Anda di halaman 1dari 33

NO VTT-R-08651-12 | 11.1.

2013
RESEARCH REPORT

FRESH Task 3 - Categorization of stresses

NPP piping Stress component treatment -


Part 1 - Theoretical comparison of nuclear
codes and analysis procedures
Author(s): Otso Cronvall

Confidentiality: Public
1 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Reports title
NPP piping Stress component treatment - Part 1 - Theoretical comparison of nuclear codes
and analysis procedures
Customer, contact person, address Order reference(s)
State Nuclear Waste Management Fund (VYR), Teollisuuden Dnro: 30/2012SAF
Voima Oyj (TVO) and VTT
Project name Project number/Short name
Fatigue affected by REsidual Stresses, environment and 77506/FRESH 2012
tHermal fluctuations (FRESH)
Author(s) Pages
Otso Cronvall 32 / 0
Keywords Report identification code
thermal stress, plastic strain correction factor, stress linearization VTT-R-08651-12
Summary
This study is divided into two parts, which are theoretical and numerical comparison of nuclear codes and analysis
procedures. The scope of the first part, being this part, covers the theoretical comparison.

Thermal stresses have an important role in the NPP piping fitness-for-service analyses. The treatment of this stress component
depends, among other things, how it is categorized. Thus, a review on the issue is presented. According to the codes and
guidelines, in the top level the stress components are separated into primary and secondary categories. Most often the thermal
stresses are categorised as secondary stresses, however, in some cases they are categorised as primary stresses. When
computing with finite element (FE) code and using elastic-plastic material model, the resulting total stresses are correct.
However, it is not possible to exactly separate the magnitude of the thermal stresses from such total stresses which exceed the
yield strength.

The interaction of thermal stresses with other stress components is another relevant issue, and procedures to take that
phenomenon into account are presented. The R6 Method, Rev. 4, SINTAP Procedure, FITNET Procedure, SSM handbook
and FKM Guideline provide plasticity corrections for the computation of mode I stress intensity factor, KI, values for cracks,
applying plasticity correction parameters and V. As for more recent developments, James et al. have presented a new
definition for plasticity correction parameter, g( ).

To take into account the elastic-plastic effects in the computation of stress ranges, plastic strain correction factor, Ke, is used.
In the context of the commonly applied fitness-for-service codes, i.e. the ASME Code, safety standard KTA 3201.2 and RCC-
M code, the Ke factor is part of the fatigue design procedure. This is an important issue from the viewpoint of computational
fatigue life of NPP piping components. Unfortunately, the Ke factor definitions according to these codes are often overly
conservative, e.g. those in the ASME code. Thus, more realistic but still to a reasonable extent conservative Ke definitions are
needed. A review of both conservative and more realistic Ke definition procedures is presented.

The linearized stresses are used in crack growth computations, which in turn are needed e.g. for planning of inspections and
qualification of inspection techniques. Of the considered codes, ASME Section XI and KTA 3201.2 describe the linearization
of stress distribution through wall with text and illustrative figures. Whereas the FITNET Procedure gives a more detailed
description of the linearization of stresses, providing also the necessary equations.
Confidentiality Public
Espoo 11.1.2013
Signatures Signatures Signatures

Written by Otso Cronvall Reviewed by Michael Chauhan Accepted by Eila Lehmus


Senior Scientist Research Scientist Technology Manager
VTTs contact address
P.O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT
Distribution (customer and VTT)
SAFIR2014 Reference Group 6 (Structural Safety of Reactor Circuit);
SAFIR2014 FRESH Ad-Hoc Group;
VTT Archive (2)
The use of the name of the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) in advertising or publication in part of
this report is only permissible with written authorisation from the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
2 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Foreword
This report has been prepared under the research project FRESH, Task 3; Categorization of
stresses. The project is a part of SAFIR2014, which is a national nuclear energy research
program. FRESH, Task 3 work in 2012 was funded by the State Nuclear Waste Management
Fund (VYR), Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) and VTT. The work was carried out at VTT.

Espoo 11.1.2013

Author
3 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Contents

Foreword .....................................................................................................................2
List of symbols and abbreviations................................................................................4
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................7
2 Categorization and treatment of thermal stresses ..................................................8
2.1 On categorization of loads and stresses .........................................................8
2.2 Categorization of thermal stresses................................................................10
2.3 Treatment of thermal stresses ......................................................................10
3 Plastic strain correction factor...............................................................................15
3.1 Plastic strain correction factor according to codes ........................................15
3.1.1 Plastic strain correction factor according to ASME Section III............16
3.1.2 Plastic strain correction factor according to safety standard KTA
3201.2 ................................................................................................16
3.1.3 Plastic strain correction factor according to RCC-M code ..................17
3.2 More advanced plastic strain correction factor definitions.............................18
3.2.1 Plastic strain correction factor definition by Hbel..............................18
3.2.2 Plastic strain correction factor definition in EPRI Report TR-107533 .19
3.2.3 Plastic strain correction factor definition in AD-Merkblatt S2 ..............20
3.2.4 Plastic strain correction factor definition in EN 13445-3 .....................21
3.2.5 Plastic strain correction factor definition in ASME Code Case N-779 22
3.2.6 Plastic strain correction factor definition in ASME Code, Section VIII 24
3.2.7 Plastic strain correction factor definitions by Lang et al. ....................24
3.3 Summary of some main characteristics of plastic strain correction factor
definitions ......................................................................................................25
4 Linearization of stresses .......................................................................................27
5 Summary, conclusions and suggestions for further research ...............................29
5.1 Summary and conclusions ............................................................................29
5.2 Suggestions for further research ...................................................................30
References ................................................................................................................31
4 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

List of symbols and abbreviations


Latin symbols

a Crack depth
A0 Material parameter
A1, A2, A3 Material parameters
E Elastic modulus
Ec Elastic modulus of associated with the material fatigue life curve
f(Lr) Failure assessment curve according to the R6 Method, Rev. 4
g( ) Auxiliary function needed in determining plasticity correction parameter Vg( )
value for secondary stresses
KI Stress intensity factor, mode I
K IP KI value corresponding to primary stresses
K IS KI value corresponding to secondary stresses
Ke Plastic strain correction factor
K e' Modified strain correction factor
Ke,q Correction factor due to transverse strain effects following plastification
Ke,l Correction factor due to local effects following notch influences
Ke,g Correction factor due to global effects following stress redistribution
K e mech pq Elasto-plastic stress correction factor for the mechanical part
Kep Plastic strain correction factor
Ke,r Strain correction factor
K e ther pq Elasto-plastic stress correction factor for the thermal part
Kmat Material fracture toughness
Kn Correction factor considering local structural discontinuities
K Correction factor considering Poisson ratio effects
K von Mises yielding criterion
Kr Ratio of KI and Kmat
KT Strain correction factor due to notch effect
m Strain hardening exponent
M Moment per unit width
m, n Material parameters
N Normal force per unit width
P Applied load
PL Limit load for the structure considered
Rm Characteristic value of the relevant material strength
Rm Tensile strength
R p 0.2 T * Yield strength at mean load cycle temperature
Sa Half of the equivalent stress range
Sa Stress amplitude
Salt Alternating stress intensity
'
S alt Effective value of alternating stress intensity
Slt Local thermal stress range
Sm Design stress intensity
Sm Stress intensity
Sn Sum of primary and secondary stress intensities
5 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Sn Linearized stress range due to thermo-mechanical loads


Sn Equivalent stress range computed from the components of linearized stresses
Sn,m Primary plus secondary stress range due to mechanical loads
Sn(p,q) Maximum range of primary plus secondary stresses
Sp Peak stress intensity
Sp Total stress, total primary plus secondary plus peak stress intensity range
SP Elastically calculated total stress intensity range
Sp(i,j) Pessimistic sum of stress intensities concerning primary membrane stress,
bending stress, expansion stress and peak stress
Sp-lt Total stress range due to thermo-mechanical loads less the local thermal stress
range
Sp,t Total secondary plus peak (excluding thermal expansion) stress intensity range
due to local thermal transients
S p mech ij Range of the mechanical part of the total stress Sp, between the load sets i and j
S p ther ij Range of the thermal part of the total stress Sp, between the load sets i and j
Sp tb lt
Total stress range resulting from thermo-mechanical loads less the thermal
bending stress range and the local thermal stress range
Stb Thermal bending stress range
Stb+lt Thermal bending stress range plus local thermal stress range
t Wall thickness
T Temperature
V Plasticity correction parameter for secondary stresses
Vg( ) Plasticity correction parameter for secondary stresses
x Coordinate through wall with origin at inner surface
x, y, z Axes of the Cartesian coordinate system

Greek symbols

T Coefficient of thermal expansion


e Equivalent linear-elastic strain range
ep Equivalent elastic-plastic strain range
eq,l Linearized stress range due to thermal mechanical loads
struc,eq Equivalent structural stress
mod
ref Modified reference strain
x, y, z Axial strains
xy, yz, zx Shear strains
Poisson coefficient
* Modified Poisson ratio
Plasticity correction parameter for secondary stresses
Non-linear stress component
1 2 3 Principal stresses
II Primary plus secondary stress intensity
b Equivalent bending stress component
*
b Linearized local bending stress over the position of the crack
P
in plane Remotely applied primary stress in the crack opening direction
m Equivalent membrane stress component
6 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

*
m Linearized membrane stress state over the position of the crack
P
mises von Mises equivalent stress defined for the primary loads alone
P
ref Primary reference stress
LT
k Stress component due to local thermal stress
P - LT
k Stress component due to total minus local thermal stress
y Material yield strength
*
2 vap Effective stress range
vap Total stress range due to mechanical or thermal mechanical loads
*
vap Effective stress range for purely mechanical or thermal mechanical loads
vaw Total stress range due to thermal loads
*
vaw Effective stress range for purely thermal loads
Dimensionless parameter
Auxiliary parameters needed in determining plasticity correction parameter
, ,
and V value for secondary stresses

Abbreviations

ASME America Society of Mechanical Engineers


BWR Boiling water reactor
FE Finite element
FEM Finite element method
FITNET European Fitness-for-Service Network
NPP Nuclear power plant
SINTAP Structural INTegrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry
SSM Strlskerhetsmyndigheten
TVO Teollisuuden Voima Oyj
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT)
VYR State Nuclear Waste Management Fund (Valtion Ydinjtehuoltorahasto)
WCR Welding Research Council
7 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

1 Introduction
The scope of this part of the study is limited to theoretical comparison of nuclear codes and
analysis procedures. The review covers ASME Code [1, 3, 23], FITNET Procedure [2], the
German safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4], the French RCC-M code [5], R6 Method, Rev. 4
[6], SINTAP Procedure [7], Swedish SSM handbook [8] and German FKM Guideline [9], as
well as relevant scientific publications.

Thermal stresses have an important role in the NPP piping fitness-for-service analyses. The
treatment of this stress component depends, among other things, how it is categorized. Thus, a
review on the issue is presented. The interaction of thermal stresses with other stress
components is another relevant issue, and procedures to take that phenomenon into account
are presented too. When computing with finite element (FE) code and using elastic-plastic
material model, the resulting total stresses are correct. However, it remains to be clarified how
to exactly separate the magnitude of the thermal stresses from such total stresses which
exceed the yield strength. To take into account the elastic-plastic effects in the computation of
stress ranges, plastic strain correction factor, Ke, is used. As for the role of the Ke factor, in the
context of the commonly applied fitness-for-service codes, i.e. the ASME Code [3], safety
standard KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code [5], it is part of the fatigue design procedure. This
is an important issue from the viewpoint of computational fatigue life of NPP piping
components. Unfortunately, the Ke factor definitions according to these codes are often overly
conservative, e.g. those in the ASME code [21]. Thus, more realistic but still to a reasonable
extent conservative Ke definitions are needed. A review of both conservative and more
realistic Ke definition procedures is presented. The linearized stresses are used in crack growth
computations, which in turn are needed for planning of inspections and qualification of
inspection techniques. A detailed description on the linearization of stresses is presented.

The structure of the report, excluding this chapter, is described in the following:
Chapter 2 describes the categorization and treatment of thermal stresses according to the
above mentioned codes and guidelines as well as provides discussion on the computation
of thermal stresses with FEM.
Chapter 3 presents plastic strain correction factor definitions according to codes and more
advanced correction factor definitions according relevant scientific publications.
Chapter 4 presents computation methods on linearization of stresses.
Finally, Chapter 5 presents the summary, conclusions and suggestions for further research.

The next part of the study will cover the application and numerical comparison of the above
mentioned nuclear codes and analysis procedures.
8 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

2 Categorization and treatment of thermal


stresses
This chapter reviews the approaches and procedures for categorization and treatment of
thermal stresses. The review includes ASME Code [1, 3, 23], FITNET Procedure [2], the
German safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4], the French RCC-M code [5], R6 Method, Rev. 4
[6], SINTAP Procedure [7], Swedish SSM handbook [8] and German FKM Guideline [9].

2.1 On categorization of loads and stresses


Any stress state in a structure is caused by one or several loads, which can be of one or
several types, such as temperature and pressure. Loads can be time independent and time
dependent. Further, any number of loads can act at the same time. In the time dependent case
they can start and end at any time. Consequently, categorization stresses as induced by loads
can lead to a relatively large number of stress classes. According to commonly applied
fitness-for-service standards, codes, procedures and guidelines, both loads and stresses are
categorized to a limited number of classes. These classes are briefly presented in the
following. Between the fitness-for-service handbooks there are some differences in the
definitions, but in general they are quite similar. As for the stresses, they are further divided
into more specific classes, one of them being thermal stresses.

As the stresses are induced by loads, their categorization according to commonly applied
fitness-for-service handbooks are described first briefly, and then the corresponding
categorization of stresses.

According to both ASME Code [1, 10] and FITNET Procedure [2], loadings are described in
terms of four levels, those being Service levels A, B, C and D. The ASME Code provides
more detailed descriptions of these load levels, as follows:
Level A; Service Limits are those limits that are to be satis ed for the loadingsidenti ed
in the Design Speci cation - to which the component is subjected during normal service.
Level B; Service Limits are those that are applicable to loadings - identi ed in the Design
Speci cation - that may exceed normal design or service conditions, but must be with
stood without damage requiring repair.
Level C; Service Limits are identified in the Design Speci cation for loadings that may
produce large deformations and areas of structural discontinuity, possibly necessitating
removal of the component or support from service for inspection or repair of damage.
These limits, however, are expected to provide for operability of the component during
normal events postulated by the design.
Level D; Service Limits permit gross general deformation, with some consequent loss of
dimensional stability, and damage requiring repair, which may necessitate removal of the
component or support from service.

Typically, level A and B loads are needed in a fitness-for-service assessment. The level D
loads are extreme exceptions, necessitating a separate structural analysis. Clearly, acceptable
margins or safety factors differ for different service levels [2].
9 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

In the German safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4] the loads concerning the primary coolant
circuit are divided into six Load case classes, as follows:
Design load cases (AF),
Specified operation; Normal operational load cases (NB), Anomalous operational load
cases (AB), Test load cases (PF),
Incidents; Emergencies (NF), Accidents (SF).

To each of these load cases a loading level is assigned with respect to the specific component.
These loading levels refer to allowable loadings, which in the top level divide into Design
loading (Level 0) and Service limits, the latter of which further divides into Levels A, B, C, D
and P [4].

In the French RCC-M code [5] the different conditions, i.e. loads, a component may be
subjected to are classified under Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, which quite accurately correspond
to Service levels A, B, C and D in ASME Code [1] and FITNET Procedure [2], respectively.

As for the R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], SINTAP Procedure [7], SSM handbook [8] and FKM
Guideline [9], they do not contain any load level definitions.

According to ASME Code [3], the stresses must be separated into primary and secondary
categories as follows:
Primary stress is any normal stress or a shear stress developed by an imposed loading
which is necessary to satisfy the laws of equilibrium of external and internal forces and
moments. The basic characteristic of a primary stress is that it is not self-limiting. Primary
stresses which considerably exceed the yield strength will result in failure or, at least, in
gross distortion. A thermal stress is not classified as a primary stress. Primary membrane
stress is divided into general and local categories. A general primary membrane stress is
one which is so distributed in the structure that no redistribution of load occurs as a result
of yielding.
Secondary stress is a normal stress or a shear stress developed by the constraint of
adjacent material or by self-constraint of the structure. The basic characteristic of a
secondary stress is that it is self-limiting. Local yielding and minor distortions can satisfy
the conditions which cause the stress to occur, and failure from one application of the
stress is not to be expected.

The categorisation of stresses into these two types is a matter of some judgement. The
primary stresses are produced by applied external loads such as pressure, dead weight or
interaction from other components. Secondary stresses are generally produced as a result of
internal mismatch caused by, for example, thermal gradients and welding processes. These
stresses will be self-equilibrating, i.e. the net force and bending moment will be zero [2].

According to the German safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4] and the French RCC-M code [5],
the classification of stresses into primary and secondary categories is quite accurately the
same as that in the ASME Code [3].

According to R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], FITNET Procedure [2], SINTAP Procedure [7] and
SSM handbook [8], the loads or resulting stresses must be separated into primary and
secondary categories as follows:
Primary stresses arise from loads which contribute to plastic collapse.
Secondary stresses arise from loads which do not contribute to plastic collapse.
10 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

The FKM Guideline [9] does not provide any categorization definitions for stresses, but
instead briefly describes approaches/applications concerning how to compute stress
distributions.

2.2 Categorization of thermal stresses


The ASME Code [3] presents detailed definitions for thermal stresses, a summary of which is
presented in the following. The other commonly applied fitness-for-service references [2, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9] give less detailed descriptions of the thermal stresses.

According to the ASME Code [3] the thermal stress is a self-balancing stress produced by a
non-uniform distribution of temperature or by differing thermal coefficients of expansion.
Thermal stress is developed in a solid body whenever a volume of material is prevented from
assuming the size and shape that it normally should under a change in temperature. For the
purpose of establishing allowable stresses, two types of thermal stresses are recognized,
depending on the volume or area in which distortion takes place, as:
General thermal stress is associated with distortion of the structure in which it occurs,
such as;
o stress produced by an axial temperature distribution in a cylindrical shell,
o stress produced by the temperature difference between a nozzle and the shell to
which it is attached, and
o equivalent linear stress produced by the radial temperature distribution in a
cylindrical shell.
Local thermal stress is associated with almost complete suppression of the differential
expansion and thus produces no significant distortion, such as;
o stress in a small hot spot in a vessel wall,
o difference between the actual stress and the equivalent linear stress resulting from
a radial temperature distribution in a cylindrical shell, and
o thermal stress in a cladding material which has a coefficient of expansion different
from that of the base metal.

Both the FITNET Procedure [2] and SINTAP Procedure [7] elaborate that although in general
the thermal stresses are self-equilibrating, and therefore classified as secondary stresses, there
are situations where they can act as primary stresses. These situations arise when the thermal
stresses in question act over a range or gauge length large enough so that they could induce
failure by plastic collapse in the sub-structure of concern. A practical example would be
buckling due to temperature distribution induced compression. The thermal stresses need to
be correctly classified by taking into account the elastic follow-up in the flawed section.

2.3 Treatment of thermal stresses


There are several ways to compute the thermal stresses in a component/structure, ranging
from analytical equations to numerical procedures, in the latter case using most often some
FEM based code. Typically, computation of thermal stresses is preceded by computation of
temperature distribution through the examined component/structure. When computing the
thermal stresses, the temperature dependence of many material properties must be taken into
account. Significant temperature dependent material properties include yield strength,
11 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

ultimate strength, elastic modulus, coefficient of thermal expansion, thermal conductivity and
specific heat.

To illustrate the temperature dependency of material properties, the following Figures 2.3-1
and 2.3-2 present the variation of elastic modulus, E, and coefficient of thermal expansion, T,
for carbon steel, Inconel 600 and austenitic steel as a function of temperature. The material
property data for these typical NPP component material types are taken from ASME Section
II [11]. These material properties are the most relevant ones for NPP piping steel materials
from the viewpoint of thermal response, i.e. tendency/ability to produce thermal gradients
over the component walls.

250

200

150
E [GPa]

100
Carbon steel

50 Inconel 600
Austenitic steel
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
o
temperature [ C]

Figure 2.3-1. Variation of elastic modulus, E, for carbon steel, Inconel 600 and austenitic
steel as a function of temperature [11].

20

15
[10E-06*(1/ C)]
o

10

Carbon steel
T

5
Inconel 600
Austenitic steel

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
o
temperature [ C]

Figure 2.3-2. Variation of coefficient of thermal expansion, T, for carbon steel, Inconel 600
and austenitic steel as a function of temperature [11].
12 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

As can be seen from the Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2, the variation of the elastic modulus and
coefficient of thermal expansion over the considered temperature range, which corresponds to
that experienced in boiling water reactor (BWR) units, is relatively small.

As mentioned earlier, thermal stresses are most often classified as secondary stresses. These
are stresses, that cannot induce failure by plastic collapse. However they can contribute to the
development of plasticity. When the arithmetic sum of primary and secondary stresses
exceeds material yield strength, the total stress belongs to strain hardening region, and its
correct computation requires the use of procedures which take into account such plasticity
effects. When using a FE code and elastic-plastic material model, the resulting total stresses
are correct. However, it is not possible to exactly separate the magnitude of the thermal
stresses from such total stresses which exceed the yield strength. Performing computations
separately for thermal and other loads would not help either, because the magnitude of the
interaction of the thermal stresses with other stress components would remain unknown.
When applying some fitness-for-service handbook approach for cases where the total stresses
exceed the yield strength, plasticity corrected procedures must be used.

The R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], SINTAP Procedure [7], FITNET Procedure [2], SSM handbook
[8] and FKM Guideline [9] provide plasticity corrections for the computation of linear-elastic
mode I stress intensity factor, KI, for cracks. More specifically, two procedures are presented
for the computation of the ratio, Kr, of the applied KI to the material fracture toughness, Kmat.
These procedures are as follows:

K IP a K IS a
Kr a (2.3-1)
K mat

K IP a VK IS a
Kr (2.3-2)
K mat

where both and V are plasticity correction parameters for secondary stresses, whereas K IP is
the KI value corresponding to primary stresses and K IS is that corresponding to secondary
stresses, respectively. The two procedures differ in detail but are equivalent. The choice of
which procedure to use is left to the user. The R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6] provides both simplified
and detailed procedures to compute the values for and V. The scope of the simplified
procedures is limited in terms of the relative magnitude of the K IP and K IS values. The
detailed procedures do not have such scope limitations. The R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6] provides
also tabulated values for parameters , and , needed in the computation of and V using
the detailed procedures. The SINTAP Procedure [7] provides one set of procedures to
compute the values for and V, together with the necessary tabulated values for parameters
, and . Unfortunately FITNET Procedure [2] does not provide enough information on
how to compute the and V values. It is mentioned in the connection of the plasticity
corrected definitions for Kr, here equations (2.3-1) and (2.3-2), that the computation methods
for and V are described in detail in certain sub-sections and annexes, but those parts of the
documentation do not contain such information. The SSM handbook [8] contains only the
based plasticity correction procedure for secondary stresses, and in the associated definition,
here equation (2.3-1), the material fracture toughness Kmat is denoted as Kcr, and the needed
values are obtained from a specific diagram. The FITNET Procedure [2] also contains only
13 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

the based plasticity correction procedure for secondary stresses, together with the necessary
tabulated values for parameters and .

The ASME Code [3], safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code [5] do not contain
such plasticity correction procedures as described above. Instead, they contain simplified
correction factor procedures to take into account elastic-plastic effects in the computation of
stress ranges for fatigue analysis. These plastic strain correction factors are described in more
detail in Chapter 3. Concerning thermal stresses and as an extension compared to the
correction factors in the ASME Code [3] and KTA 3201.2 [4], the RCC-M code [5] contains a
specific correction factor also for elastic-plastic thermal stress.

Based on this review, the treatment of thermal stresses depends on how they are categorized.
Most often they are considered as secondary stresses, but in some more rare cases they can be
considered as primary stresses. Some fitness-for-service handbooks [2, 6, 7, 8, 9] provide one
or two plasticity correction procedures to take into account the plasticity effects caused by the
interaction between the primary and secondary stresses. These procedures concern the
computation of Kr, and they also allow quantifying the magnitude of the effect of thermal
stresses to the result. Other commonly used fitness-for-service handbooks [3, 4, 5] contain
simplified correction factor procedures to take into account the elastic-plastic effects in the
computation of stress ranges for fatigue analysis. These plastic strain correction factor
procedures also allow quantifying the magnitude of the effect of thermal stresses to the result.
Both described plasticity correction approaches are conservative, and do not quantify the
extent of conservatism [14]. The approach for computation of Kr concerns a
component/structure containing a crack, whereas the plastic strain correction factor approach
concerns an intact component/structure which, however, may contain an abrupt change in
geometry, such as a rounding with small radius or change in wall thickness. FE analyses with
elastic-plastic material model allow computing total stresses accurately, but in cases where
they exceed the yield strength, the magnitude of thermal stresses can only be assessed. Then,
the first approximation for the thermal stresses could be to subtract from the total stresses
such total stresses which are computed with all other loads but the thermal loads.

As for more recent developments concerning the treatment of thermal stresses in the
connection of plasticity correction procedures for interaction between the primary and
secondary stresses, James et al. [12, 13, 14] have suggested the plasticity interaction
parameter g( ) for modification of the plasticity correction parameter V in the R6 Method,
Rev. 4 [6]. The g( ) parameter can be incorporated into equation (2.3-2) as an additional
means to estimate V. This approach is subsequently referred to as the g( )-Function method. In
this method the parameter V is replaced with the parameter, Vg( ), as shown below:

g f Lr K JS
Vg (2.3-3)
K IS

where f(Lr) is the failure assessment curve according to the R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], K JS is the
elastic-plastic secondary mode I stress intensity factor, and g( ) is provided by:

2 12
mod mod
E ref A ref y
g mod mod mod
(2.3-4)
ref E ref ref
14 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

P
in plane
A P
(2.3-5)
1.25 mises

mod
ref Lr y 1.25 (2.3-6)

P
P ref
Lr (2.3-7)
PL y

mod
where E is elastic modulus, ref is the modified reference strain defined from the modified
P
reference stress, itself defined in equation (2.3-6), via the materials stress-strain curve, in plane
P
is the remotely applied primary stress in the crack opening direction, mises is the von Mises
equivalent stress defined for the primary loads alone, P is the applied load, PL is the limit load
P
for the structure considered, ref is the primary reference stress and y is the material yield
strength.

When applying the R6 Method [6] V parameter and g( )-Function methods to the experimental
results, the difference between the prediction of failure results they give increases with Lr, and
the g( )-Function approach is less conservative in all cases. It has also been observed, that the
best estimate of failure always results when adopting K JS from material with kinematic
hardening behaviour. In nearly all analysis cases covered in ref. [14] both the R6 Method [6]
V parameter and g( )-Function methods appear to remain conservative. Provisionally, this can
be considered as useful validation to both methods, although additional material tests are
required to obtain more definitive results.
15 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

3 Plastic strain correction factor


According to the fitness-for-service codes and guidelines, strain correction factors have to be
used in the fatigue analyses of pressurised components if the strain intensity ranges are
determined by elastic analyses, and if in this case the range of primary plus secondary stress
intensity exceeds a certain limit. This limit is most often three times the design stress intensity
value, Sm, and thus approximately corresponds to twice the value of the 0.2 % strain limit.

As fully elastic-plastic fatigue analyses are still time consuming, simplified elastic-plastic
analysis is often applied. This procedure is known to be overly conservative for some
conditions due to the applied plastic strain correction (penalty) factor Ke [21]. As a
consequence, less conservative fully elastic-plastic fatigue analyses based on non-linear FEM
or simplified elastic-plastic analysis based on more realistic Ke factors are preferable for
fatigue design. Practical fatigue analyses would require the availability of more realistic Ke
factors. In the following, Ke factor definitions according to several fitness-for-service codes
are described, as well as some more advanced and less conservative Ke factor procedures.

The general definition for strain correction factor due to plasticity is [15]:

ep
Ke (3-1)
e

where ep is the equivalent strain range computed from the elastic-plastic analysis and e is
the equivalent strain range straight from the linear-elastic analysis. The elastic-plastic
equivalent strain range can be computed using the Tresca yield model by:

1
ep max i j (3-2)
1

or using the von Mises yield model by:

2 2 2 2
ep x y y z z x
21
12
(3-3)
3 2 2 2
xy yz zx
2

where is Poisson coefficient, sub-indexes i = j = 1, 2, 3 refer to the three principal stresses


and strains, x, y, z are axial strains, xy, yz, zx are shear strains, whereas x, y, z are the axes
of the Cartesian coordinate system.

3.1 Plastic strain correction factor according to codes


Of the considered eight codes/guidelines, the ASME Code [3], safety standard KTA 3201.2
[4] and RCC-M code [5] contain plastic strain correction factor procedures to take into
16 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

account the elastic-plastic effects in the computation of stress ranges for fatigue analysis.
These procedures are described in the following.

3.1.1 Plastic strain correction factor according to ASME Section III


The ASME Section III [3], paragraph NB-3600 "Piping Design", subparagraph NB-3653.1
"Satisfaction of Primary Plus Secondary Stress Intensity Range" provides equation (10) for
the computation of the sum of primary and secondary stress intensities, Sn. It expresses the
range of pressure, temperature, and moment between two load sets which is to be used in the
fatigue calculations. The associated condition is that Sn 3Sm, where Sm is the design stress
intensity. The same condition is also given in subparagraph NB-3222.2 "Primary Plus
Secondary Stress Intensity" of paragraph NB-3200 "Design by Analysis". In case of
subparagraph NB-3653.1, when this condition is not fulfilled, the procedure in the
subparagraph NB-3653.6 "Simplified ElasticPlastic Discontinuity Analysis" must be
resorted to. Therein, two conditions are given, namely equation (12) for the moments due to
thermal expansion and expansion stress, and equation (13) for the primary plus secondary
membrane plus bending stress intensity, excluding thermal bending and thermal expansion
stresses. When the conditions associated with equations (12) and (13) are met, the value of the
alternating stress intensity, Salt, can be calculated according to equation (14) as follows:

Sp
S alt Ke (3.1.1-1)
2

where:

1.0 for Sn 3S m
1 n Sn
Ke 1.0 1 for 3S m Sn 3mS m (3.1.1-2)
nm 1 3S m
1
for Sn 3mS m
n

and Sp is peak stress intensity, whereas m, n are material parameters, the values for which are
given for commonly used steel types in Table NB-3228.5(b)-1. As for paragraph NB-3200,
when the condition in the subparagraph NB-3222.2 is not fulfilled, one must calculate if the
conditions in subparagraph NB-3228.5 "Simplified ElasticPlastic Analysis" are fulfilled, and
if they are, the value of Salt used for entering the design fatigue curve is multiplied by Ke, as
computed according to NB-3228.5 (b), which gives the same definition as equation (3.1.1-2)
above.

3.1.2 Plastic strain correction factor according to safety standard


KTA 3201.2
The KTA 3201.2 [4], clause 8.4.3.2 "Determination and limitation of the primary plus
secondary stress intensity range" provides equation (8.4-2) for the computation of the sum of
primary and secondary stress intensities, II, which is identical to equation (10) in
subparagraph NB-3653.1 of ASME Section III [3]. The associated condition is that II 3Sm,
17 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

where Sm is the stress intensity value. The same condition defined more specifically is given
in clause 7.8.4 "Simplified elastic plastic fatigue analysis" of chapter 7.8 "Fatigue analysis",
so that for steels it is valid as such but for cast steels it is defined as II 4Sm. Besides this
definition for cast steels these conditions are identical to those in subparagraphs NB-3653.1
and NB-3222.2 of ASME Section III [3]. In case of clause 8.4.3.2, when this condition is not
fulfilled, the procedure in clause 8.4.3.4 "Simplified elastic-plastic analysis" must be resorted
to. Therein, three conditions are given, namely equations (8.4-4), (8.4-5) and (8.4-6). When
the conditions associated with these equations are met, the value of the increased stress
intensity range, IV, can be calculated according to equation (8.4-7). This equation contains
also Ke, the equation of which for steels is identical to equation (3.1.1-2) in Section 3.1.1 here,
whereas the 3Sm value shall be substituted by 4Sm for cast steels. As for clause 7.8.4, when the
stress range conditions are not fulfilled, the value of half of the equivalent stress range, Sa, is
to be multiplied with the factor Ke, the definition of which is again identical to that in equation
(3.1.2-2) in Section 3.1.1 here.

3.1.3 Plastic strain correction factor according to RCC-M code


The RCC-M code [5], paragraph B 3653.4 "Requirements applicable to the total stress range"
provides equation (11) for the computation of the pessimistic sum of stress intensities
concerning primary membrane stress, bending stress, expansion stress and peak stress, Sp(i, j),
which is identical to equation (11) in subparagraph NB-3653.2 "Satisfaction of Peak Stress
Intensity Range" of ASME Section III [3]. Then, paragraph B 3653.4 points to paragraph B
3653.6 "Fatigue analysis" where the value computed for Sp(i, j) is to be used in calculating the
usage factor. Paragraph 3653.6 gives the equations for the computation of the alternating
'
stress intensity, Salt, and its effective value, S alt , as follows:

1
S alt i, j K e mech pq
S p mech ij
K e ther pq
S p ther ij
(3.1.3-1)
2

' Ec
S alt i, j S alt i, j (3.1.3-2)
E

where:

Ec = Modulus of elasticity associated with the material fatigue life curve.


E= Modulus of elasticity used in calculating stresses at the point considered.
S p mech : Range of the mechanical part of the total stress Sp, between the load sets i and
ij
j. It is calculated from the loads of mechanical origin comprising pressure,
weight, earth quake (inertial and movement of anchors), as well as the effect of
thermal expansion.
K e mech pq
: Elasto-plastic stress correction factor for the mechanical part calculated in
compliance with B 3234.6 b, from the maximum range of primary plus
secondary stresses Sn(p,q), calculated in compliance with B 3653.3, during
situations p and q to which the load sets i and j belong to and the value of Sm as
defined in B 3653.3. The definition for this correction factor is identical to
equation (3.1.1-2) in Section 3.1.1.
S p ther : Range of the thermal part of the total stress Sp, between the load sets i and j. It
ij
is calculated from the loads of thermal origin comprising those of temperature
18 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

gradients in the walls ''Ta - Tb'', '' T1 '' and '' T2'' as defined in B 3653.3 and B
3653.4.
K e ther pq
: Elasto-plastic stress correction factor for the thermal part, calculated for the
austenitic stainless steels, by the following formula:

1
1.86 1
K e ther max 1.66 Sn Sm
1
from the maximum range of primary plus secondary stresses Sn(p,q) defined in
B 3653.3, during situations p and q to which the load sets i and j belong to and
the value of Sm defined in compliance with B 3653.3.

For ferritic steels, the formula used shall be validated on a case by case basis. It is acceptable
not to impose a mechanical/thermal division but to apply the expression of the factor Ke mech
for the correction of the total stress Sp. Paragraph B 3234.6 "Elasto-plastic strain correction
factor" gives the same definition for the computation of Salt as equation (3.1.3-1) above, also
the definitions for the strain correction factors are the same.

3.2 More advanced plastic strain correction factor


definitions
A review of more advanced and less conservative Ke factor definitions are presented in the
following. These definitions are from the following documents:
Hbel, H. (1993) [16],
EPRI Report TR-107533 (1998) [15],
AD-Merkblatt S2 (2003) [17],
EN 13445-3 (2009) [18],
ASME Code Case N-779 (2010) [19],
ASME Code, Section VIII (2010) [20],
Lang, H., Rudolph, J., Ziegler, R. (2011) [21].

3.2.1 Plastic strain correction factor definition by Hbel


The plastic strain correction developments by Hbel [16] divide into three separate strain
correction factor definitions, as follows:
correction factor Ke,q due to transverse strain effects following plastification,
correction factor Ke,l due to local effects following notch influences, and
correction factor Ke,g due to global effects following stress redistribution.

The correction factor Ke,q takes into account the influence of the different transverse strain
factors (Poisson ratios) in the elastic and plastic areas of el = 0.3 and pl = 0.5, respectively,
on the plastic strain correction factor and is determined by a volume element under strain-
controlled loads. The correction factor Ke,l takes into account the local effects following notch
influences according to the Neuber approach. The correction factor Ke,g takes conservatively
into account the general registration of global effects in connection with elasticplastic
stresses. The definitions for these three correction factor definitions are as follows:
19 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

K e,q 1.0 when SP 2 y 1.0


m m 1 (3.2.1-1)
1 2 K e,q K e,q 2 1 0 when SP 2 y 1.0

K e,l 1.0 when SP 2 y 1.0


1 m 1 m (3.2.1-2)
K e,l when SP 2 y 1.0

K e,g 1.0 when SP 2 y 1.0


(3.2.1-3)
K e,g when SP 2 y 1.0

where SP is elastically calculated total stress intensity range, Y is the material yield strength,
m is the strain hardening exponent and is a dimensionless parameter (1 ) indicating
the size of the elastic zone, with its value being derived from the following relation:

2
m 1 m 4 2 4m 5 m 2
m 1
3 2 9 m 1 2m 1
2
(3.2.1-4)
1 2 10 2 2m 1 m 1 3m 2m 1
m 2 m 2
2 9 m 1 9 3 2m 1

It is recommended that the maximum value of the different correction factors be used as the
strain correction factor, Ke,r, if the preferred correction factors cannot be applied due to
component geometry and load type:

K e,r max K e,q , K e,l , K e,g (3.2.1-5)

According to ref. [16] the proposed Ke,r factor definitions take into account in a realistic way
the elasticplastic material behaviour and provide reasonably conservative plastic strain
correction values, which are much less conservative that those according to ASME Section III
[3] and KTA 3201.2 [4].

3.2.2 Plastic strain correction factor definition in EPRI Report TR-


107533
The EPRI Report TR-107533 [15] provides a simplified approach for the computation of
plastic strain correction factor values. This approach combines the effect of Poisson ratio
change in plasticity, the elastic follow-up effect and the notch effect. The approach is a
variation of the procedures given in the WCR Bulletin 361 [22].

The plastic strain correction factor, Kep, is defined as:

1 n

K ep KT1 n
K e' (3.2.2-1)
20 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

where KT is the strain correction factor due to notch effect and K e' is the modified strain
correction factor, and they are computed as:

Sp
KT (3.2.2-2)
S n,m S p ,t

S p ,t S n,m
K e' K Ke (3.2.2-3)
S n,m S p ,t Sn

where K is the von Mises yielding criterion, defined as:

1 1 *
K (3.2.2-4)
1 1 *

and:

1 n
3S m
* 0.5 0.2 (3.2.2-5)
S n , m S p ,t

where Sp is the total primary plus secondary plus peak stress intensity range, Sn,m is the
primary plus secondary stress range due to mechanical loads, Sp,t is the the total secondary
plus peak (excluding thermal expansion) stress intensity range due to local thermal transients,
is the Poisson ratio, * is the modified Poisson ratio, Ke is computed according to NB-
3228.5 (b) of ASME Section III [3] and the values for parameter n are taken from Table the
NB-3228.5(b)-1 of ASME Section III [3].

According to ref. [15] the proposed method is more realistic and less conservative than the
corresponding current ASME III [3] method for large values of primary plus secondary stress
range.

3.2.3 Plastic strain correction factor definition in AD-Merkblatt S2


The conventional German code AD-Merkblatt S2 [17] provides a simplified approach for the
computation of plastic strain correction factor value. It equally distinguishes between
mechanical and thermal loads. The basic equation for the determination of the effective stress
*
range 2 vap is:

*
vaw 2 vaw K for purely thermal loads (3.2.3-1)

*
vap 2 vap K for purely mechanical or thermal mechanical loads (3.2.3-2)

where 2 vaw is the total stress range due to thermal loads and 2 vap is the total stress range
due to mechanical or thermal mechanical loads.
21 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

The plastic strain correction factor, Ke, is defined as:

vap vap
A1 1 1 for 1 1.5
R p 0.2 T * R p 0.2 T *
Ke (3.2.3-3)
vap vap
A 2 A3 for 1.5
R p 0.2 T * R p 0.2 T *

and:

0.7
K
0.2 (3.2.3-4)
0.5
vaw R p 0.2 T *

where R p 0.2 T * is the yield strength at mean load cycle temperature, whereas the values for
parameters A1, A2 and A3 are obtained from Table 3.2.3-1.

Table 3.2.3-1. Values for material parameters A1, A2 and A3 [17]. Rm is the characteristic
value of the relevant material strength.
Material group A1 A2 A3
Ferritic Rm = 800-1000 N/mm2 0.518 0.718 0.432
Ferritic Rm 500 N/mm2 and austenitic 0.443 0.823 0.327

It is pointed out that AD-Merkblatt S2 [17] does not demand linearized stresses. All formulae
apply to total stresses. The proposed plastic strain correction factor method is more realistic
and less conservative than the corresponding method in the current ASME III [3]. According
to ref. [21], in case of thermal cyclic loading conditions typical for power plant operation, an
underestimation of the correction factor for low loading levels and an overestimation for high
loading levels is typical.

3.2.4 Plastic strain correction factor definition in EN 13445-3


The conventional European Code EN 13445-3 [18] equally differentiates between mechanical
and thermal loads. The basic equation for the determination of the equivalent structural stress
struc,eq is:

struc,eq K eq,l for purely thermal loads (3.2.4-1)

struc,eq Ke eq,l for all other loads (3.2.4-2)

The plastic strain correction factor, Ke, is defined as:


22 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

eq,l
Ke 1 A0 1 (3.2.4-3)
2 R p 0.2 T *

The correction factor considering Poisson ratio effects, K , is defined as:

0.7
K
0.2 (3.2.4-4)
0.5
eq,l R p 0.2 T *

where eq,l is the linearized stress range due to thermal mechanical loads, R p 0.2 T * is the

yield strength at mean load cycle temperature, whereas the values for parameter A0 are
obtained from Table 3.2.4-1. The equivalent stress is calculated according to the von Mises
hypothesis.

Table 3.2.4-1. Values for material parameter A0 [18]. Rm is the characteristic value of the
relevant material strength.
Material group A0
Ferritic Rm = 800-1000 N/mm2 0.5
Ferritic Rm 500 N/mm2 and austenitic 0.4
Ferritic Rm 500-800 N/mm2 Rm 500
0.4
3000

The proposed plastic strain correction factor method is more realistic and less conservative
than the corresponding one in the current NB-3228.5 (b) of ASME Section III [3]. According
to ref. [21], in case of thermal cyclic loading conditions typical for power plant operation, an
underestimation of the correction factor for low loading levels and an overestimation for high-
loading levels is typical.

3.2.5 Plastic strain correction factor definition in ASME Code Case


N-779
The ASME Code Case N-779 [19] differentiates between mechanical and thermal loads. In
this sense, thermo-mechanical loads may cause purely mechanical, purely thermal or thermo-
mechanical stresses. The basic equation for the determination of the stress amplitude, Sa, is
written as follows:

Sa 0.5 K e S p tb lt K S lt K K n S tb (3.2.5-1)

where S p tb lt is the total stress range resulting from thermo-mechanical loads less the thermal
bending stress range and the local thermal stress range, Slt is the local thermal stress range, Stb
is the thermal bending stress range, K is the correction factor considering Poisson ratio
effects and Kn is the correction factor considering local structural discontinuities. The
different stress ranges are determined according to the following event combinations:
23 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Sp tb lt ,k S p tb lt ,k ,i S p tb lt , k , j
(3.2.5-2)
k x, y, z, xy, yz, xz

with:

S p tb lt ,k ,i S p ,k ,i S tb ,k ,i S lt ,k ,i
S p tb lt ,k , j S p ,k , j S tb ,k , j S lt ,k , j (3.2.5-3)
k x, y, z, xy, yz, xz

S tb ,k S tb,k ,i S tb ,k , j
S lt ,k S lt ,k ,i S lt ,k , j (3.2.5-4)
k x, y, z, xy, yz, xz

The correction factors are derived from the equivalent stresses according to the Tresca
hypothesis. The Ke factor is identical to that in NB-3228.5 (b) of ASME Section III [3], while
the correction factors K and Kn are calculated as follows:

1.4 for Sp 3S m and S p tb lt 3S m


K 1.0 for Sp 3S m (3.2.5-5)
Sp 3S m
1.0 0.4 for Sp 3S m and S p tb lt 3S m
S tb lt

1.0 for Sp tb lt 3S m
1 n
Kn Sp lt
1 n Sp lt 3S m (3.2.5-6)
1.0 1 for Sp tb lt 3S m
Sn Sp lt

where Sm is the design stress intensity value, Sp is the total stress range due to thermo-
mechanical loads, Stb+lt is the thermal bending stress range plus local thermal stress range, n is
the hardening exponent, Sn is the linearized stress range due to thermo-mechanical loads, and
Sp-lt is the total stress range due to thermo-mechanical loads less the local thermal stress range.
Note, that Kn only applies for models without a realistic description of the notch geometry. If
the FE model includes the discretization of the notch region, Kn = 1.0 will apply.

A reduction in conservatism can only result from the stress range to be used as thermal
bending stresses caused by linear through wall thermal gradients and local thermal stresses. If
the Sn value is dominated by the thermal stresses the resulting Ke factor may still be
excessively high. According to ref. [21], this approach delivers comparatively precise
corrections. Nevertheless, these methods are not always conservative and require a
considerable calculation effort.
24 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

3.2.6 Plastic strain correction factor definition in ASME Code,


Section VIII
Thermal and mechanical loads are treated separately in the plastic strain correction factor
approach of the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 [20]. The method can be
applied for welded and un-welded components. The basic equation for the determination of
the components of the alternating stress, Salt, is written as follows:

P LT LT
Ke k K k
S alt ,k (3.2.6-1)
2

with plastic strain correction factor, Ke, and Poisson ratio correction factor K computed as:

1.0 for Sn S PS
1 n Sn
Ke 1.0 1 for S PS Sn mS PS (3.2.6-2)
nm 1 S PS
1
for Sn mS PS
n

1 e
Sy
K with p max 0.5 0.2 , e and e 0.3 (3.2.6-3)
1 p Sa

and:

3S m for S y Rm 0.7
S PS (3.2.6-4)
max 3S m ,2S y for S y Rm 0.7

where kLT is the stress component due to local thermal stress, kP -LT is the stress component
due to total minus local thermal stress, n and m are material parameters defined in Table NB-
3228.5(b)-1 of ASME Section III [3], Sn is the equivalent stress range computed from the
components of linearized stresses, SY is the yield strength, Sm is the design stress intensity
value, Rm is the tensile strength and Sa is the alternating stress for a specified number of load
cycles.

The proposed plastic strain correction factor method is more realistic and less conservative
than the corresponding one in the current NB-3228.5 (b) of ASME Section III [3]. According
to ref. [21], this approach delivers comparatively precise corrections. Nevertheless, these
methods are not always conservative and require some computation effort.

3.2.7 Plastic strain correction factor definitions by Lang et al.


Lang, H., Rudolph, J., Ziegler, R. [21] have developed proposals for correction factor due to
thermal loads.
25 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

For an elastic analysis, using Poisson ratio = 0.3 instead of the real elasto-plastic value * >
0.3, according to Tresca criterion the correction factor for Poisson ratio to be applied results
to:

1
K (3.2.7-1)
1 *

Assuming = 0.3 and * = 0.5, the maximum value of Poisson ratio correction factor results
to:

1 0.3
K 1.4 (3.2.7-2)
1 0.5

For an elastic analysis, using Poissons ratio = 0.3 instead of the real elasto-plastic value *
> 0.3, according to von Mises criterion the correction factor for Poisson ratio to be applied
results to:

1 1 *
K (3.2.7-3)
1 1

Assuming = 0.3 and * = 0.5, the maximum value of Poisson ratio correction factor results
to:

1 0.3 1 0.5
K 1.62 (3.2.7-4)
1 0.3 1 0.3

A modified approach for correction factor for Poisson ratio, as based on the RCC-M Code [5]
equation (10), is as follows:

0.623
K etherm 1.460
3S (3.2.7-5)
0.354 3 n
3S m

The proposed definitions for Poisson ratio correction factor are more realistic and less
conservative than the corresponding one in the current RCC-M code [5].

3.3 Summary of some main characteristics of plastic


strain correction factor definitions
Table 3-1 below presents a summary of some main characteristics of the Ke definitions
described in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. The covered characteristics are Poisson ratio effects,
discontinuity effects, stress linearization and division into thermal/mechanical stresses.
26 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

Table 3-1. Summary of some main characteristics of the covered Ke definitions.


Ref. Poisson ratio Discontinuity Stress Division into
effects effects linearization thermal/
mechanical
stresses
ASME Section III [3] No No Yes No
KTA 3201.2 [4] No No Yes No
RCC-M [5] Yes No Yes Yes
ASME Code Case N-779 [19] Yes Yes Yes Yes
EN 13445-3 [18] Yes Yes Yes No
AD-Merkblatt S2 [17] Yes Yes No No
EPRI Report TR-107533 [15] Yes No Yes Yes
Lang et al. [21] Yes No Yes Yes
Hbel [16] Yes Yes Yes No
27 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

4 Linearization of stresses
According to the ASME Code [3], safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code [5] in
most fatigue computations the primary and secondary stress components are to be linear by
their distribution through the component wall. In case the distribution of a stress component is
non-linear, it must be transformed into linear shape. Of the mentioned codes, ASME Section
XI [23], Appendix A and KTA 3201.2 [4] clause C2.2 describe the linearization of stress
distribution through wall with text and illustrative figures. Whereas the FITNET Procedure
[2] gives a more detailed description of the linearization of stresses, providing also the
associated computation procedure. The description concerning the linearization of stresses in
the following is mainly based on ref. [2].

If a stress component is linear through the section thickness, it may be equated to a


combination of membrane and bending distributions. Where a stress component, , is non-
linear, statically equivalent membrane and bending stress components over the section, m
and b respectively, can be determined from:

t
1
m x dx (4-1)
t 0

t
6 t
b x x dx (4-2)
t2 0
2

where t is the wall thickness and x is the coordinate through wall. For the determination of the
KI values the linearized stress over the position of the crack is important. Figure 4-1 shows an
actual stress distribution through the thickness of a component. In Figure 4-1(a), the location
of the crack is such that in the through wall direction the coordinate of the tip nearest to the
left side surface is xA and that of the other tip is xB. If xA is non-zero the crack is embedded, as
in Figure 4-1(a), and if xA is equal to zero the crack is a surface flaw, as in Figure 4-1(b). The
linearized stress state over the position of the crack consists of a membrane part, m* , and a
local bending part, b* . A normal force N and moment M per unit width may be defined from
the actual stress distribution and related to a linearized stress state between xA and xB by:

xB xB
* * 2x
N x dx m b 1 dx (4-3)
xA xA
t

xB xB
* * 2x
M x x dx x m b 1 dx (4-4)
xA xA
t

* *
Thus, m and b are obtained from:

* 4 N x B2 xB x A x A2 6M x B xA 3N x B xA 6Mt
m 3 (4-5)
xB xA
28 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

* 3Nt x B xA 6Mt
b 3 (4-6)
xB xA

The normal force N and the moment M per unit width between the coordinates xA and xB are
computed from the stress distribution (x) by equations (4-3) and (4-4). For the computation
of the KI values for a through-wall crack, xA = 0, xB = t, and equations (4-3) and (4-4) reduce
to equations (4-1) and (4-2). For the computation of the KI values for a surface flaw, xA = 0
and xB = a, where a is the crack depth.

Figure 4-1. Linearized representation of stresses [23].


29 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

5 Summary, conclusions and suggestions


for further research
This study is divided into two parts, which are theoretical and numerical comparison of
nuclear codes and analysis procedures. The scope of the first part, being this part, covers the
theoretical comparison. In the top level, this report is divided into three parts, which are
categorization and treatment of thermal stresses, plastic strain correction factor definitions and
linearization of stresses. The summary, conclusions and suggestions for further research
concerning the study are presented in the following. The scope of the study covers the ASME
Code [1, 3, 23], FITNET Procedure [2], the German safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4], the
French RCC-M code [5], R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], SINTAP Procedure [7], Swedish SSM
handbook [8] and German FKM Guideline [9], as well as relevant scientific publications on
the considered issues.

5.1 Summary and conclusions


Thermal stresses have an important role in the NPP piping fitness-for-service analyses. The
treatment of this stress component depends, among other things, how it is categorized.
According to the codes and guidelines, in the top level the stress components are separated
into primary and secondary categories. Most often thermal stresses are categorised as
secondary stresses, however, in some cases they are categorised as primary stresses, e.g. when
they act over a range or gauge length large enough so that they could induce failure by plastic
collapse in the sub-structure of concern. According to the ASME Code [3] the thermal
stresses are further divided into general and local components.

When computing with a FE code and using elastic-plastic material model, the resulting total
stresses are correct. However, it is not possible to exactly separate the magnitude of the
thermal stresses from such total stresses which exceed the yield strength. Then, the first
approximation for the thermal stresses could be to subtract from the total stresses such total
stresses which are computed with all other loads but the thermal loads.

The interaction of thermal stresses with other stress components is another relevant issue. The
R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], SINTAP Procedure [7], FITNET Procedure [2], SSM handbook [8]
and FKM Guideline [9] provide plasticity corrections for the computation of KI values for
cracks, applying plasticity correction parameters and V. As for more recent developments,
James et al. [12, 13, 14] have presented a new definition for the plasticity correction
parameter, g( ).

To take into account the elastic-plastic effects in the computation of stress ranges, plastic
strain correction factor, Ke, is used. In the context of the commonly applied fitness-for-service
codes, i.e. the ASME Code, safety standard KTA 3201.2 and RCC-M code, the Ke factor is
part of the fatigue design procedure. This is an important issue from the viewpoint of
computational fatigue life of NPP piping components. Unfortunately, the Ke factor definitions
according to these codes are often overly conservative, e.g. those in the ASME code. Of the
considered eight codes/guidelines, the ASME Code [3], KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code [5]
contain Ke definitions to take into account elastic-plastic effects in the computation of stress
ranges for fatigue analysis. The ASME Code [3] and KTA 3201.2 [4] present Ke definitions
which are often overly conservative, whereas those in the RCC-M code [5] are less
30 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

conservative. A review of more advanced and less conservative Ke factor definitions are
presented too, which definitions are by/from Hbel, H. [16], EPRI Report TR-107533 [15],
AD-Merkblatt S2 [17], EN 13445-3 [18], ASME Code Case N-779 [19], ASME Code,
Section VIII [20] and Lang, H., Rudolph, J., Ziegler, R. [21].

The RCC-M code [5] is always conservative. Plastic correction starts in the elastic region.
The ASME Code Case N-779 [19] and ASME Code, Section VIII [20] deliver comparatively
precise corrections. Nevertheless, these methods are not always conservative and require a
considerable calculation effort. A summary of some main characteristics of the covered Ke
definitions are presented in Chapter 3, see Table 3-1.

The linearized stresses are used in crack growth computations, which in turn are needed e.g.
for planning of inspections and qualification of inspection techniques. According to the
ASME Code [3], safety standard KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code [5] in most fatigue
computations the primary and secondary stress components are to be linear by their
distribution through the component wall. In case the distribution of a stress component is non-
linear, it must be transformed into linear shape. Of the mentioned codes, ASME Section XI
[23], Appendix A and KTA 3201.2 [4] clause C2.2 describe the linearization of stress
distribution through wall with text and illustrative figures. Whereas the FITNET Procedure
[2] gives a more detailed description of the linearization of stresses, providing also the
associated computation procedure.

5.2 Suggestions for further research


There are several procedures for plasticity corrections for the computation of KI values for
cracks, see the R6 Method, Rev. 4 [6], SINTAP Procedure [7], FITNET Procedure [2], SSM
handbook [8] and FKM Guideline [9]. Even though they are quite similar, some even
identical to each other, there are differences too. In practical computations, the obtained
results vary depending on the structural component in question. It is suggested that all of these
procedures are applied to some representative domestic NPP piping components, and that the
results are compared against those computed with FEM.

There are several procedures for the computation of the plastic strain correction factor Ke,
some of which are given in codes, see ASME Code [3], KTA 3201.2 [4] and RCC-M code
[5], and several of which in other significant documents, see Hbel, H. [16], EPRI Report TR-
107533 [15], AD-Merkblatt S2 [17], EN 13445-3 [18], ASME Code Case N-779 [19], ASME
Code, Section VIII [20] and Lang, H., Rudolph, J., Ziegler, R. [21]. Mostly these
procedures/definitions differ from each other, especially in terms of how conservative they
are. In practical computations, the obtained results vary also depending on the structural
component in question. It is suggested that all of these procedures are applied to some
representative domestic NPP piping components, and that the results are compared against
those computed with FEM.
31 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

References
1. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Article NH-3000 Design.
2010 Edition.
2. FITNET Fitness-for-Service PROCEDURE Revision MK8. Editor(s) Koak, M. et al.
European Fitness-for-Service Thematic Network FITNET. Germany, January 2008.
3. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Article NB-3000 Design.
2010 Edition.
4. KTA 3201.2 Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary of Light Water
Reactors Part 2: Design and Analysis. Safety Standards of the Nuclear Safety Standards
Commission (KTA). Salzgitter, Germany, June 1996. 161 p.
5. RCC-M Design and Conception Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear
Islands, Section I, Subsection "B" Class 1 Components. AFCEN, Paris, France, 2000
edition.
6. R6 Method - Assessment of the Integrity of Structures containing Defects, Revision 4.
2004 update of 2001 edition. British Energy (BE).
7. SINTAP - Structural Integrity Assessment Procedures for European Industry, Final
Procedure. Project funded by the European Union (EU) under the Brite-Euram
Programme: Project No. BE95-1426, Contract No. BRPR-CT95-0024. November 1999.
231 p.
8. Dillstrm, P. et al. 2008. A Combined Deterministic and Probabilistic Procedure for
Safety Assessment of Components with Cracks Handbook. SSM Research Report
2008:01, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (Strlskerhetsmyndigheten, SSM).
Stockholm, Sweden, 2008. 27+196 p.
9. Berger, C. et al. FKM Guideline - Fracture Mechanics Proof of Strength for Engineering
Components. Third revised edition, English version. Frankfurt, Germany, 2009. 366 p.
10. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NCA
General Requirements for Division 1 and Division 2. 2010 Edition.
11. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II. 2004 Edition.
12. James, P., et al. Continuing Development of a Simplified Method to Account for the
Interaction of Primary and Secondary Stresses. Article PVP2008-61040, Proceedings of
the ASME 2008 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division Conference PVP2008, July 27-31,
2008, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 9 p.
13. James, P., et al. Extension of the Simplified Method for the Interaction of Primary and
Secondary Stresses. Article PVP2009-77367, Proceedings of the ASME 2009 Pressure
Vessels & Piping Division Conference PVP2009, July 26-30, 2009, Prague, Czech
Republic. 10 p.
14. James, P., Hutchinson. P., Madew, C. Provisional Results for an Experimental
Investigation into the Effect of Combined Primary and Secondary Stresses when
Considering the Approaches of R6 and the Recently Developed g( ) Method. Article
PVP2011-57259, Proceedings of the ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping Division
Conference PVP2011, July 17-21, 2011, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 9 p.
32 (32)
RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

15. Carter, R. An Improved Approach for Performing Simplified Elastic-Plastic Fatigue


Analysis. EPRI Report TR-107533, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto,
California, USA, October 1998. 58 p.
16. Hbel, H. Siemens Technischer Bericht KWU NDM5: 93:3014 vom 15.12.1993:
Ermittlung realistischer Ke-Faktoren, Annex to Bieniussa, K., Reck, H., 1994.
17. AD 2000-Regelwerk. AD-Merkblatt S2. Kln, Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, 2003.
18. Standard SFS-EN 13445-3, Unfired Pressure Vessels. Part 3: Design, Suomen
Standardisoimisliitto SFS, 2009. 835 p.
19. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Cases of ASME boiler and pressure vessel code.
Case N-779. Alternative rules for simplified elastic plastic analysis. Class 1, Section III,
Division 1, 2010 Edition.
20. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code. Section VIII, Division 2, Part 5 Design by
analysis requirements. Rules for construction of pressure vessels, 2010.
21. Lang, H., Rudolph, J., Ziegler, R. Performance study of Ke factors in simplified elastic
plastic fatigue analyses with emphasis on thermal cyclic loading. International Journal of
Pressure Vessels and Piping 88 (2011) 330-347.
22. Grandemange, J., Heliot, J., Vagner, J., Morel, A., Faidy, C. Improvements on Fatigue
Analysis Methods for the Design of Nuclear Components Subjected to the French RCC-M
Code. Welding Research Council Bulletin 361, February 1991.
23. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI. 2010 Edition.