Proceedings of the ASME 2012 Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference
PVP2012
COMPARISON OF STRAIN RATE CALCULATION METHODS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FATIGUE CORRECTION EVALUATION
Seiji Asada
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
1-1-1 Wadamisaki-cho, Hyogo-ku, Kobe 652-8585, Japan
seiji_asada@mhi.co.jp
ABSTRACT
A Code Case for procedure to determine strain rate and Fen
for environmental fatigue evaluation is under preparation in the
ASME BPV Committee on Construction of Nuclear Facility
Components (III). The draft Code Case is to incorporate two
methods for strain rate calculation. One is based on NB-3216.1
“Constant Principal Stress Direction” that comes from the JSME
Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method. The other is based
on NB-3216.2 “Varying Principal Stress Direction” that was
proposed by M. Gray et al. In this paper, both methods are
explained and compared by using a sample problem.
NOMENCLATURE
Fen Environmental Correction Factor
Sij = ij, stress differences [MPa]
TRAN Transient
 Strain
 Poisson’s ratio
1, 2, 3 Principal stresses [MPa]
t, l, r, lt, lr, rt Stress Components [MPa]
INTRODUCTION
NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.207 [1] and its basis
document was published as NUREG/CR-6909 [2] for evaluation
of environmental fatigue. The ASME B&PV Committee (III)
then started to develop code cases on environmental fatigue
evaluation for Section III [3]. As a result, CC N-792 [4] based on
Fen methodology was published. Here, Fen methodology is an
evaluation method by using Environmental Correction Factor,
Fen, defined as the ratio of fatigue life in air to that in
environment. A usage factor in environment is calculated by the
usage factor in air multiplied by Fen. The Japanese study projects
on environmental fatigue proposed the Fen Methodology and
verified this by using experimental data [5]. The Fen
methodology is incorporated into not only the JSME
Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method [6] but also
NUREG/CR-6909 and CC N-792. Fen is a function of strain rate,
1 Copyright © 2012 by ASME
July 15-19, 2012, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
PVP2012-78020
temperature and water chemistry. Especially strain rate acts a
key role in Fen calculation.
The JSME Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method
defines the strain for calculating Fen as dividing the stress
difference by the Young’s modulus. This definition is also
incorporated into NUREG/CR-6909 and Code Case N-792.
Here, a strain (stress) history varies on a pressure and
thermal transient. The Japanese study projects developed the
Integrated Strain Rate Approach to calculate Fen for a strain
history and verified by using experimental data [7]. To calculate
an accurate Fen value, the detailed strain history is needed.
Also, because environmental effects on fatigue life occur
primarily during the tensile loading cycle, Fen calculation is
performed only for the tensile stress producing portion of the
stress cycle. This concept is incorporated into the above methods.
It is noted that the strain for Fen is defined by using the stress
difference and the algebraic sign of stress difference has no
meaning. Hence, a methodology to determine a stress difference
history with considering the meaningful sign is necessary to
obtain the strain history for calculating Fen. The Japanese study
projects proposed a method to define a stress difference history
with the meaningful sign and incorporated it into the JSME
Environmental Evaluation Method. This method is based on
"Constant Principal Stress Direction" method in NB-3216.1 in
the ASME B&PV Code Sec.III (hereinafter called Constant
Method).On the other hand, the ASME B&PV Code Sec. III has
another method that is "Varying Principal Stress Direction"
method in NB-3216.2 (hereinafter called Varying Method). M.
Gray et al. [8] proposed the method to obtain the stress
difference history by using the Varying Method.
In this paper, the above two methods for calculating the
stress difference history for Fen is explained and compared by
using a sample analysis.
NB-3216 DERIVATION OF STRESS DIFFERENCES
NB-3216 in the ASME B&PV Code Sec.III specifies two
calculation procedures of stress differences. One is NB-3216.1
“Constant Principal Stress Direction” and the other is NB-3216.2
“Varying Principal Stress Direction”. The former assumes that magnitude of any stress difference at any time
the directions of the principal stresses at the point being
considered do not change during the cycle. The later is for any INTEGRATED STRAIN RATE APPROACH
case in which the directions of the principal stresses at the point
being considered do change during the stress cycle and this The JSME Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method
procedure is more general. Those procedures are shown in employs The Integrated Strain Rate Approach as the detailed Fen
below. calculation method as follows.
Fen,A and Fen,B are calculated for two transient (A and B)
NB-3216.1 Constant Principal Stress Direction respectively. A time segment is a range in which the strain
continuously increases from min to max for each transient, the
- Consider the values of the three principal stresses at the point time segment is divided into m-number incremental time
versus time for the complete stress cycle. These are designated segments and each strain rate is calculated as shown in Fig. 1.
as 1, 2, and 3 for later identification. Then Fen for Transient A (Fen,A) and that for Transient B (Fen,B)
- Stress differences are determined as S12= 1 –2, S23= 2 –3, are calculated by using following equations respectively.
and S31= 3 –1. mA
 i
- Determine the extremes of the range through which each stress Fen , A   Fen,i (3)
difference Sij fluctuates and find the absolute magnitude of this i 1  max, A   min, A
range for each Sij. mB
 i
Fen, B   Fen,i (4)
i 1  max, B   min, B
NB-3216.2 Varying Principal Stress Direction
Fen for the stress cycle that consists of combination of Transient
- For any case in which the directions of the principal stresses at A and Transient B is calculated as follows;
the point being considered do change during the cycle.
F  ( max, A   min, A )  Fen, B  ( max, B   min, B )
- Consider the values of the six stress components t, l, r, tl, Fen  en, A (5)
lr, and rt versus time for the complete stress cycle. ( max, A   min, A )  ( max, B   min, B )
- Subtract each of the six stress components ti, li, etc., from
the corresponding stress components t, l, etc., at each point CALCULATION OF STRAIN HISTORY
in time during cycle and call the resulting components t’, l’, A strain for calculating Fen is obtained by dividing the stress
etc. difference by the Young’s modulus. When the stress difference
- At each point in time during the cycle, calculate the principal history is divided by the Young’s modulus, the strain history can
stresses 1’, 2’, and 3’ derived from the six stress be obtained. Here, the algebraic sign of the stress difference
components t’, l’, etc. history has no meaning. Fen calculation is, however, performed
- Stress differences are determined as S12’ = 1’2’, S23’ = 2’ only for the tensile stress producing portion of the stress cycle.
3’, and S31’ = 3’1’ and find the largest absolute Hence the algebraic sign of the stress difference history must be
determined so as to have the meaning against “the tensile stress
An extreme of producing portion of the stress cycle”.
stress difference
 Transient A The JSME Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method has
max,A the procedure to determine the algebraic sign of the stress
difference history by using the Constant Method. On the other
i hand, M. Gray and et al.[8] proposed a procedure by using the
Varying Method. Those procedures are shown in below.
Strain rate in an incremental time segment, i ;
 i Constant Method
i 
ti
- Calculate the principal stresses based on the six stress
min,A
ti Fen during Transient A;
S12=1-2 S23=2-3 S31=3-1
mA
 i
Fen , A   Fen,i y 1 … … …
t
i 1  max, A   min, A 12 2 Tran. A 2 … … …
1
 Transient B ti 5
10
5
… … … …
Fen during Transient B; 2 10 1 … … …
1 Tran. B 2 … … …
mB
 i
max,B Fen , B   Fen,i … … … …
i 1  max, B   min, B x Max. 300 200 300
Identify Principal Stress Min. -200 -150 200
Range 500 350 100
i
min,B 1-2] or [2-1] i-j]/E
(needed to be
determined)
An extreme of
stress difference

t Tran A Tran B

FIG. 1 INTEGRATED STRAIN RATE APPROACH FIG.2 CONSTANT METHOD

2 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

 Sij =i – j 3
[Concept] 1 > 3
1 > 3
1  > 3 
Do i and j
have the same
No
|i | > |j|
No Sij shall have the Then positive
same sign as j .
sign?
Yes 1  >  3 
Yes
[Positive]
1
Sij shall have the same Sij shall have the
sign as i and j . same sign as i .

FIG.3 ALGEBRAIC SIGN OF CONSTANT METHOD 1  <  3 

components in each time with identifying each principal stress
as shown in Fig. 2
- Identify the time of the extreme during the transient
- Assign the sign of the principal stress of which the absolute
value is the larger than the other one of the stress difference as
shown in Fig. 3
- Apply its sign to the stress difference
- Obtain the strain time history derived from the stress
difference time history divided by the Young's modulus
Varying Method
For a given time step, i-1 to i, the strain history is calculated
as follows:
- Each of the six stress components at time i-1 is subtracted from
the respective six stress components at time i.
- The differences in the component stresses are used to calculate
stress difference range.
- A sign is determined for the stress difference range as shown in
Fig. 4.
- The stress difference range is divided by the elastic modulus to
give the strain range and the sign is applied.
- The signed strain range is divided by the time interval to give
the strain rate. Also, the strain history can be obtain by
integrating each signed strain rate.
Concept of Determining Algebraic Sign
The Constant Method applies the sign of the principal stress
of which absolute value is greater than the other for the two
principal stresses at the extreme. This means that the principal
stress of which the absolute value is greater than the other is
dominant.
[Negative]
FIG.5 MEANING OF ALGEBRAIC SIGN OF VARYING METHOD
The meaning of algebraic sign of the Varying Method is
shown in Fig. 5. The Varying Method considers the sign as
positive when |1| > |3| with 1 > 3. This means that the
principal stress of which the absolute value is greater than the
other is dominant. This is basically the same concept as the
JSME method.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The Constant Method and the Varying Method are compared
by using a sample analysis. The stress data of this sample
analysis are diverted from the author’s former study [9]. The FE
analysis model is shown in Fig. 6. Stress analyses were
performed on this FEA model with two typical stepwise
transients (Transient A and Transient B) and the stress histories
were obtained as shown in Fig. 7. The maximum stress
difference range is the combination of the lowest 3-1 of
x
y
4.5"
Evaluation
316 Stainless
Point
Steel
3.44"
5.18"
SA-508 Gr.3 Cl.1

x , y, z

xy , yz, zx

Stainless Steel
Cladding
Caclulate No
Stress Range
1 , 2 , 3 |3 | > |1|
Positive
[ 1 > 2 > 3 ]
Yes

Stress Range Negative Calculate Strain

(Exclude time step from Range/ Rate for
integration: Fen=0) time step

FIG.4 ALGEBRAIC SIGN OF VARYING METHOD FIG.6 SAMPLE ANALYSIS

3 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

Transient A and the highest 3-1 of Transient B as shown in noted that 1, 2 and 3 by the Constant Method have no relation
Fig. 8. The stress difference values by the Constant Method and with 1, 2 and 3 by the Varying Method. Here, the extremes
the Varying Method are shown in Table 1. The maximum for the Constant Method can be easily found. The extremes for
absolute value of stress difference by the Constant Method is the Varying Method can be obtained by calculating all
126.8 ksi for 3-1. The maximum absolute value of stress combinations between two time points. To verify this calculation,
difference by the Varying Method is 134.3 ksi for 1-2. It is deviation mapping is effective. The deviation mapping of this
sample analysis is shown in Fig. 9. The extremes for the Varying
150 Method are the closed marks and those can be visually
12
Stress Difference, Principal Stress (ksi)

S1-S2
1- 2 identified.
23
S2-S3
2- 3 The algebraic sign of stress difference for the Constant
100 31
S3-S1
3- 1 Method is determined in accordance with the above procedure as
1
s11 shown in Fig. 10 and (13) is finally selected as shown in Fig.
2
s22 TABLE 1 STRESS DIFFERENCES
50 3
s33 (Unit: ksi)
x t r xt rx 1 2 3 1-2 2-3 3-1

0 Tran. A 102 95.2 -2.4 6.1 0 91.6 105.6 -2.4 -14 108 -93.9

Tran. B -32.9 -22.6 -2.9 6.1 0 -35.8 -19.7 -2.9 -16.1 -16.8 32.8
-50
Transient A Transient B Constant Method 2 124.8 126.8

Varying
-134.8 -117.8 -0.6 0 0 -0.6 -134.8 -117.8 134.3 -17 -117.3
-100 Method

FIG.7 PRINCIPAL STRESS TIME HISTORY

150
Sij = S31 = 3-1
Stress Difference, Principal Stress (ksi)

3-1
12
S3-S1
Tran.A: -94.0 = (-2.4)-(91.6)
1
1
s1 Tran.B: 32.8 = (-2.9)-(35.7)
100
3
3
s3

50
Do 1 and 3 have No No S13 shall have the
|1| > |3|
the same sign? same sign as 3.
0 Yes
Yes

-50
Transient A Transient B Sij shall have the Sij shall have the Sij = S13 = 1-3
same sign as i same sign as i. Tran.A: 94.0 = (91.6)-(-2.4)
an j. Tran.B: -32.8 = (35.7)-(-2.9)
-100
FIG.8 STRESS DIFFERENCE TIME HISTORY
FIG.10 DETERMINING ALGEBRAIC SIGN OF
STRESS DIFFERENCE (CONSTANT METHOD)

2
150
2
Transient A 80
(ksi)
1- 3 (ksi)

40 100
40 1
Difference, 13

-40
80 40
-40 50
Stress Difference,

Transient B 2

80 0
40
40 40 3 -50 Transient A Transient B
3 -40 40 80
-40
80
1
-100

FIG.9 DEVIATION MAPPING FIG. 11 CORRECTED STRESS DIFFERENCE TIME HISTORY

4 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

11. Fig. 8 shows 1 should be dominant and the sign of 1 Fig. 13 shows the stress state of #5 is very close to that of #6 and
should be adopted. Fig. 11 consists with the above observation this difference can be negligible.
and the flow of Fig. 10 properly determines the sign. The Fen values for the Constant Method and the Varying
The stress difference ranges of each time segment are Method are calculated by using the following Fen equation of
calculated in accordance with the Varying Method and shown in NURG/CR- 6909.
Fig. 12. Here, the stress difference histories by the Constant Fen  exp(0.734  T 'O' ' ) (6)
Method are also plotted on Fig. 12. It is noted that both are where,
different parameters and the algebraic signs can be directly T' = 0 : T < 150 oC
compared. “The tensile stress producing portion of the stress T' = (T-150)/175 : 150 < T < 325 oC
cycle” is needed to be identified and Fig. 12 shows both methods T' = 1 : T > 325 oC
can cope with this. The stress difference histories for the
 ' = 0 :  > 0.4 %/s
Constant Method can be directly evaluated for “the tensile stress
producing portion of the stress cycle”. The plus side of the  ' = ln( / 0.4) : 0.0004 <  < 0.4 %/s
signed stress difference range for the Varying method means  ' = ln( / 0.0004 / 0.4) :  < 0.0004 %/s
that. O' = 0.281 : all DO levels
The strain histories are evaluated for both cases as shown in The comparison of Fen values for the Constant Method and
Fig. 13. The strain history for the Constant Method can be easily the Varying Method is shown in Table 2. The difference of the
converted from the stress difference history with divided by the Fen values is not more than 2%. This is negligible and the two
Young’s modulus. The strain history for the Varying Method can methods can be considered as compatible for this simple
be obtained by cumulating the each strain increment calculated problem.
by dividing the stress difference range by the Young’s modulus. Here, this sample problem is relatively simple. Designers
Fig. 13 shows that there is no great difference between the two.
Here, the maximum point of the Constant Method is #5 while
150

Stress Difference Range, [Sign]x Stress Difference

that of the Varying Method is #6. The principal stress mapping in

in One Segment
70
Stress Difference, 1-3 (ksi) Constant Method

TABLE 2 Fen VALUES 100 50

Varying Method

30
Varying Constant Difference 50
Method Method (%)
10
Fen,Tran A 2.74 2.70 +1.5 0
-10

(ksi)
Fen,Tran B 8.70 8.80 -1.2 -50
-30
Transient A Transient B

Fen 3.48 3.52 -1.1 -100 -50

FIG.12 STRESS DIFFERENCE BY CONSTAN METHOD
vs STRESS DIFFERNENCE RANGE by VARYING METHOD

0.5
120 120
σ
σ

Varying Method #6
#6 #5
#4 100 100
#6 #5
0.4
80 #4 80 #3
#5 #4
Cumulative Strain (%)

#3 60 #3 60
0.3
#2
#2 #2
40 40

0.2
Constant Method 20 #1 20

σ σ
0 0
0.1 -20 0 20 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

-20 -20 #1

#1
0 -40 -40
Time

FIG. 13 CUMULATIVE STRAINS AND PRINCIPAL STRESS PLOTS

5 Copyright © 2012 by ASME

should take a caution for shear stress components. Relatively
large shear stresses may result in large change in the direction of
principal stress. In this case, the deviation mapping will also
help designers to identify the extremes. 2.
CONCLUSIONS
There are two methods to determine a strain history for
3.
evaluating Fen for “the tensile stress producing portion of the
stress cycle”. One is the Constant Method and the other is the
Varying Method. These two methods are compared by using a
sample analysis and the following conclusions have been
4.
reached.
- Both methods have the same concept that the principal stress
of which the absolute value is greater than the other is
5.
dominant and the sign shall be determined by the dominant
principal stress.
- The sample calculation shows that the Constant Method and
6.
the Varying Method can work well for calculating Fen values
and there is no significant difference between the two Fen
values by the Constant Method and the Varying Method. Here,
7.
designers should take a caution for shear stress components.
Relatively large shear stresses may result in large change in the
direction of principal stress. In this case, the deviation mapping
8.
will also help designers to identify the extremes.
REFERENCES
9.
1. 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, Washington, DC.
NUREG/CR-6909, 2007, “Effect of LWR Coolant
Environments on Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials”(Final
Report), ANL-06/08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC.
ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, 2007,
“Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant
Components,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, NY.
Code Case N-792, “Fatigue Evaluations Including
Environmental Effects, Section III, Division 1,” ASME
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, ASME.
Higuchi, M. , 2008, “Comparison of Environmental Fatigue
Evaluation Methods in LWR Water”, PVP2008-61087,
ASME.
“Codes for Nuclear Power Generation Facilities:
Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Method for Nuclear
Power Plants,” JSME S NF1-2009, JSME.
Kanasaki, et al., 1997, “Corrosion Fatigue Behavior and Life
Prediction Method under Changing Temperature
Conditions,” ASTM STP 1298.
Gray, M., et al, 2010, “Strain Rate Calculation Approach in
Environmental Fatigue Evaluations,” PVP2010-25947,
ASME.
Asada, S., 2009, “Proposal for Determination of Strain Rate
in Environmental Fatigue Correction Evaluation,” PVP2009
-77558, ASME.

6 Copyright © 2012 by ASME