5 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Otso Cronvall

Nuclear power plant piping Stress component treatment - Theoretical comparison of nuclear codes and analysis procedures

- Simulation of the Deep Drawing Process
- Stress Analysis of Piping Systems
- Acid Treatment in Limestone
- 2_LoadCalculations
- Leitao 2009
- IRJET-Design and Strength Analysis of Automobile Door Processing Skid
- ABB_Manual_10E_01_print_03.pdf
- Advance Analysis of Hybrid Frame Structures by Refined Plastic-hinge Approach
- Scarf
- Machine Design Test 4 - Stresses
- Axisymmetric Analysis of Ground Reinforcing in Tunnelling Design
- 3D FE Simulation of High Velocity Fragment Perforation of Rc Concrete Slabs
- Analiza Air
- Shear Hinge Mechanism
- aula
- Chpter 7 e Goodman PDF to Word to PDF Again
- D5202-97
- Laboratory and Insitu Testing (1)
- Stress State
- WSM & LSM

Anda di halaman 1dari 33

2013

RESEARCH REPORT

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

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

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 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

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

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

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].

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.

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.

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

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

2 2 2 2

ep x y y z z x

21

12

(3-3)

3 2 2 2

xy yz zx

2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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].

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

m m 1 (3.2.1-1)

1 2 K e,q K e,q 2 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

(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:

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].

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].

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

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.

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

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.

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:

22 (32)

RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

eq,l

Ke 1 A0 1 (3.2.4-3)

2 R p 0.2 T *

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.

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:

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

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.

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].

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

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].

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.

29 (32)

RESEARCH REPORT VTT-R-08651-12

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.

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.

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

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.

- Simulation of the Deep Drawing ProcessDiunggah oleharaveeti
- Stress Analysis of Piping SystemsDiunggah olehShijumon Kp
- Acid Treatment in LimestoneDiunggah olehSanketh Shetty
- 2_LoadCalculationsDiunggah olehAlimko
- Leitao 2009Diunggah olehTaguis Velasco
- IRJET-Design and Strength Analysis of Automobile Door Processing SkidDiunggah olehIRJET Journal
- ABB_Manual_10E_01_print_03.pdfDiunggah olehosmpot
- Advance Analysis of Hybrid Frame Structures by Refined Plastic-hinge ApproachDiunggah olehIrfan Saleh
- ScarfDiunggah olehRaj Patil
- Machine Design Test 4 - StressesDiunggah olehsylvanaz01
- Axisymmetric Analysis of Ground Reinforcing in Tunnelling DesignDiunggah olehHumberto Jorge
- 3D FE Simulation of High Velocity Fragment Perforation of Rc Concrete SlabsDiunggah olehjs kalyana rama
- Analiza AirDiunggah olehMN
- Shear Hinge MechanismDiunggah olehManjula Unnikrishnan N K
- aulaDiunggah olehjorge mathaeus
- Chpter 7 e Goodman PDF to Word to PDF AgainDiunggah olehryithan
- D5202-97Diunggah olehIvan Arapov
- Laboratory and Insitu Testing (1)Diunggah olehCarlsten Karlz
- Stress StateDiunggah olehGabriel Caicedo Russy
- WSM & LSMDiunggah olehSantosh Rai
- XII-Paper-05.pdfDiunggah olehnehalahmad25@gmail.com
- Ch-18Diunggah olehSarfraz Munir
- Welded JointsDiunggah olehHTA
- Machine DesignhjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkkkjhhjhjkhjkkjkljhhjjkjkhjkjDiunggah olehVishnu Menta
- nhDiunggah olehPradeep Shrestha
- 2009, FEM of Full Depth Precast Concrete Transverse Bridge Deck DDiunggah olehGang Rayen
- Stress and StrainDiunggah olehkyogita
- SP6_6Diunggah olehRajat Nag
- Plasticity and Permeability in Carbonates Dependence on Stress Path and PorosityDiunggah olehCarlos Alberto Luza Huillca
- 112-109-1-PBDiunggah olehsacharya2011

- NUREG-0313_Rev-2_Material Selection and Processing for BWR PipingDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Nulife-08-23 - Scc Pilot Study Ra-3Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-07-23 - Identification of Priority R-et-D and Harmonisation AreasDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-02200-10_FRAS-1-1-3_06May2010Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-08-32 - Improved Methods for Dealing With Combined Primary and 2ndary Stresses in Defect AssessmentsDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-02199-10_FRAS-1-1-3_26Apr2010Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-08-33 - Load History Effects on Crack Driving Force – Contribution to EG2-EG3 RPV Case Study - Dec2008Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Cracking in Swedish BWR internals - Nuclear Engineering and Design 1990Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- SMiRT20 Manuscript VTTORC Div II Paper 1797Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-1903-Seismic Considerations for the Transition Break SizeDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-08651-12Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Report_VTT-R-08651-12Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NULIFE-07-21 - Guideline for the Development of High Quality SCC Growth DataDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Design of Nuclear Reactors Neighbouring the Nordic Countries, 1994.pdfDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- On Hawking’s Final Theory on the Big Bang -- PBS NewsHour May2018Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Nureg Cr 5632 Agingpra SmithDiunggah olehWilliam Ivans
- A New Engineering Method for Prediction of Fracture Toughness Temperature Dependence for RPV SteelsDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses in Aging Risk-based PrioritizationsDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- EPRI-R-3002010332-MRP-418 Use of Master Curve for Pressure-Retaining MaterialsDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-5378 Aging Data Analysis and Risk Assessment EtcDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Ml 041040063Diunggah olehNathan Block
- Nureg-0619 Bwr Feedwater Nozzle and Control Rod Drive Return Line Nozzle CrackingDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- 3445605994528Diunggah olehdudumuitoloco
- Accurate Prediction of Residual Stress in Stainless Steel Welds--2012Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-5587 Approaches for Age-Dependent PSAs EtcDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- Beyond RPV Design LifeDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG_SR_1482 REVISION 1 GUIDELINES FOR IST.pdfDiunggah olehSRVfiv
- NUREG-CR-4407--Pipe Break Frequency Estimation for Nuclear Power Plants- 1987Diunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-CR-2815 - Probabilistic Safety Analysis Procedures GuideDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- NUREG-1513 Integrated Safety Analysis Guidance DocumentDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall

- A Brief History of Light & Photography by Rick DobleDiunggah olehrickdoble
- Some Physical Aspects of Artificial and Natural Field Gyroscopes. Relation with Atmosperic Phenomena and Geo-Pathogenic Zones.he Field GyroscopeDiunggah olehmkrinker1296
- Niven, Larry - CrashlanderDiunggah olehhilly8
- IES OBJ Electrical Engineering 1999 Paper IDiunggah olehjiten
- Reality in Fairy TalesDiunggah olehChesky Bascara
- QuestionaireDiunggah olehSajid Hanif
- Mole Concept TheoryDiunggah olehasuhass
- Bending processDiunggah olehmaitoravi78
- 5988-7505EN.pdfDiunggah olehsthakur90
- Chapter 8 Phase DiagramsDiunggah olehWynlor Abarca
- MECH Multiple Choice - 2004Diunggah olehRio Djiwandana
- BIEEE-006Diunggah olehMaria Stephanie Rafol-Viduya
- Intro Pc Exp4Diunggah olehAnonymous T7vjZG4ot
- Light by Noel HuntleyDiunggah olehmsngr00
- Charging a Capacitor at a Constant RateDiunggah olehalittlegirl1221
- Smart Screen 6Diunggah olehleslie94
- AGARD445 WorkshopDiunggah olehZeeshan Khan
- Non-Linear Optical Properties of Matter.pdfDiunggah olehInam Ul Haq
- Rodriquez - Estimating Wind Turbines Mechanical ConstantsDiunggah olehBetty Blue
- Lab Circular Motion LabDiunggah olehcalculusdouche
- AC Resonance LabDiunggah olehJames Piekarz
- Cam5 QuestionsDiunggah olehkalirajgurusamy
- 12-2103471 Heat Transfer in EngineDiunggah olehRamasamikannan Ramasamikannan
- teachphil.pdfDiunggah olehahmedkhidryagoub
- determination of field density by core cutter methodDiunggah olehYogendra Patil
- Mass Transfer TheoriesDiunggah olehDia Fatima Maguikay
- Physics Chapter 16 AnswersDiunggah olehKarissa
- Ppt Document 1111Diunggah olehajay_kairi
- AE3212 I 2 Static Stab 1 AcDiunggah olehRadj90
- jntuk 2-2 ece june 2015 (2).pdfDiunggah olehMurali Krishna