Fatigue usage factor evaluations including the effects of reactor water environment have been performed in numerous nuclear plant license renewal efforts. A large number of these evaluations have used the environmental fatigue penalty factor, Fen, approach prescribed in various regulatory documents. The Fen equations require input of strain rate, but the prescribing documents do not provide methodology or criteria for the quantification of the strain rate to be input. As a result, numerous approaches have been offered and studied. This paper presents an approach used by Westinghouse to include strain rate in an automated calculation of Fen based on the modified rate approach (MRA) to integrated strain rate applications. The starting point of the approach is ASME Code Section III NB-3200 fatigue analysis. With environmental fatigue evaluations in new plant designs now emerging in ASME Code criteria, strain rate considerations remain part of the discussion. The intent of this paper is to provide further insight into this process.

References

References
1.
Chopra
,
O. K.
, and
Shack
,
W. J.
,
1998
, “
Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Carbon and Low–Alloy Steels
,” NUREG/CR–6583, ANL–97/18, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
2.
Chopra
,
O. K.
,
1999
, “
Effects of LWR Coolant Environments on Fatigue Design Curves of Austenitic Stainless Steels
,” NUREG/CR–5704, ANL–98/31, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
3.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1, Subsection NB,
2007
, “
Rules for Construction of Nuclear Facility Components, Class 1 Components
,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.
4.
Gray
,
M. A.
,
Cranford
,
E. L.
, and
Donavin
,
P. R.
, 2006, “
Application of Environmental Fatigue Penalty Factors and Implications for Design Analyses
,” 2006-ICPVT11-93982, ASME.
5.
Guidelines for Addressing Fatigue Environmental Effects in a License Renewal Application (MRP-47 Revision 1), TR-1012017, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, April, 2005.
6.
Regulatory Guide 1.207,
2007
, “
Guidelines for Evaluating Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal Components Due to the Effects of the Light-Water Reactor Environment for New Reactors
,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mar., Washington, DC.
7.
Chopra
,
O. K.
, and
Shack
,
W. J.
,
2007
, “
Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials
,” NUREG/CR-6909, ANL-06/08, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
8.
Higuchi
,
M.
,
2005
, “
Development of Evaluation Method of Fatigue Damage on Operating Plant Components in Considering Environmental Effect of LWR Coolant
,”
Materials Reliability Program: Third International Conference on Fatigue in Reactor Components (MRP-151)
, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1011958.
9.
Ware
,
A. G.
, et al. .,
1995
, “
Application of NUREG/CR-5999 Interim Design Curves to Selected Nuclear Power Plant Components
,” NUREG/CR-6260, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
10.
Meikle
,
T. A.
,
Cranford
,
E. L.
, and
Gray
,
M. A.
, 2010, “
Method for Selecting Stress States for use in an NB-3200 Fatigue Analysis
,” PVP2010-2589, ASME.
11.
“Guidelines for Environmental Fatigue Evaluation for LWR Component,” Thermal and Nuclear Power Engineering Society (TENPES), June 2002 (Translated into English November 2002).
12.
Asada
,
S.
, 2009, “
Proposal for Determining of Strain Rate in Environmental Fatigue Correction Evaluation
,” PVP2009-77558.
You do not currently have access to this content.