A

Proceedings of the ASME 2020

tte
Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

nd
ee
PVP2020
July 20-24, 2020, Virtual, Online

R
ea
d-
O
nl
PVP2020-21106

y
C
op
y
INCEFA-PLUS PROJECT: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PROJECT DATA AND IMPACT
ON EXISTING FATIGUE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

Sam Cuvilliez1 Alec McLennan, Kevin Mottershead Jonathan Mann

EDF – DIPNN – DT Wood Rolls-Royce
Lyon, France Warrington, United Kingdom Derby, United Kingdom

Matthias Bruchhausen
European Commission, Joint Research Centre
Petten, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT Keywords: Environmentally Assisted Fatigue, PWR

The INCEFA+ project (INcreasing Safety in nuclear power Environment, Surface Finish Effect.
plants by Covering gaps in Environmental Fatigue Assessment)
is a five year project supported by the European Commission NOMENCLATURE
HORIZON2020 programme, which will conclude in June 2020. 𝜀̇ Strain rate (%.s-1)
This project aims to generate and analyse Environmental ∗
𝜀̇ Transformed strain rate
Assisted Fatigue (EAF) experimental data (approximately 230 a Strain amplitude (%)
fatigue data points generated on austenitic stainless steel), and ' Mean of the Gaussian distribution associated
focuses on the effect of several key parameters such as mean with the global translation factor on life TClife
strain, hold times and surface finish, and how they interact with i Mean of the Gaussian distribution associated
environmental effects (air or PWR environment). with the ith translation sub-factor on life Xi
This work focuses on the analysis of the data obtained ' Standard deviation of the Gaussian
during the INCEFA+ project. More specifically, this paper distribution associated with the global
discusses how the outcome of this analysis can be used to translation factor on life TClife
evaluate existing fatigue assessment procedures that incorporate i Standard deviation of the Gaussian
environmental effects in a similar way to NUREG/CR-6909. A distribution associated with the ith translation
key difference between these approaches and the NUREG/CR- sub-factor on life Xi
6909 is the reduction of conservatisms resulting from the joint a Translation sub-factor on fatigue life related to
implementation of the adjustment sub-factor related to surface material variability and data scatter
finish effect (as quantified in the design air curve derivation) and A Coefficient of the Langer equation
a Fen penalization factor for fatigue assessment of a location corresponding to the horizontal position of the
subjected to a PWR primary environment. The analysis fatigue curve
presented in this paper indicates that the adjustment (sub-)factor A’ Normally distributed random variable defined
on life associated with the effect of surface finish in air (as as the statistical combination of all translation
described in the derivation of the design air curve in sub-factors
NUREG/CR-6909) leads to substantial conservatisms when it is
A’ 5th percentile of the Gaussian distribution
used to predict fatigue lifetimes in PWR environments for rough
associated with the random variable A’
specimens. The corresponding margins can be explicitly
Am Mean value (50% percentile) of the coefficient
quantified against the design air curve used for EAF assessment,
of the Langer equation corresponding to the
but may also depend on the environmental correction F en factor
horizontal position of the fatigue curve
expression that is used to take environmental effects into
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
account.

1
Contact author: sam.cuvilliez@edf.fr

1 Copyright © 2020 ASME

b Translation sub-factor on fatigue life related to Xi, th percentile of the Gaussian distribution
loading effects associated with the ith translation sub-factor on
B Coefficient of the Langer equation life Xi
corresponding to the slope of the fatigue curve
BWR Boiling Water Reactor 1. INTRODUCTION
c Translation sub-factor on fatigue life related to Environmentally Assisted Fatigue (EAF) is currently
surface finish effect receiving an increased level of attention for existing Nuclear
C Coefficient of the Langer equation Power Plants (NPPs) as utilities are working to extend their
corresponding to the endurance limit of the operational life, and also for nuclear new builds. Indeed, in many
fatigue curve countries, regulatory requirements have led to an update of
d Translation sub-factor on fatigue life related to fatigue analysis rules in order to take into account the effect of a
size effect Light Water Reactor (LWR) environment on fatigue life in stress
DO Effective Dissolved Oxygen content of water report calculations. The most well-known example is the
EAF Environmentally Assisted Fatigue NUREG/CR-6909 report (Rev.0 [1], Rev.1 Draft [2] and Final
Fen Environmental penalization factor (generic Rev.1 [3]) prepared by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
notation) on behalf of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Fen-CC792 Environmental penalization factor using the (U.S. NRC), where environmental penalization factor “Fen”
ASME code-case N-792-1 expressions were derived for several reactor materials (stainless
Fen-threshold Part of environmental effects already covered steels, ferritic steels and nickel based alloys) from experimental
in the fatigue design curve data obtained on small-scale laboratory specimens with a smooth
INCEFA INcreasing Safety in NPPs by Covering gaps surface finish tested in Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) and
in Environmental Fatigue Assessment BWR (Boiling Water Reactor) environments. These penalization
IP Industrially Polished factors are applied to the life predicted with the appropriate
LWR Light Water Reactor fatigue design air curve (depending on the material considered),
MVDS Material Variability and Data Scatter so as to take into account the deleterious effect of environment.
N Fatigue life (generic notation) While the NUREG/CR-6909 guidance applies as it stands in the
Ndesign Fatigue life obtained for a strain amplitude U.S. through the U.S. NRC Regulatory Guide 1.207 [4], it was
equal to the one applied during the test using also declined (with certain amendments) in several international
the code design curve codes, for instance in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
NPP Nuclear Power Plant with the Code Case N-792-1 [5] or in the AFCEN RCC-M code
O* Transformed oxygen content [6] through the Rules in Probationary Phase “RPP-2” and “RPP-
PWR Pressurized Water Reactor 3”. Beyond codified approaches, domestic engineering
Ra Arithmetic mean deviation of the measured methodologies were also developed on the basis of the NUREG
surface roughness profile (µm) methodologies by nuclear stakeholders, as for instance in the
Rt Total height of measured surface roughness UK, for assessment of embarked reactor components as
profile (µm) documented in [7].
RPP Rule in Probationary Phase In this context, the H2020 INCEFA+ project was launched
RV Random Variable in mid-2015 between sixteen European organizations to generate
Salt Alternating stress amplitude (MPa) about 230 new experimental fatigue data points on austenitic
sd Standard Deviation stainless steel in both air and LWR environment, so as to
T Temperature (°C) investigate the effect (and potential crossed effects) of several
T* Transformed temperature parameters that are, specifically: mean strain, surface roughness,
TClife Translation Coefficient on life derived from and hold times. While some organizations have been testing their
the statistical combination of a given set of specific national materials and / or specific types of LWR
translation sub-factors primary environment (e.g. VVER), almost the whole INCEFA+
TClife-global Translation Coefficient on life derived from database (90% of the data points) has been generated on the same
the statistical combination of all translation batch of 304L material (heat identifier “XY182”) made by
sub-factors Creusot-Loire Industrie, and most of the tests in water have been
t95 95th percentile of the standard normal conducted in the same agreed PWR primary environment
distribution chemistry. The present paper is part of a set of INCEFA+
U.S. NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory contributions ([10], [11], [12] and [13]) to the PVP2020
Commission conference. An overview of the project is given in [10], and a
Xi Generic notation of the normally distributed focus on the testing program is provided in [11], as well as the
random variable related to the ith translation results of a global analysis of the data generated during the
sub-factor on fatigue life project according to a linear statistical model that allows to
identify the influence of each parameter studied (strain

2 Copyright © 2020 ASME

amplitude, environment, mean strain, surface roughness, hold
times…) including potential interactions between parameters.
On the basis of the analysis performed in [11], it seems that the
data generated during INCEFA+ does not show any significant
effect of mean strain or hold times as tested during the project,
while surface finish has been identified as a parameter for which
the effect can be considered as significant.
The goal of the present paper is therefore to assess this data
against already existing fatigue assessment procedures that
incorporate environmental effects in a similar way to
NUREG/CR-6909, while reducing its conservatism associated
with surface finish effects. These assessment procedures are
known as the ASME “Fen-threshold” Code Case proposal [14], the
AFCEN RCC-M “Fen-integrated” (RPP-3 of RCC-M code) [6] [15],
and the “Fen-incorporated” methodology as described in [7] (and
based on testing in [8][9]). These three different approaches, all
documented and compared in [7], are very similar but rely on
different design air curves and/or Fen expressions. They highlight
an over-conservatism quantified by a factor of 3 on life in fatigue
assessment of a location subjected to a PWR primary
environment, resulting from the joint implementation of the
adjustment sub-factor related to surface finish effect in air (as
quantified in the design curve translation factor on life) and a Fen
penalization factor derived from data generated in water on
small-scale specimens with a polished surface finish. Indeed,
real surface finish conditions in NPP components do not
correspond to such a smooth surface state, but rather to an
industrially polished, ground or as-manufactured surface finish.
The margins quantified in these approaches then rely on fatigue
data generated in water on rough specimens.
As an example, this paper analyzes the INCEFA+ plus data
according to the ASME Fen-threshold Code Case proposal. Using the
other two proposed EAF assessment procedures leads to similar
conclusions. The paper is organized as follows: the theoretical
prerequisites of the Fen-threshold Code Case proposal are first
reviewed, and the INCEFA+ database subset available so far is
then assessed according to this approach, so as to highlight the
margins that can be retrieved.
fatigue life N, and a reduction factor of 2 on alternating stress
amplitude Salt (a modified Goodman correction is applied to the
mean air curve as a first step). The design curve then corresponds
to the minimum of these two shifted curves.
The factor of 12 corresponds to the quantity denoted above
as TClife-global, and was derived in NUREG/CR-6909 Rev.0 [1]
from a statistical combination of different sub-factors, each of
them pertaining to an aggravating effect:
- material variability and data scatter (MVDS) effect
(translation factor denoted by a),
- loading history effect (translation factor denoted by b),
- surface finish (translation factor denoted by c),
- size effect (translation factor denoted by d).
These sub-factors are illustrated on FIGURE 1, and their
numerical values are listed in TABLE 1 (depending on the
revision of NUREG/CR-6909).
FIGURE 1: Illustration of translation sub-factors from
mean air curve to design air curve, adapted from [7].
TABLE 1: Translation sub-factors on life in successive
revisions of NUREG/CR-6909
NUREG/CR-6909 NUREG/CR-6909
Parameter
Rev. 0 [1] Rev. 1 [2],[3]
MVDS (a) Am=6.891 & sd=0.417

Loading history (b) 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF THE
FEN-THRESHOLD CODE CASE PROPOSAL Surface finish (c) 2.0 - 3.5 1.5 - 3.5
The purpose of this section is to introduce the information Size (d) 1.2 - 1.4 1.0 - 1.4
used in the next section for assessing the new experimental data
TClife-global (NUREG) 11.6 9.6
according to the Fen-threshold approach. As already mentioned in
the introduction, it relies on the same theoretical framework as TClife-global (recalculated) 11.7 9.4
in NUREG/CR-6909 but contains some amendments to the
original methodology. The MVDS factor (a) plays a particular role as it is intrinsically
It is first important to explain the way the design air curve is linked to the mean air curve, which in this case is fitted using a
derived from the mean air curve, and more particularly how the weighted least-square regression, with a Langer equation:
several aggravating effects on fatigue life are embedded in a
single global reduction factor on life denoted hereafter by 𝑙𝑛(𝑁) = 𝐴 − 𝐵𝑙𝑛(𝜀𝑎 − 𝐶) (1)
TClife-global. The Fen-threshold Code Case applies to austenitic and
cast duplex stainless steels, and relies on the relevant ASME where A, B and C coefficients are respectively corresponding to
design curve of mandatory appendix I of BPVC.III (Table I-9.2). the horizontal position of the curve, its slope, and the endurance
This curve has been obtained by applying on the limit. The A coefficient in equation (1) is assumed to be a random
NUREG/CR-6909 best fit air curve a reduction factor of 12 on

3 Copyright © 2020 ASME

variable (RV) following a normal distribution in the ln(N)-space
with mean Am and standard deviation sd:

𝐴~𝒩(𝐴𝑚 , 𝑠𝑑2 ) (2)

where Am is the value fitted in the mean curve equation. In order

to incorporate the aggravating effects on life represented by the
remaining sub-factors b, c and d, it is furthermore assumed that
each of them follows a lognormal distribution (i.e. a normal
distribution in the ln(N)-space):

𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖 )~𝒩(𝜇𝑖 , 𝜎𝑖2 ), 𝑖 = 1, 𝑛 with:

𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖,5 ) + 𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖,95 )
𝜇𝑖 = (3)
2
𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖,95 ) − 𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖,5 )
𝜎𝑖 =
2𝑡95

where Xi denotes the ith RV associated with the ith factor amongst
b, c and d, i and i respectively denote the mean and the
standard deviation of these normal distributions, and t95 ≈ 1.645
denotes the 95th percentile of the standard normal distribution.
Thanks to the lognormal hypothesis, i and i can be determined
in equation (3) using the range of values given in TABLE 1 for
each parameter. The lower and upper bounds of the ith range of
values are assumed to be respectively the 5th percentile (Xi,5) and
95th (Xi,95) percentile of the associated lognormal distribution.
The next step consists in the statistical combination itself, which
reflects the successive application of each reduction factor to the
life predicted with the mean air curve in the ln(N)-space:
𝐴′ ≝ 𝐴 − ∑𝑖=1,𝑛 𝑙𝑛(𝑋𝑖 ) (4)
where the RV A’ characterizes the position of the new left-shifted
fatigue curve. The global translation factor on life TClife-global is
then obtained for a given percentile of A’ (5% in practice). In
NUREG/CR-6909, Monte-Carlo simulations were carried out by
randomly drawing values for A and Xi according to their assumed
distributions in order to determine TClife-global. However, since A’
is defined as a linear combination of normal independent RVs,
A’ is also normally distributed with a mean ’ and a standard
deviation ’:
𝐴′~𝒩(𝜇′, 𝜎′2 ), with:
𝜇′ = 𝐴𝑚 − ∑𝑖=1,𝑛 𝜇𝑖 (5)
𝜎′2 = 𝑠𝑑2 + ∑𝑖=1,𝑛 𝜎𝑖2
FIGURE 2: Illustration of the cumulative probability
density functions associated with MVDS and A’ random
variable
The Fen-threshold is then defined as follows, so as to
quantify the mismatch between experimental results obtained in
a PWR environment on a rough specimen and a life prediction
that uses a Fen factor and the design air curve translation factors:
𝐹𝑒𝑛−𝐶𝐶792 𝑁𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 1
𝐹𝑒𝑛−𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 ≝ (7)
𝑇𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛
where Fen-CC792 is the environmental correction factor used in
ASME code-case N-792-1 and recalled in equations (8) to (11),
Ntest is the experimental life of the specimen (N25 for instance),
Ndesign is the life obtained for a strain amplitude equal to the one
applied during the test using the code design curve, and TClife is
the translation coefficient on life (statistical combination of a
given set of sub-factors amongst a, b, and d, depending on the
surface condition). In equation (7) TClife is calculated the same
way as TClife-global using equations (2) to (6), but the difference is
that the sub-factor pertaining to surface finish has been excluded
from the statistical combination in equation (4), since its effect
is already accounted for through Ntest (the test being conducted
on a rough specimen). Consequently, the red part of equation (7)
is intended to make the water data comparable to the design
curve prediction in air (blue part).
𝐹𝑒𝑛−𝐶𝐶792 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(0.734 − 𝑇 ∗ 𝜀̇ ∗ 𝑂 ∗ ) (8)

TClife-global can then be calculated with the following closed-form 𝑇∗ = 0 (𝑇 < 150°C)
expression, also illustrated on FIGURE 2: 𝑇 ∗ = (𝑇 − 150)⁄175 (150 ≤ 𝑇 < 325°C) (9)
𝑇∗ = 1 (𝑇 ≥ 325°C)
𝑇𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒−𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑏𝑎𝑙 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝(𝐴𝑚 − 𝐴′5 ), with:
(6) 𝜀̇ ∗ = 0 (𝜀̇ > 0.4%.s-1)
𝐴′5 = 𝜇′ − 𝑡95 𝜎′
𝜀̇ ∗ = 𝑙𝑛(𝜀̇⁄0.4) (0.0004%.s-1≤𝜀̇≤ 0.4%.s-1) (10)
𝜀̇ ∗ = 𝑙𝑛(0.0004⁄0.4) (𝜀̇ < 0.0004%.s-1)
where A’5 denotes the 5 percentile of the normal distribution
th

associated with A’.

4 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 𝑂 ∗ = 0.281 (all DO levels) (11) for IP and ground specimens). Indeed, since the design curve
remains unchanged, a lower TClife leads to a higher Fen-threshold.
As explained in [14], TClife coefficient in equation (7) takes two
distinct values depending on the rough surface condition tested 3. QUANTIFICATION OF THE FEN-THRESHOLD
amongst industrially polished (IP) specimens and ground USING THE INCEFA+ PWR DATA GENERATED ON
specimens (the corresponding ranges of surface roughness are ROUGH SPECIMENS
recalled in TABLE 2): The experimental data used in the present analysis (and
- for IP specimens, the sub-factors a, b, and d have to be more broadly used within the INCEFA+ project for any analysis)
combined (without c which is related to surface finish has been previously assessed by an expert panel (made of fatigue
effect) using equation (4), thus leading to a reported experts from within the project consortium, see [16] for more
value of 4.5 for TClife details) in terms of quality and completeness. In this section, we
- for ground specimens, only the sub-factors a and b have consider the INCEFA+ data available so far and generated in
to be combined using equation (4), thus leading to a PWR environments on rough specimens. Some tests were
reported value of 3.5 for TClife. Indeed, the size effect performed under VVER conditions, where the Fen-threshold cannot
(d) is intricately linked to the surface finish and gets be calculated since the Fen expression used in equation (7) does
absorbed by the aggravating effect of surface finish (c) not apply to this type of environment. These test results were
in the case of rough surface finish conditions, as therefore excluded from the analysis. With regard to surface
reported in successive revisions of NUREG/CR-6909 finish, the data considered is that generated on solid bar
[1][2][3]. specimens, since the surface condition of the inner wall of
hollow bar specimens tested during the project corresponds to a
TABLE 2: Rough surface finishes tested in [14] honed finish (assimilated to a polished finish). This data has been
generated by a total of six different laboratories performing tests
Surface condition Ra (µm) Rt (µm) within an autoclave, each of them using its own specimen
geometry and control method (see [13] for more details), which
Industrially Polished 1.5 - 2 15 - 20 can introduce a certain amount of scatter. The considered subset
Ground 5-7 50 - 70 of the INCEFA+ database corresponds to strain-controlled tests,
with saw tooth waveforms (for several rising strain rates) under
different constant temperatures. Some of these data points have
TABLE 3: Possible values of TClife for Fen-threshold
been generated by applying a mean strain and/or hold times
calculation, according to successive revisions of
during cycling (which could also be a source of extra scatter),
NUREG/CR-6909
but according to the analysis reported in [11], these two
NUREG/CR-6909 NUREG/CR-6909 parameters (as tested during the project) do not have a significant
Rev. 0 [1] Rev. 1 [2],[3] effect. Amongst these 46 tests, 45 were conducted on the same
Ground Ground batch of 304L material (heat identifier “XY182”, the chemical
Parameter IP specimens IP specimens
specimens specimens composition of which was reported in [16]), the remaining test
was performed on a 304 material used in a Wood domestic
MVDS (a) Am=6.891 & sd=0.417 program. The rough surface conditions tested correspond to Rt
Loading history (b) 1.2 - 2.0 1.0 - 2.0 values ranging from 13.65 µm to 65.5 µm. In order to allow for
a quantification of the Fen-threshold the subset has to be split up into
Size (d) 1.2 - 1.4 N/A* 1.0 - 1.4 N/A*
two parts. Consistently with the bounds given in [14] and
TClife (recalculated) 4.2 3.2 3.7 3.0 recalled in TABLE 2, it is considered that Rt ≤ 20µm corresponds
* Note: size effect is not taken into account because of the rough surface condition to an IP condition, and Rt > 20µm corresponds to a ground
([1], [2] and [3]) conditions. The corresponding two sets of test results are then
Finally, it is not specified exactly in [14] from which detailed in TABLE 4 and TABLE 5.
revision of NUREG/CR-6909 the reported values of 4.5 and 3.5
for TClife (respectively for IP and ground specimens) have been TABLE 4: Test conditions for industrially polished
derived, but the values recalculated in TABLE 3 using equations specimens
(2) to (6) tend to indicate that Rev.0 was used, as 4.2 and 3.2
Surface Rising 𝜺̇ Nb. of
were obtained respectively for IP and ground specimens using a (%) T (°C) Fen-CC792
Rev.0 sub-factors (and then probably rounded up to 4.5 and 3.5).
condition (%.s-1) tests

However, as the sub-factors on life were revised in Rev.1, and IP 0.3 300 0.01 5.07 3
since this is completely uncorrelated with the Fen expression IP 0.32 300 0.01 5.07 1
used, it could be useful to take advantage of these revised sub-
IP 0.6 300 0.01 5.07 4
factors since the corresponding TClife values given in TABLE 3
are lower than the ones reported in [14] (3.7 and 3.0 respectively

5 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 TABLE 5: Test conditions for ground specimens 𝑇𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛
𝑁𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑 = (for rough specimens) (12)
𝐹𝑒𝑛−𝐶𝐶792
Surface Rising 𝜺̇ Nb. of
ea (%) T (°C) Fen-CC792
condition (%.s-1) tests where TClife increases the design curve prediction by removing
2.91 or 3.35
Ground 0.3 230 or 300 0.01 or 0.1
or 5.07
15 the aggravating effects that are not part of the test conditions.
Ground 0.313 300 0.01 5.07 1
The values used for TClife in FIGURE 4 are the ones reported in
Ground 0.38 300 0.008 3.07 1 [14] (4.5 for IP specimens and 3.5 for ground specimens). This
Ground 0.6 300 0.01 or 0.1 2.91 or 5.07 17 first graphical analysis helps make it clear that the model fits well
for polished surface finish since the corresponding data points
Ground 0.611 300 0.01 5.07 1 are located along the first bisector. By contrast, the model
Ground 0.622 300 0.01 5.07 1 exhibits a certain level of conservatism for rough specimens
since the corresponding data points are shifted by a factor of
Ground 1.2 300 0.02 4.9 2
approximately 3 below the first bisector.

This experimental data is plotted (without applying any

correction on life at this stage) on FIGURE 3 per surface finish
condition, against NUREG/CR-6909 mean air curve and ASME
design air curve (mandatory appendix I of BPVC.III, Table I-
9.2). Even if not used in the Fen-threshold quantification, the data
obtained on polished solid bar specimens has also been reported
on this chart (the test conditions are similar to those detailed in
TABLE 4 and TABLE 5 but not reported here, see [11] for more
information).

FIGURE 4: Experimental lives vs. predicted lives for the

considered subset of the INCEFA+ PWR database: tests
conducted on polished and rough solid bar specimens.
Note: for IP and ground specimens, life is predicted according equation (12)

In addition to FIGURE 4, this data has also been reported

relative to the NUREG/CR-6909 database used to derive the Fen
FIGURE 3: Considered subset of the INCEFA+ PWR database expression, on FIGURE 5 and FIGURE 6 (respectively for
(solid bar specimens) polished and rough specimens)

The raw data represented on FIGURE 3 does not allow to clearly

visualize the potential margins associated with the joint use of
the design curve translation factors and Fen factor. To this end, it
is necessary to correct the life predicted with the design curve
with the appropriate quantities that were mentioned in the
previous section. This is what has been done in FIGURE 4;
where the (corrected) predicted life is compared with the life. For
polished specimen, life is predicted using NUREG/CR-6909
mean air and divided by the Fen expression from the code-case
N-792-1. For rough specimens (IP and ground specimens), life
is predicted according to equation (12):

6 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 Beyond this graphical analysis, an explicit quantification of the
margin can be performed using equation (7). The Fen-threshold is
calculated for each data point, and then averaged per strain
amplitude level (regardless of the theoretical Fen-CC792 value) for
both surface conditions. These calculations are reported in
TABLE 6 and TABLE 7 (respectively for IP and ground
specimens). A global weighted average is then calculated for all
strain amplitude conditions. Two different Fen-threshold values are
given in the last columns of these tables: the first has been
obtained using TClife values as originally reported in [14] (based
on NUREG/CR-6909 Rev.0 sub-factors), and the second one has
been obtained using TClife values based on NUREG/CR-6909
Rev.1 sub-factors (see TABLE 3). As previously reported in [14]
on the basis of data generated on the same material, the
quantified margin can reach values below 3.0 for certain levels
of strain amplitude. However, the average Fen-threshold value
reported in the last row of TABLE 6 and TABLE 7 ranges from
3.10 to 3.85, depending on the surface condition and TClife values
used. This permits the conclusion that the INCEFA+ data
represents further evidence for the conservatisms incorporated in
the NUREG/CR-6909 approach, and quantified by a factor of 3
in several existing EAF assessment procedures [7].
FIGURE 5: Experimental lives vs. predicted lives for the
considered subset of the INCEFA+ PWR database: tests TABLE 6: Fen-threshold values for tests on IP surface finish
conducted on polished solid specimens. Background figure (total of 8 tests)
originates from [2].
Surface Nb. of
a (%) Fen-CC792 Fen-threshold (1) Fen-threshold (2)
condition tests
IP 3 0.3 5.07 2.38 2.89

IP 1 0.32 5.07 2.98 3.62

IP 4 0.6 5.07 3.80 4.62

TOTAL (weighted average) 3.16 3.85

Note (1): TClife is 4.5 for IP specimens as in [14]
Note (2): TClife is 3.7 for IP specimens, using NUREG/CR-6909 Rev.1 sub-factors
as in TABLE 3

TABLE 7: Fen-threshold values for tests on ground surface finish

(total of 38 tests)

Surface Nb. of
a (%) Fen-CC792 Fen-threshold (1) Fen-threshold (2)
condition tests
2.91 or 3.35
Ground 15 0.3 2.50 2.91
or 5.07
Ground 1 0.313 5.07 2.87 3.35

Ground 1 0.38 3.07 4.94 5.76

Ground 17 0.6 2.91 or 5.07 3.42 3.99

Ground 1 0.611 5.07 3.56 4.16

Ground 1 0.622 5.07 3.22 3.76

FIGURE 6: Experimental lives vs. predicted lives for the
considered subset of the INCEFA+ PWR database: tests Ground 2 1.2 4.9 3.86 4.51
conducted on industrially polished and ground specimens. TOTAL (weighted average) 3.10 3.62
Background figure originates from [2].
Note (1): TClife is 3.5 for ground specimens as in [14]
Note (2): TClife is 3.0 for ground specimens, using NUREG/CR-6909 Rev.1 sub-
Note 1: both tests conducted at a = 1.2% are not plotted on this chart.
factors as in TABLE 3
Note 2: for IP and ground specimens, life is predicted according equation (12)

7 Copyright © 2020 ASME

4. CONCLUSION
This paper focuses on the INCEFA+ data, as available in
January 2020, generated on a 304L material, in a PWR
environment, and on rough specimens. This data has been
investigated according to an existing EAF codified approach that
allows for the quantification of the margins related to the joint
implementation of a design air curve (especially its translation
factor on life related to surface finish effects) and an
environmental penalization factor Fen. Despite possible
additional sources of scatter (different laboratories, different
strain control methods in autoclave, different specimen
geometries, application of mean strain and hold times for during
several tests…), the quantified margins are consistent with what
has been previously reported in the literature, and underpin these
conclusions. Finally, an improvement in the quantification of
this margin has been proposed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project has received funding from the Euratom
research and training program 2014-2018 under grant agreement
No 662320.
The contributions of all partners in the INCEFA-PLUS project
are also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] Chopra O. K., Shack W. J., “Effect of LWR Coolant
Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials,”
NUREG/CR-6909 Rev.0, ANL-06/08, February 2007.
[2] Chopra O. K., Stevens G. L., “Effect of LWR Coolant
Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials”,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6909
Rev.1 DRAFT ANL-12/60, March 2014.
[3] Chopra O. K., Stevens G. L., “Effect of LWR Coolant
Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials”,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-6909
Rev.1, Final Report, May 2018.
[4] U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.207, REVISION 1, June 2018,
Technical Lead: Robert Tregoning
[5] ASME Code Case N-792-1, “Fatigue Evaluations Including
Environmental Effects, Section III, Division 1,” August 12,
2012.
[6] RCC-M – Design and Construction Rules for mechanical
components of nuclear PWR islands – 2016 edition.
[7] Métais T., Morley A., de Baglion L., Tice D., Stevens G. L.,
Cuvilliez S., “Explicit Quantification of the Interaction
Between the PWR Environment and Component Surface
Finish in Environmental Fatigue Evaluation Methods for
Austenitic Stainless Steels”. PVP2018-84240, ASME 2018
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Prague, Czech
Republic.
[8] Stairmand J., Platts N., Tice D., Mottershead K., Zhang W.,
Meldrum J., McLennan A., “Effect of Surface Condition on
the Fatigue Life of Austenitic Stainless Steels in High
8 Copyright © 2020 ASME
Temperature Water Environments” PVP2015-45029,
ASME 2015 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
[9] Morley A., Twite M., Platts N., McLennan A., Currie C.,
“Effect of Surface Condition on the Fatigue Life of
Austenitic Stainless Steels in High Temperature Water
Environments”, PVP2018-84251, ASME 2018 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, Prague, Czech Republic.
[10] Mottershead K. et al., “INCEFA-PLUS (INcreasing Safety
in NPPs by Covering gaps in Environmental Fatigue
Assessment)”, PVP2020-21220, submitted to ASME 2020
Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA.
[11] Bruchhausen M. et al., “INCEFA-PLUS Project: Review of
the Test programme”, PVP2020-21377, submitted to
ASME 2020 Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
[12] McLennan A. et al., “INCEFA-PLUS Project: The Impact
of Using Fatigue Data Generated From Multiple Specimen
Geometries on the Outcome of a Regression Analysis”.
PVP2020-21422, submitted to ASME 2020 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
USA.
[13] Vankeerberghen M. et al., “Strain Control Correction for
Fatigue Testing in LWR Environments”. PVP2020-21373,
submitted to ASME 2020 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
[14] Métais T., Courtin S., de Baglion L., Gourdin C., Le Roux
J-C., “ASME Code-Case Proposal to Explicitly Quantify the
Interaction Between the PWR Environment and Component
Surface Finish”. PVP2017-65367, ASME 2017 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA.
[15] Courtin S., Métais T., Triay M., Meister E., Marie S.,
“Modifications of the 2016 Edition of the RCC-M Code to
Account for Environmentally Assisted Fatigue”, PVP2016-
63127, ASME 2016 Pressure Vessels and Piping
Conference, Vancouver, Canada.
[16] Bruchhausen M., McLennan A., Cicero R., Huotilainen C.,
Mottershead, K., Le Roux J-C., Vankeerberghen M.,
“Environmentally Assisted Fatigue Data From the INCEFA-
PLUS Project”, PVP2019-93085, ASME 2019 Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA