c show the plots
Fig. 8. Coffin Manson plot for INCOLOY 800 stainless [20].
Fig. 9. Variation of the cavity nucleation factor with plastic strain
range for various materials [7].
Fig. 10. Normalized Coffin Manson plot for AISI 304 stainless steel.
The number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in
minutes.
Fig. 11. Normalized Coffin Manson plot for AISI 316 stainless steel.
The number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in
minutes.
of the damage function against the creepfatigue lives
for AISI 316 [2], AISI 304 [19] and INCOLOY 800
stainless steel [20]. The excellent linear relationships are
also found for these materials. Therefore, from the
above results one can confirm that the concept of the
new damage function is generally applicable to the
materials in which the failure is controlled by the creep
cavitational damage under creepfatigue interaction
condition.
Also, the proposed concept is supported by consider-
ing the slope of the straight line in Figs. 10 12. In these
 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472 71

figures the measured value of the slope of the normal-
ized Coffin Manson plot is found to be l.62
l.66. Comparing these values with the predicted value
( l.67) in Eq. (11), it is seen that they are in excellent
agreement with the calculated value of the slope. This
result reasonably supports the fact that the proposed
new damage function represents the accumulation of
the creep cavitational damage in creep fatigue cycling.
In summary, the proposed model based on the accu-
operational parameters such as working stress level,
operational temperature, and/or duration of working
period if the expected life is known.
8. Conclusions
(1) A new cavitational damage function which is
expressed in terms of several experimental variables is

! & "
mulation of cavitational damage on grain boundary is derived.
considered to be a good explanation for defining the t 2/3
exp( Qg/RT)
damage function under creep fatigue condition. The DC-F Dm m
p |(t)dt
significant meaning of this new function is that it can T 0

predict the fatigue life with tensile hold time by estimat- (2) The proposed damage function is shown to nor-
ing a damage function, or it can give the design and malize all the test results of stainless steels under creep

Fig. 12. (a) Normalized CoffinManson plot for AISI 316 stainless steel [2]. The number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold time in
minutes; (b) Normalized CoffinManson plot for AISI 304 stainless steel [19]. The number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold time
in minutes; (c) Normalized CoffinManson plot for INCOLOY 800 stainless steel [20]. The number at each datum point indicates the tensile hold
time in minutes.
72 S.W. Nam / Materials Science and Engineering A322 (2002) 6472
fatigue interaction conditions with high temperature
tensile hold. It can be used for more accurate life
predictions under creep fatigue conditions in which the
failure is controlled by the grain boundary cavitational
damage than the Coffin Manson relationship.
(3) The modified cavity nucleation factor, P%, which
is regarded as a material specific constant, is found to
be closely related with the density of grain boundary
precipitates which act as cavity nucleation sites.
References
[1] E.G. Ellison, A.J.F. Paterson, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 190 (1976)
333.
[2] C.R. Brinkman, G.E. Korth, R.R. Hobbins, Nucl. Tech. 16
(1972) 297.
[3] J. Wareing, Metall. Trans. A 8A (1978) 711.
[4] J.W. Hong, S.W. Nam, K.-T. Rie, J. Mater. Sci. 20 (1985) 3763.
[5] J.B. Conway, J.T. Berling, Metall. Trans. A 1A (1970) 324
Comm.
[6] J.B. Conway, J.T. Berling, R.H. Stentz, Metall. Trans. A 2A
(1971) 3247 Comm.
[7] B.G. Choi, S.W. Nam, Y.C. Yoon, J.J. Kim, J. Mater. Sci. 31
(1996) 4957.
[8] B.G. Choi, M.S. Thesis, Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology, Taejon, 1994
[9] R. Raj, M.F. Ashby, Acta Metall. 23 (1975) 653.
[10] P. Agatonovic, N. Taylor, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Creep and
Fracture of Engineering Materials and Structures, In: Institute of
Metals, Swansea, England, April 1 6, 1990, p. 803.
[11] P. Agatonovic, N. Taylor, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Mechanical
Behaviour of Materials, In: Pergamon Press, Kyoto, Japan, July
29 August 2, 1991, p. 303.
[12] L.F. Coffin Jr., J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 76 (1954) 931.
[13] S.S. Manson, NASA Technical Note 2933, Cleveland, 1954.
[14] D. Hull, D.E. Rimmer, Phil. Mag. 4 (1959) 673.
[15] R.G. Fleck, D.M.R. Taplin, C.J. Beevers, Acta Metall. 23 (1975)
415.
[16] A.S. Argon, Scripta Metall. 17 (1983) 5.
[17] J.M. Lee, S.W. Nam, Int. J. Damage Mech. 2 (1993) 4.
[18] L.F. Coffin, J.R. Tavernelli, Trans. Amer. Inst. Mining Metall.
Petro. Eng. 215 (1959) 794.
[19] A.M. Ermi, J. Moteff, Metall. Trans. A 13A (1982) 1577.
[20] C.E. Jaske, H. Mindlin, J.S. Perrin, J. Eng. Industry ASME 94
(1972) 930.
[21] R.A. Perkins, R.A. Padgett Jr., N.K. Tunali, Metall. Trans. 4
(1973) 2535.
[22] Y.C. Yoon, S.W. Nam, J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 13 (1994) 1270.
[23] S. Majumdar, P.S. Maiya, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 102
(1980) 159.
[24] P.S. Maiya, S. Majumdar, Metall. Trans. A 8A (1977) 1651.
[25] C.Y. Cheng, D.R. Diercks, Metall. Trans. A 4A (1973) 615.
[26] R.D. Campbell, J. Eng. Industry ASME 93 (1971) 887.
[27] P.S. Maiya, Mater. Sci. Eng. 47 (1981) 13.
[28] A.M. Ermi, J. Moteff, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 105 (1983)
21.
[29] V.M. Radhkrishnan, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 105 (1983)
273.
[30] C.R. Brinkman, G.E. Korth, Metall. Trans. 5 (1974) 792.
[31] R. Hales, Fatigue Eng. Mater. Struct. 3 (1980) 339.
[32] D.S. Wood, J. Wynn, A.B. Baldwin, P. Oriordan, Fatigue Eng.
Mater. Struct. 3 (1980) 39.
[33] M. Sakane, M. Ohnami, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 105 (1980)
75.
[34] K.-T. Rie, E. Lachman, J. Ruge, Advaced in Fracture Research,
Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Fracture, In: D. Francois (Ed.), Cannes,
France, 1981, p. 2371.
[35] S.W. Nam, J.W. Hong, K.-T. Rie, Metall. Trans. A 19A (1988)
121.
[36] B.O. Kong, S.C. Lee, S.W. Nam, J. Korean Inst. Met. 29 (1991)
514.
[37] C.R. Brinkman, M.K. Strizak, N.K. Booker, C.E. Jaske, J.
Nucl. Mater. 62 (1976) 181.
[38] W.J. Elder, J.B. Marriott, M.C. Murphy, Fatigue at Elevated
Temperature, ASTM STP 520, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, 1973,
p. 320.
[39] K.D. Challenger, P.G. Vining, J. Eng. Mater. Tech. ASME 105
(1983) 280.
[40] H. Teranishi, A.J. McEvily, Metall. Trans. A 10A (1979) 1806.
[41] K.D. Challenger, A.K. Miller, C.R. Brinkman, J. Eng. Mater.
Tech. ASME 103 (1981) 7.
[42] T. Endo, T. Sakon, Metals Tech. 11 (1984) 489.
[43] J.H. Ryu, Ph.D. Thesis, Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology, Taejon, 1989.
[44] D.C. Lord, L.F. Coffin Jr., Metall. Trans. 4 (1973) 1647.
[45] Y.J. Oh, S.W. Nam, J. Mater. Sci. 27 (1992) 2019.
[46] W.J. Ostergren, Proc. of the ASME-MPC Symposium on creep
fatigue interaction, ASME, New York, 1976, p. 179.
[47] S.W. Nam, Y.C. Yoon, B.G. Choi, Metall. Trans. A 27A (1996)
1273.