Crna17575ens 001

-uropean Commission
nuclear science
and technology
Improved design-by-analysis procedures
for LWR design codes
Marøå
Report
EUR 17575 EN
European Commission
Improved design-by-analysis procedures

for LWR design codes
J. M. Grandemange
Framatome
H. Hubel
F. H. Lausitz
M. Orsini
Ansaldo
K. Schramm
Siemens
N. G. Smith
AEA Technology
Contract No COSU-CT94-064-UK
Final report
This work was performed for the European Commission

under the working group 'Codes and standards'
Activity group 2: 'Design rules'
Directorate-General
Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection
1998 EUR 17575 EN

LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998
ISBN 92-828-4191-X
© European Communities, 1998
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Luxembourg
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

Executive Summary
The European Fast Reactor (EFR) collaboration with the EFR Associates Design and
Construction Rules Committee, and the R&D Agreement (AGT 9B) produced significant
developments in design-by-analysis procedures for high temperature plant. Many of these
developments are judged to be relevant to the non-creep conditions of LWR plant, and for this
reason, the CEC DGXI Working Group Codes and Standards supported this study to review
and make recommendations on their potential application for improving LWR design code
procedures.
The topics considered are judged to be those where the most significant and relevant
developments have been made and the list, although not exhaustive, is as follows:
- Negligible creep criteria

- Design-by-analysis procedures for weldments
- Shakedown design rules
- Design-by-analysis methods for tubeplates
- Buckling rules
- Interaction diagrams for assessing ratcheting
- Rules for the prevention of elastic follow-up in piping
- Strain range enhancement
- Constitutive equations for inelastic analysis
- Margins on Level D criteria
- Zarka method
For each of the fast reactor developments, the background to the procedure plus the potential
application to LWR design codes is first described. This is followed by a description of the
current LWR design code procedure and the potential benefit to LWR design codes.
The fast reactor developments were presented by H Hübel (F H Lausitz) M Orsini (Ansaldo)
and N G Smith (AEA Technology) whilst the complementary reviews of LWR procedures
were presented jointly J M Grandemange (Framatome) and K Schramm (Siemens).
Consensus conclusions on the potential benefit to improving LWR design codes were
developed by all participants, and these are listed in Section 13 of the report. The overall
project management for the contract was under the responsibility of AEA Technology
(N G Smith).
A summary of the recommendations for each of the topics is as follows.'
Negligible creep criteria - No recommendations are made for the introduction of such criteria
into LWR design codes but may be useful for excluding consideration of creep effects in
beyond-design-basis accident conditions.
Design-by-analysis procedures for assessing weldments - Recommendations for the

improvement of fatigue analysis criteria for weldments in LWR design codes will be
in
considered under a current CEC DGXI WGCS study 'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis
Criteria' and, therefore, no specific recommendations are made within the present study.
Shakedown design rules - Recommended that the method be evaluated for improvement of
current LWR design code procedures by trial applications on LWR components and
comparison with experimental results.
Design-by-analysis methods for tubeplates - Equivalent elastic constants for the triangular
penetration pattern are an improvement on current values based on ASME and should be
considered in evaluating margins in current LWR design codes. The methods developed for
circular penetration patterns and dished tubeplates should be referred to if these types of
features are considered in future LWR designs. Evaluation and updating of methods for
square penetration patterns and for holes other than square have been identified as additional
requirements for LWR design codes.
Buckling rules - Recommended that trial application against typical LWR components be
performed to evaluate potential benefit for LWR design codes. An additional requirement for
consideration is the applicability to beam-like structures.
Interaction diagrams for the assessment of ratcheting - Recommended for trial application
to typical LWR structures to evaluate potential improvement for LWR design codes.
Reference should be made to previous FR studies which may also be relevant to LWR
components.
Rules for the prevention of EFU in piping - Recommended that FR developed methods be
evaluated by trial application to typical LWR piping configurations. Also, the significance
and definition of piping stress indices should be studied in the context of EFU.
Strain range enhancement - A review of the current Kg factor in LWR design codes will be
included in CEC DGXI study 'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis Criteria'. Proposals for
future developments and comparison of various rules on practical examples should be
performed to evaluate and further improve LWR design codes.
Margins on Level D criteria - Current methods in LWR design codes are considered to be
sufficiently conservative to compensate for variable design margins identified in FR studies
and, therefore, no recommendations are made.
With regard to large displacement inelastic analysis, the guidance provided on establishing
ductility based criteria and in determining the Plastic Instability Load, may be referred to, if
required for LWR applications.
Constitutive equations - No recommendations are made to introduce specific constitutive

equations into LWR design codes, although consideration may be given to introducing
guidance on the most appropriate model to use in different LWR applications.
Zarka method - The simplified method may be used to confirm or supplement inelastic
analyses rather than being included as a specific method in LWR design codes.
IV
Overall Conclusions
This study has confirmed that several FR developments have the potential for making
significant improvements to LWR design codes. In particular, the developments on
shakedown, tubeplates, buckling, interaction diagrams, and piping elastic follow-up, are
judged to be of sufficient benefit that recommendations are made for trial applications on
typical LWR components, in order to further quantify the potential improvements.
Recommendations on the topics of weldment design-by-analysis methods and strain range
enhancement will be further considered within the scope of a current CEC DGXI study
'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis Criteria'. The developments on constitutive equations,
Level D criteria, and the Zarka method may be used as guidance to confirm or supplement
existing LWR procedures, if required.
CONTENTS
page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 NEGLIGIBLE CREEP CRITERIA 3
3 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS RULES FOR WELDMENTS 6
4 SHAKEDOWN DESIGN RULES 12
5 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TUBEPLATES 16
6 BUCKLING RULES 23
7 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR ASSESSING RATCHETING 33
8 RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF ELASTIC FOLLOW-UP
IN PIPING 38
9 STRAIN RANGE ENHANCEMENT 47
10 CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS FOR INELASTIC ANALYSIS 60
11 MARGINS ON LEVEL D CRITERIA 70
12 ZARKA METHOD FOR ESTIMATING INELASTIC STRAINS 76
13 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 86
VII
1 Introduction
Design procedures have been developed within the European Fast Reactor (EFR)
collaboration which are relevant to the non-creep conditions of light water reactors (LWR).
The EFR developments within the EFR Associates Design and Construction Rules Committee
(DCRC) and the R&D Agreement (AGT9B) provided significant enhancements to the current
fast reactor (FR) design codes RCC-MR (1.1) and ASME CC N47 (1.2).
For these reasons, the CEC DGXI Working Group Codes and Standards (WGCS), initiated a
study (COSU-CT94-0064UK) within the 1994 programme, to review the FR developed
design procedures and make recommendations on their applicability and potential advantage
to LWR design codes, in terms of enabling more efficient structural design whilst maintaining
safety levels.
The list of topics covered by the review are identified in the Contents List of this report.
These topics are considered to be those where the most significant developments have been
made and which are most relevant to LWR design rules, although it is accepted that the list is
not exhaustive. For each topic, the review includes the following stages:
1. Introduction (background and relevance to LWR's).
2. Description of FR Method (review and summary of procedure including background and

validation).
3. Potential Application to LWR Design Codes (eliminate creep, assess applicability, eg

materials, structures, feasibility of adaptation, and quantify potential gain, if possible).
4. Current LWR Procedure (description of existing method, plus historical background).
5. Potential Benefits for LWR Design Codes (comparison with FR method, practical
implications to design).
6. Conclusions (consensus conclusions on introducing the FR procedure to LWR design

codes).
The names and affiliations of the participants in this study are as follows:
J M Grandemange, Framatome, France

H Hübel, F H Lausitz, Germany
M Orsini, Ansaldo, Italy
K Schramm, Siemens, Germany
N G Smith, AEA Technology, United Kingdom (Main Contractor)
For each topic, the review stages 1 to 3 are concerned with FR developments and were
performed by H Hübel (topics 8, 9, 10, 12), M Orsini (topics 5, 6, 7) and N G Smith (topics 2,
3,4,11). Stages 4 and 5 were performed jointly by J M Grandemange and K Schramm,
whilst in Stage 6, recommendations were based on consensus conclusions by all participants.
The review made full use of reports produced by the DCRC and AGT9B and this is gratefully
acknowledged by the participants.
1.1 REFERENCES
1.1 RCC-MR. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR
Nuclear Islands, AFCEN, June 1985 Edition plus Addendum No 1, November 1987.
1.2 ASME Section III, Division 1. Code Case N-47-32, Class I, Components in Elevated
Temperature Service.
2 Negligible Creep Criteria
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Design codes for elevated temperature service, such as ASME CC-N47 (2.1) and RCC-MR
(2.2), contain negligible creep criteria which if satisfied, allows the designer to ignore creep
effects in the assessment. For the same reason, the temperature range of LWR design codes
are limited to maximum values of 427°C and 375°C for austenitic and ferritic steels,
respectively, to exclude creep effects. At present, if these ranges are exceeded, then the
designer also needs to change design code, eg RCC-M (2.3) to RCC-MR, which in some
cases induces a discontinuity in design criteria which in physical terms is unrealistic.
Potentially, the temperature limits in LWR design codes could be increased without
introducing significant creep effects, and the practical usefulness of such an adaptation is
considered later in Section 2.5. However, the basis of the FR negligible creep criteria is
described in the following section.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF FR METHODS
The negligible creep criterion in RCC-MR makes use of a temperature versus time plot which
defines the allowable time for temperature excursions above the creep temperatures of 427°C
and 375°C for austenitic and ferritic materials respectively. For excursions at different
temperatures, the cumulative summations of the operating time divided by the allowable time
from the curve must be less than unity. Negligible creep curves for different materials are
provided in the RCC-MR Appendices. In the ASME code, the negligible creep-criteria in
CC-N47 is less specific and is established by experimental data and/or calculation (para
321 l.c) which if satisfied, allows the use of low temperature rules in Section III, NB (2.3).
Also, it should be noted that ASME CC N253 (2.6) Appendix E, gives negligible creep
criteria for Class 2 and 3 components.
Essentially, the RCC-MR negligible creep curve is derived by allowing 10% creep relaxation
from a starting stress based on shakedown for the specified temperature. In the absence of
creep relaxation data, the negligible creep curve can also be derived on the basis of the same
amount of creep strain at constant stress (304 LN) or 10% of the time to rupture (316L).
However, to derive less conservative criteria, DCRC Concluding Report No 1 (2.4) adopted
an alternative approach based on a 10% reduction of the fatigue life due to introducing creep
during a holdtime, and the revised curve, extrapolated across the temperature range on the
basis of equal constant stress creep strain.
2.3 POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO LWR CODES
Introducing negligible creep criteria into LWR design codes, would provide the potential to
increase the operating envelope of components beyond the current limits of 427°C and 375°C
for austenitic and ferritic steels, respectively. The curves presently available in RCC-MR and
the DCRC Concluding Report No 1, are specific to fast reactor materials, and new curves,
appropriate to LWR materials would need to be generated. However, introducing such an
adaptation would not be difficult in practice and could be achieved by supplementary clauses
similar to those contained in the FR design codes. The current situation in LWR design codes
and the practical usefulness of such a change is considered in the following sections.
2.4 CURRENT LWR PROCEDURE
It is recognised that the current design temperatures of LWR projects are sufficiently low to
avoid any evaluation of creep risks for the materials used.
Material data in Appendix 1 of the ASME III Code, and the corresponding RCC-M
(Annex Zl) and KTA sections (2.5) are given up to a temperature limit, beyond which the
material shall not be used without specific evaluation.
Risk of creep of austenitic materials at cold conditions are generally neglected as the applied
loading is generally low during these conditions. This small creep risk may only be a concern
during pressure tests, if precise residual deformation needs to be measured, but this has never
been a significant concern in the LWR frame.
2.5 POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR LWR DESIGN CODES
Negligible creep criteria have essentially the interest of confirming the assumption that creep
may be neglected for LWR applications.
Consequently, the FR provisions shall only be considered as a support and should not lead to
LWR code evolution, no significant increase of LWR design temperature being expected.
An evaluation of mechanical behaviour at higher temperatures may be performed for

advanced LWR evaluation, in the frame of the defence-in-depth approach. Nevertheless,
these conditions are considered as "beyond design" conditions, and as such, will not be
covered in the design codes.
2.6 CONCLUSIONS
Negligible creep criteria have the potential to allow temperature excursions beyond the
present limits of temperatures in LWR design codes. However, there are no transients of this
type within the design envelope, although it may be useful for beyond design conditions.
Criteria for negligible creep for FR practice should be described in FR codes, with some
evaluations for LWR materials, if useful. No recommendations are therefore made for
incorporating negligible creep criteria in LWR design codes.
2.7 REFERENCES
2.1 ASME Section III, Division 1. Code Case N-47-32, Class I Components in Elevated
2.2 RCC-MR Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of FBR
Nuclear Islands. AFCEN June 1985 Edition plus Addendum No 1, November 1987.
2.3 RCC-M. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR
Nuclear Islands, June 1988 Edition.
2.4 DCRC Concluding Report No 1. Negligible Creep Curve for 316L SPH.
(EFRB401.5.318A)
2.5 German Nuclear Safety Standards (Kerntechischer Ausschuss - KTA).
2.6 ASME Code Case N-253. Construction of Class 2 and 3 Components for Elevated
3 Design-by-Analysis Rules for
Weldments
3.1 INTRODUCTION
DCRC Concluding Report No 5 (3.1) reviews the procedures for assessing weldments in
France, Germany and the UK, and includes fatigue strength reduction factors (FSRF) for full
penetration inspected weldments for 316L SPH and modified 9CrlMo steels, ie Jf = 1.25. For
weldments which are not fully inspected, and remain with surfaces in the as-welded state, no
recommendations were made. However, UK practice described a procedure which
differentiated between the FSRF for a dressed or profiled weldment, in which the geometry is
specified by the designer, and that for an as-welded weldment in which the detailed geometry
is indeterminate, and the FSRF includes both the material mis-match effect and the geometric
stress concentration due to surface roughness and irregularities.
Currently, LWR design codes such as ASME Section III (3.2) and RCC-M(3.3) generally
refer to FSRF's in terms of geometric stress concentration effects which may be difficult to
determine by analysis (eg finite element methods) for weldments in the as-welded condition.
Also the definition of fatigue strength reduction factor in ASME Section III, NB 3213.17
appears to be limited in referring only to the geometric stress concentration effect and not
addressing that due to material mismatch. The derivation of FSRF's by experiment in
Appendix II -1600 seems more appropriate, since it alludes to reproducing conditions
representative of the actual geometry (presumably, including the weldment) in paragraphs (a)
and (c), although in paragraph (e), again it seems to be tending towards geometric stress
concentration effects, as in NB-3213.17.
A unique feature of RCC-M is the fatigue analysis procedure for zones containing geometrical
discontinuities, B3234.7, (eg sharp crevices in partial penetration welds), but this still requires
a detailed stress analysis of the weldment geometry to determine the stress state ahead of the
singularity; also it does not account for the weld metal mis-match effect which is present in
the weldment.
The UK procedure, as detailed in the DCRC Concluding Report No 5 (but excluding the
adaptation for creep effects) provides a method for dealing with dressed, as-welded and partial
penetration welds by taking account of both the geometric stress concentration and material
mis-match effects, in the FSRF. Details of the proposed method are provided in the following
section.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FR METHOD (UK PROCEDURE)
The UK method is intended for use with the elastic analysis procedure of RCC-MR, but for
the purpose of this review, the aspects pertaining to creep have been omitted. Essentially, the
method makes use of FSRF's derived from tests on the actual geometries for flush ground (or
dressed) butt weldments and weldments in the as-welded condition. The weldments are
classified into 3 types (ie full penetration butt; full penetration T-butt and partial penetration
fillet or T-butt) and the correspondence with RCC-MR weldment types (Table RB.3334.4a),
together with the appropriate FSRF's for austenitic weldments, are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 FSRF's for UK Procedure (Austenitic Steel)
UK RCC-MR DRESSED AS WELDED

TYPES TYPES Ae(P+Q) àe(FR) As(Fth) Δε(Ρ+0) A6(Fg) AstFJ
1 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.5 N/A 1.5 1.5 N/A 1.5
II. 1
2 111.1,111.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 N/A 1.5
3 V, VI, VII 3.2 N/A 1.5
Note: The FSRF's are only shown for illustrative p urp oses, and the actual values for
LWR materials and weld geometries would need to be derived.
The FSRF is derived by comparing the mean weldment failure data with the mean parent
material failure curve, and is then applied to the material fatigue design curve to derive the
fatigue life of the weldment. The design margins of 2 and 20 in the material fatigue design
curve are considered to take account of the effects due to mild environment (oxidation),
material variability, size effects, surface finish and multiaxiality, whilst the FSRF takes into
account the additional effects due to welding namely; mis-match of properties, misalignment,
residual stress, weld defects and peak stress, thus avoiding double accounting or over
conservatism in compounding the design margins.
For dressed or profiled weldments in which the geometry is specified by the designer, the
peak strain due to the geometric stress concentration effect can be determined by analytical
means (eg finite element method) and therefore the FSRF only needs to take account of the
material mismatch effect in the weldment. This can be determined (or isolated) by tests on
flush ground butt weldments and it can be argued that this is then also applicable to the Type
2 full penetration weldments. Table 3.1 shows the value of FSRF = 1.5, and in fact a
compromise value of 1.25 (ie between 1.5 and 1.0) was recommended in the DCRC
concluding report. Note also, that the peak thermal stress component due to surface thermal
shock is deemed not to be concentrated by the weldment geometry, and can be determined
separately, so detailed finite element analysis is not. essential (ie also for as-welded
weldments).
For as-welded weldments, the FSRF incorporates both the geometric strain concentration and
the material mismatch effects, and is applied to the range of linearised primary plus secondary
stress range which is derived from the 'nominal' weldment geometry. Again, if there are local
(peak) thermal shock stresses, then these are separated out and a specific factor of 1.5 is
applied, as with the dressed weldments.
The step-by-step procedure for assessing the fatigue life of dressed and as-welded weldments,
based on the elastic analysis procedures of RCC-MR, (but as previously mentioned, ignoring
creep effects) are set out in Annex 3.1. In both cases, the elastic analysis strain is enhanced to
take account of inelastic straining before the application of the FSRF, after which, the total
strain range is then used to enter the material design fatigue curve to determine the fatigue life
of the weldment.
3.3 POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO LWR DESIGN CODES
In principle, the UK FR procedure is applicable to any material or weldment type, although as

previously mentioned, the specific FSRF's are determined from tests on the actual weldment
geometry. The methods of fatigue assessment in RCC-MR and the LWR design codes such
as ASME Section III and RCC-M, are similar, although some adaptation may be necessary to
the detail steps in Annex 3.1, to accommodate the methods of deriving equivalent stress
ranges and elastic-plastic strain enhancement (ie Kg factor) in the LWR design codes.
In summary, the UK FR procedure provides a definition of FSRF which incorporates the

geometric strain concentration and material mis-match effects. Also, it differentiates between
dressed (or profiled) weldments and weldments in the as-welded condition, the latter being
particularly difficult to analyse using current LWR procedures due to the emphasis on
theoretical geometric stress concentration factors.
The French regulations nor the LWR code RCC-M require an explicit margin against
progressive deformation or fatigue. The only requirement is to take into account each
parameter explicitly or through coefficients, unless its effect is negligible.
Factors 2 and 20 have been taken into account when establishing the ASME (and RCC-
M/KTA) fatigue curves. The significance of these factors will be covered in the CEC DGXI
study "Re-evaluation of fatigue analysis criteria". These factors are not safety margins
explicitly required, but coefficients which intend to cover effects not explicitly evaluated in
the analysis.
These fatigue curves have been derived for the base material only, and the objective of tests
conducted on welds was essentially to verify that the corresponding fatigue data were above
the design curve, but without trying to keep a safety factor of 2 or 20 in these more realistic
conditions.
Analytic expressions for the design curves take into account the endurance limit and
percentage reduction of area Z%. The endurance limit is slightly higher for weld metal and
Z% is slightly lower. All these facts were known to Code committees, but for industrial
pragmatism reasons were not explicitly included in the codes. Weld joints are then analysed
with the base material properties, including in the cases where the weld properties are higher
(for example concerning the stress-strain curves which are more favourable, leading to
potentially lower strain correction factors).
The major concern of code committees is to have, for the welds, conventional properties equal
or higher than those of the base material, in order to avoid any strain concentration (elastic
follow-up effects) in the welds. Expressed as stresses (instead of strains), as a function of the
number of cycles, fatigue curves for welds are comparable and in some case higher than those
of the base material.
In the particular case of bi-metallic welds, the properties taken into account for the weld
material, are the lower of the properties of the two joined base materials.
To summarise, no fatigue strength reduction factors are taken for welds in the general design
rules, except when geometrical effects have to be taken into account, for example through
codified stress indices. Nevertheless, piping stress indices include a "material mismatch"
coefficient of 1.1.
Taking into account the position given in 3.4, there seems to be no obvious "benefit" possible
in applying an additional factor which is not currently included in the LWR practice.
This would only be useful if experience would have demonstrated that current Code rules are
not globally pessimistic, which is not yet the case.
The important concern is the potential effect of environment on design curves. Work is
currently done in this field.
3.6 CONCLUSIONS
The UK FR method provides an alternative approach for dealing with the fatigue of
weldments, particularly for cases where the geometrical stress concentration of as-welded
weldments is indeterminate. Currently, LWR design codes make use of stress concentration
factors in general vessel design and for piping, stress indices which incorporate a factor of 1.1
to take account of the 'material mismatch' effect.
Further consideration of the fatigue analysis of weldments will be covered in CEC DGXI
study on 'Re-evaluation of fatigue analysis criteria'. Eventual recommendations for the
improvement of LWR design codes will be included in the synthesis. Until these conclusions
are prepared, no specific recommendations will be made within the present study.
3.7 REFERENCES
3.1 DCRC Concluding Report No 5. Design Rules for Welds (EFRB401.5.322C)

3.2 ASME Section III, Division 1. Code Case N-47-32, Class I, Components in Elevated
3.3 RCC-M. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of ΡWR
Nuclear Islands, AFCEN, June 1985 Edition plus Addendum No 1, November 1987.
Annex 3.1 - UK FR Rules for Weldments
The UK rules apply to the RCC-MR elastic fatigue and creep-fatigue procedures and make
use of the following tables of FRSR's for austenitic weldments:
TABLE A1 - FSRF'S FOR UK RULES
UK RCC-MR DRESSED AS WELDED

TYPES TYPES As(P+Q) A8(Fg) àz(FJ A8(P+Q) As(FK) As(Fth)
1 1.1,1.2,1.3, 1.5 N/A 1.5 1.5 N/A 1.5
ILI
2 III. 1,111.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 N/A 1.5
3 V, VI, VII 3.2 N/A 1.5
DRESSED WELDMENTS
Stepl
Determine the stress intensity range of primary plus secondary plus peak geometric stresses,
Δσ(Ρ + Q + F g ), by finite element analysis or stress concentration factor for the specified
dressed profile assuming parent material properties and excluding peak thermal stresses F^.
Step 2
Calculate the enhanced inelastic strain range using the RCC-MR procedures (RB 3261.1.2.3),
as follows:
Δε = Δε, + Δε2 + Δε3 + Δε4
where for Δε3,Κε is based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + F )
and for Δε4, Kv is based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + Fg + Fft)
Step 3
Determine the thermal peak stress intensity range Δσ (Fft) using parent material properties.
This stress is deemed not to be concentrated by the weld geometry, so detailed finite element
analysis is not essential. Calculate the enhanced strain components Δει and Δε4 with Kv for
the latter based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + FÄ ).
10
Step 4
Sum the elastic-plastic strain components from Step 2 and 3, and multiply by the FSRF = 1.5
according to the Table Al to determine Δε f.
Step 5
For the total strain range Δε f enter an appropriate parent material fatigue design curve,
determine the allowable number of cycles and calculate the fatigue usage fraction.
AS-WELDED WELDMENTS
The main variations compared to the previous procedure for dressed weldments are as
follows:
Stepl
Determine the stress intensity range or primary plus secondary stresses, Δσ(Ρ + Q), across the
nominal weld section eg, shell analysis.
Step 2
Calculate the enhanced inelastic strain range but with the Kg based on Δσ(Ρ + Q) and Kv
based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + F^ ).
Step 3
Same as for dressed weldments.
Step 4
Multiply Δε(Ρ + Q) and Δε(Εώ) from Steps 2 and 3 by the appropriate FSRF from Table Al
and sum the strains to determine Αε{.
Step 5
For the total strain range Δε Γ , enter an appropriate parent material fatigue design curve,
determine the allowable number of cycles and calculate the fatigue usage fraction.
II
4 Shakedown Design Rules
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Design and construction codes for fast reactors (eg RCC-MR, ASME CC-N47) and for
LWR's (RCC-M, KTA, ASME III) contain rules to guard against progressive deformation or
ratcheting (ie an increase in deformation per cycle). This phenomenon results from the
presence of large cyclic thermal stresses with or without primary stresses.
RCC-MR (4.1) makes use of the Efficiency Diagram (RB 3261.1.1 and RB 3262.1.1) which
in conjunction with stress classification to determine an equivalent tensile stress, is used to
predict strain accumulation. This elastic analysis method is empirical, ie being based on a
correlation with ratcheting experiments, but can give unconservative results in situations
where significant thermal membrane stresses are present.
ASME CC-N47 (4.2), again, provides elastic analysis procedures but makes use on adaptation
of the Bree Diagram to limit strain accumulation. This is applicable to cylinders with cyclic
through wall temperature gradients and internal pressure, and the diagram identifies zones
where combinations of pressure and thermal stresses preclude ratcheting. The method gives
broadly equivalent results to the Efficiency Diagram, but is restricted to cylindrical geometries
rather than more general structures. (Note, Section 7 - Interaction Diagrams, provides an
enhanced capability for this approach).
The above limitations prompted the development of the Shakedown Design Rules (4.3) in the
UK which provides a conservative lower bound approach with more general applicability.
Essentially, the procedure makes use of elastic analysis results to establish an elastic core in
structures which under repeated cyclic loading, ensures that progressive deformation or
ratcheting will not occur. The shakedown procedure enables the assessment of fatigue
(including strain enhancement at local structural discontinuities) and creep damage, although
the latter can be discounted in terms of the applicability to LWR design codes.
Currently, LWR design codes such as ASME III (4.4), RCC-M (4.5) and KTA (4.6)
incorporate the same elastic analysis criteria to prevent ratcheting. The criteria are based on
limiting the cyclic primary plus secondary stress intensity range under Level A loadings to
less than 3Sm (ie generally, equivalent to twice yield stress), and making use of the criteria in
the Bree Diagram to prevent thermal stress ratchet (eg ASME NB-3222.2 and NB-3222.5,
respectively). These procedures are limited in only considering the stress state at a point
rather than the overall structural behaviour, and for the thermal stress ratchet rules (as with the
FR design rules), are restricted to cylindrical geometries. The FR Shakedown Design Rules
are considered to be more representative of structural behaviour, and being based on elastic
analysis procedures, have potential application in LWR design codes for non-creep
conditions.
12
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FR PROCEDURE
Essentially, the Shakedown Design Rules require the establishment of a constant residual
stress field (ie a set of 'locked-in' and self-balancing stresses remaining when the structure is
unloaded) which when the cyclic operational stresses are superimposed, the structure remains
within the effective yield locus. ' Strict' shakedown is defined as when every point in the
structure meets this criterion but, in fact, this is not absolutely necessary to ensure structural
shakedown. Overall' shakedown is defined as when 80% of the structural section meets the
shakedown criteria, and it is considered that the establishment of an elastic core to this extent,
is sufficient to prevent ratcheting. For those regions outside strict shakedown, the material
may be allowed to undergo reversed plastic straining (which needs to be taken into account in
the fatigue analysis) due to the restraint of the material in the elastic core.
The first step in the shakedown assessment is to perform a finite element elastic analysis over
the full load cycle, as is the requirement in all current design code assessments. In practice,
the residual stress field, resulting from localised plastic straining due to the operational load
cycle, can be derived on a manual iterative basis by making use of artificial temperature
distributions or a set of initial strains usually related to the extremal stress-strain distributions
of the operational cycle. This procedure has also been computerised in the ADAPT computer
programme (4.7), which seeks to establish and iterate to an admissible residual stress field,
based on the results of the initial elastic finite element analysis of the operational cycle.
The shakedown condition is established by satisfying the following condition:
a E (x,t) + p(x)<K,S y
where σε (x,t) = stress components from the operational loading varying with
position and time
ρ (χ) = residual stress components varying with position but constant with
time
K]Sy = effective yield stress below which the material will achieve stable
cycling.
For stress concentrations or local discontinuities where the peak stresses are outside strict
shakedown, but have no influence on the ratcheting potential of the structure, the inelastic
strains can be derived by making use of the existing strain enhancement rules in design codes.
The procedure then follows conventional methods for establishing the fatigue life, using
enhanced strain range and the material S-N fatigue design curves. Weldments can also be
accommodated, assuming parent material properties and applying fatigue strength reduction
factors for the appropriate weldment type, as defined in existing FR codes, (See Section 3 in
this report).
13
The Shakedown Design Rules are considered to have advantages over current LWR
procedures as it is applicable to general structures, and provides a definitive test for the
avoidance of ratcheting which is reliable (conservative) for all cases. The procedure is based
on elastic analysis methods and makes use of these results to derive a residual stress field
either by manual or computerised iteration. Computing costs are therefore similar to those of
elastic analysis and uncertainties associated with inelastic analysis are avoided. Personnel
will need familiarisation with the shakedown technique, but stress analysts accustomed to
elastic finite element analysis would be expected to become competent with minimal training.
The procedure could be incorporated into current LWR design codes as an optional alternative
appendix.
The stress intensity S n of the highest range of primary plus secondary membrane plus bending
stresses is limited by the criterion of 3 S m . For ferritic steels 3 S m is two times the yield
strength Sy, for austenitic steels it can be 2.7 times the yield strength Sy. This means that for
ferritic steels elastic shakedown is fully guaranteed and for austenitic steels after a minor
initial plastification in the first cycles with work hardening, an elastic shakedown is also
reached.
If the 3 S m criterion is not satisfied two additional verifications have to be performed:
- proof of 3 S m with linearised stresses through the wall except the thermal bending in all
sections including geometrical discontinuities.
- proof of shakedown according to Bree-diagram with a limitation of thermal bending as a

function of the P m (primary membrane) stresses far from geometrical discontinuities.
The first condition is applied in all zones, and particularly in geometrical discontinuities. Its
main interest is to limit the inelasticity, leading to a limitation of the plastic strain corrections
to be applied in the fatigue analyses.
The second condition is applied outside geometrical discontinuities, as from the progressive
deformation risk point of view, the behaviour of geometrical discontinuities is considered as
being governed by the surrounded zones.
As a general rule, progressive deformation criteria do not take into account the number of
cycles. Prevention is obtained independently of this number. There are some cases where a
few number of severe transients (for example 10 for plant's life) were classified as upset
conditions and were not compatible with shakedown conditions. In this case, a more refined
(RCC-MR-based) approach was used, permitting an evaluation of strain accumulation through
the use of the equivalent primary stress principle.
14
There is an "open door" for such alternative approaches in the LWR code, but their
applications are exceptional.
Rules for prevention of progressive deformation in the ASME, RCC-M and KTA codes are
easy to apply. Nevertheless, under severe thermal transients, a more detailed analysis could
be codified.
The FR procedures seem difficult to be applied by manual iteration, even by "personnel

familiarised with the shakedown technique". However, this strict application of Melan's
theorem could be used to justify a specific equipment which could not meet code
requirements, and should be limited to those conditions where existing criteria cannot be met
and no economic design improvement is possible.
It shall be noted that the application of this rule in zones of geometrical discontinuities (such
as nozzles, sharp transitions...), may raise some difficulties concerning the type of stresses
which shall be used (linearised, sum of linearised and peak stresses...). Precise guidance
should be given to the designer. It may explain why ASME Code Case N47 limits these
applications outside discontinuities.
4.6 CONCLUSIONS
The Shakedown Method has general applicability to structures which provide an alternative
option for enhancing current LWR procedures, particularly for more severe transients. After
evaluation of practical applications on LWR components, and comparison with experimental
results, evolution of LWR design code rules should be envisaged by relevant committees.
(Note that the procedure for establishing shakedown has been computerised in the ADAPT
programme, Ref 4.7, as noted in Section 4.2).
4.7 REFERENCES
4.2 ASME Section III, Division 1, Code Case N-47-32, Class I Components in Elevated
4.3 DCRC Concluding Report No 7. Shakedown Design Methods (EFR.B40151112B).
4.4 ASME Section III. Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,
Division 1, Sub-section NB : Class I Components.
4.5 RCC-M. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of Ρ WR
4.6 KTA 3201.2. Components of the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary of Light Water
Reactors; Part 2 - Design and Analysis, KTA March 1984.
4.7 ADAPT; ERC (W) Report No C.12.388, December 1988. Ρ S White and M Toulios,
GEC Whetstone, UK.
15
5 Design-by-Analysis Methods for
Tubeplates
5. 1 INTRODUCTION
The structural assessment of a perforated plate is a typical problem in the design of nuclear
plant heat exchangers and steam generators.
DCRC Concluding Report No 9 [5.1] reviews the current practices and design methods for
flat and dished thick tubeplate designs.
Design methods suggested by DCRC Committee for EFR project are presented in the
following section.
Current design procedures such as ASME [5.2] provide methodologies for analysis of flat
thick perforated tubeplates with a triangular pitch. However, no guidance is given on the
treatment of anisotropy in the out-of-plane direction or for circular penetration patterns, both
of which have been considered in the FR developed methods [5.1,5.3].
In addition a method of analysis for a thick dished tubeplate is provided in ref [5.2,5.4] that
applies to equilateral triangular hole pitch of a specific ligament efficiency (minimum
ligament width divided by hole pitch ) of 0.657.
5.2.1. Flat Tubeplates
5.2.1 (a) Triangular Penetration Pattern
The method of analysis for flat perforated plates is applicable to plates satisfying the
following conditions :
1) the holes are in array of equilateral triangles or with a circular pitch

2) the holes are circular
3) there are 19 or more holes
4) the ligament efficiency is greater than 5 %
5) the thickness of the plate is more than twice the hole pitch
Credit may be taken for the stiffening and staying effects of the tubes in the perforations .
The usual analysis approach utilises the concept of an Equivalent Solid Plate (ESP).
In this method the perforated plate is replaced by an equivalent solid plate with appropriate
values of material elastic properties.
16
The "equivalent " solid material is assumed to behave isotropically in planes perpendicular to
the axes of the perforations.
Following the approach based on " effective elastic constants " the Young's modulus E and
Poisson's ratio are modified to account for the presence of the holes.
In the in-plane directions the elastic constants are replaced by the effective values E* and v*
derived from experimental and analytical considerations. These values are dependent on the
Poisson's ratio of the actual tubeplate material v and are plotted against ligament efficiency η
(see ASME III, Ref. [5.2]).
In the out-of- plane direction the effective Young's modulus E' is equivalent to the actual
Young's modulus reduced by the ratio of the actual area of the tubeplate to the area of the
equivalent solid plate, while the value of Poisson ratio v' is taken to be the same as the value
of v for the tubeplate material.
For a 2D axisymmetric calculation, the effective compliance matrix is given in the following
equation:
επ 1/E* -v'/E' -v*/E* 0 " rr

Szz — -v'/E' 1/E' -v'/E' 0
ε©© -v*/E* -v'/E' 1/E* 0
Jrz 0 0 0 22(l+v')/E'
A finite element analysis must be performed by representing the equivalent tubeplate, the rim
and the attached structural components.
Using this simplified structural model the analysis of the overall axisymmetric pressure and
thermal loading conditions applied to the tubeplate are performed.
The membrane stress in the ligaments due to pressure loading within the perforations should
be calculated separately and combined with the other primary stresses.
Initial strains applied to the equivalent solid plate may be used to represent the effect of
pressure in perforations. They are intended to represent the overall deformation of the
tubeplate and so generate stresses arising from the interaction of the perforated region with
adjacent structural components.
In the perforated zone the stress components calculated by the FEM analysis must be
converted to "true stresses". These stresses are used to calculate the principal stresses and the
stress intensity which is given by the maximum difference between the principal values.
The "true" radial, hoop, and shear stresses are obtained by multiplying the corresponding
calculated stresses by the inverse of ligament efficiency and appropriate stress multipliers ( a
stress concentration factor), while the axial stress must be multiplied by the ratio between the
material Young's modulus and the axial Young's modulus of the equivalent plate.
17
The verification must be carried out for a range of radial locations to obtain the maximum
stress intensity value; the ligament close to the solid rim should form one of the analysed
sections.
The calculation of stress intensity from the "true stresses" follows different rules for each type
of stresses and are based on ASME III, Article A8000 as follows :
The primary membrane stress intensity is obtained as the maximum difference between
principal stresses.(i.e. divided by the ligament efficiency).
The primary membrane plus bending stress intensity is obtained as the maximum between the
radial and the hoop stress (i.e. divided by the ligament efficiency) multiplied by a factor K
that depends from biaxiality ratio of these stresses.
The range of primary plus secondary stresses intensity is obtained as the maximum between
the radial and hoop stresses (i.e. divided by the ligament efficiency) difference assessed
during the cycle multiplied for the biaxiality factor K.
In the perforated region the total stress components obtained from the FEM analysis are used.
The maximum total stress range occurs at the periphery of a hole at an angular location and it
is obtained as the sum of the stress in the direction perpendicular to the tube plate surface and
the total "true" tangential stress evaluated around the hole. The total "true" tangential stress is
equal to the sum of the principal stresses parallel to the plate surface multiplied by the inverse
of ligament efficiency and the coefficient Y. This last multiplier depends by the angular
location of principal stresses relative to the axis of perforation pattern, the angular location of
the point under consideration and the ligament efficiency.
The range is the maximum difference between the total stresses at the different instant of the
cycle. The stress multipliers K and Y are furnished as graphs. In the perforated plate-solid
rim junction the stress multipliers used in the calculation of the total tangential stress must be
replaced by the stress concentration factors Krl and Kr2; Krl corresponds to the geometric
concentration factor of a semicircular notch on one end of a flat bar of finite width and Kr2
corresponds to the stress concentration factor of a circular hole in an infinite flat plate.
In ASME the stress multipliers Y are given for ligament efficiencies situated between 0.05
and 0.5 . In doc. ref. [5.3] values of stress multipliers for triangular pattern have been
extended to high ligament efficiencies (0.6 and 0.7 ).
In the presence of thermal skin effect the FEM stress results must be multiplied for the stress
multiplier Kskin and added to the stresses due to all other loading conditions to obtain the
surface peak stresses.
The above procedure is relative to a perfect perforation pattern. In the case of an irregular
pattern the same procedure must be followed modifying the stresses by correction coefficients
depending of the effective ligament efficiency.
18
5.2.1.(b) Circular Penetration Pattern
A detailed design method for tubeplates with circular pattern has been proposed in doc. ref.
5.3.
Following this methodology the determination of the following values is required :
- ligament efficiency
The current design definition as given in ASME article A8000 and RCC-MR appendix
17 i s :
n=L/P
The DCRC Committee recommends as an interim procedure to use the formula for the
triangular pattern where the hole pitch Ρ is equal to Max [a,b] and the minimum
ligament width L is equal to Min [L b L 2 ]
The previous parameters are so defined :
a is the hole pitch in the radial direction .
b is the hole pitch in the circumferential direction .
Li is the minimum ligament width in the radial direction
L 2 is the minimum ligament width in the circumferential direction
Following analyses contained in doc. [5.3] this definition may induce an overestimation
of real moments . The results of this study show that a more precise evaluation is
obtained assuming an average pitch value between circumferential and radial one for
the assessment of the ligament efficiency.
- equivalent material properties

the equivalent Young modulus E* in the in-plane directions and the shear modulus are
the mean values of the values for triangular and square penetration pattern as defined in
literature (eg ref. [5.5, 5.6 and 5.7]. The Poisson ratio is greater than that for square
penetration pattern . A corrective factor is furnished in the report.
- corrective factor for moments

The radial moment obtained by the 2D FEM calculation must be multiplied by the
inverse of the ligament efficiency.
The circumferential moment is a function of the radial and the angular position. The
multiplier coefficient is a Fourier series divided by the ligament efficiency .
The Fourier coefficients are polynomial function of the radius. Three terms of the
series are sufficient for a correct calculation .In the report the coefficients as function of
the radius are tabulated for three ligament efficiency,( ie 0.365, 0.514, 0.658 with
interpolation allowed).
-multiplication factor for peak stress

The multiplication factor for peak stresses around the holes have been calculated .
They are function of the circular position around the holes.
19
5.2.2. Dished Tubeplates
An alternative to flat tubeplates becoming overstressed or excessively thick under fast reactor
operating conditions may be represented by dished and tapered tubeplates. In these two
alternative designs the upper surface of the tubeplate is dished and the lower surface may be
either flat resulting in a tapering tubeplate , or curved giving a constant thickness dished
plate.
A method of analysis of thick dished tubeplates has been prepared , but it is specific to a
triangular hole pattern with a ligament efficiency of 0.657 that refers to the configuration used
for the CDFR steam generator tubeplates [5.1,5.4]. This procedure may not be reliable for
tubeplates having ligament efficiencies which are beyond 5 % of the above value. This
method is only for tubeplate with thickness exceeding twice the hole pitch in order to avoid
interaction between top and bottom surface stress concentration effects .
An Equivalent Solid Plate (ESP) method for tubeplate analysis has been developed to suit
curved and tapering tubeplates and is applied to axysimmetric finite element analysis
For this case the equivalent solid plate is considered isotropic.
For the curved and tapering perforated plates the effects on the stress indices of the oblique
intersection between the tube penetrations and the plate surfaces are considered. The " true "
stress within the perforated region are evaluated using a procedure similar to that laid down
for flat perforated plates. At curved surfaces, the true stresses are derived using the equivalent
stress nominally parallel to the surface tangent plane, afterwards conventional (flat plate)
stress multipliers are applied.
The total (or maximum ) " true " stress intensity is evaluated taking into account an
additional stress due to pressure loading. A multiplier to the pressure load is used to derive the
additional peak stress due to the " pinching " effect associated with this type of loading at the
same angular location. This effect is particularly significant at the acute corners created
where the perforations interest the plate surface. The values for all the stress multipliers are
reproduced in figures in the form of graphs of each multiplier against angular locations not
only for various orientations of the principal stresses as for the flat tubeplates, but also for
different perforations angles a.The perforation angle α is defined as the angle between the
axis of the perforation and the surface normal of the tubeplate. A reduction in peak stress may
be achieved by blunting the corner of the hole periphery. A full three dimensional local area
analysis may be necessary to determine more exactly these concentration factors for the
problem under investigations .
The FR developed methods provide a rigorous treatment of anisotropy. Procedures based on

an extension of ASME method have been developed for design of dished tubeplates having a
triangular hole pattern and a particular ligament efficiency. Recommendations have been
given for the analysis of thick tubeplate with perforations pitched in a circular pattern .
20
In addition, values of stress multipliers for triangular pattern are extended to high ligament
efficiencies (0.6 and 0.7). The results of the studies on design methods for tubeplates enhance
current LWR design procedures.
ASME provisions are used for triangular patterns. For square patterns, for which ASME rules
are not applicable, the analyses take into account the CETIM [5.8] work, which is referred to
in the stress reports. An updated report has been issued by the CETIM [5.9].
Detailed analyses for mechanical and thermal loads have shown that the effective elastic
constants derived for a mechanical loading can be used for thermal loadings with a small
degree of conservatism.
No circular patterns nor concave or convex surfaces are used for Framatome LWR tubeplates
at present, but the FR developments may be referred to in future designs, if needed.
FR methods for triangular patterns may be used in order to evaluate existing margins of the
ASME method. Methods for circular patterns and dished tubeplates are of no interest for
current PWR designs.
Improvement of guidance for the analysis of the transition between perforated zone and
surrounding part is also of interest for LWR application.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
The FR methods for triangular penetration patterns are useful enhancements of existing
procedures in LWR design codes and may be used to evaluate existing margins based on the
ASME method. The methods for circular penetration parternas and dished tubeplates should
be referred to if this type of feature is considered in future LWR designs.
In addition to the interest indicated above, the needs for improvement of methods for design
and analysis of tubeplates are as follows:
- Evaluation and updating of methods applicable to square patterns, taking into account
CETIM studies
- Development of equivalent elastic constants for holes with other than round geometries
(for example, for the analysis of S G tube support plate behaviour).
These needs are not covered by current FR studies.
21
5.7 REFERENCES
5.1 Design methods for tubeplates ( DCRC report n° 9 ) ETR B401 5997/C.
5.2 ASME Section III division 1 Article 8000.
5.3 CEC WGCS/AG2 - Final report. Study Contract on Design Method for Tubeplate
with Circular Pattern. CEC Contract N°CT92 0210 F.
5.4 Proposed Design Procedure for Dished Tubeplates, Ρ R Woodford, W S Atkins
Engineering Sciences. NNC Report Fr /S/000608, Rev.l.
5.5 Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of a Thermal Stress Problem in Tube Sheet
Design, T. Slort, Knolls Atomic Power Lab. Schenectady , Ν. Y. April 1969.
5.6 Stress Analysis of Thick Perforated Plates, T. Slot, Technmic Publishing Co. Inc.
1972.
5.7 Effective Elastic Constants for Thick Perforated Plates with Square and Triangular
Penetration Patterns, Τ Slot and W J O' Donnei, Journal of Engineering for Industry ,
August 1971.
5.8 F Os weiller, "Les constantes élastiques équivalentes". Note technique CETIM
No 17.
5.9 J Bohac - F Osweiller, "Courbes et équations relatives aux constantes élastiques
équivalentes E*/E et v*". CETIM Report No 179763, November 1994.
22
6 Buckling Rules
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Design methodologies to avoid buckling failure for shell and plate structures have been
revised in DCRC Concluding Report N° 10 [6.1]. Recommendations in order to enhance
current methodologies have been presented. Salient features of the analysis procedures used
in FR project to assess structures against buckling risk are outlined in the following section.
6.2.1 FR Components Features
The methodologies to be followed for proper consideration of the equilibrium instability

(buckling) of FR components have been defined by the Design and Construction Rules
Committee (DCRC) at the end of a complete review of national practises of single EFR
participants. The design of structural components in FR plant is based on thin shell and plate
theories because components as main vessel and its internals have a radius to thickness ratio
ranging from 150 to 650. Therefore one must consider also the possibility that buckling due
to interaction of geometric and material non linearities could occur. For reactor components
the low yielding strength of materials due to high operating temperature causes buckling to
appear often in the plastic region. Typical pool type FR vessel and internal components
withstand very low pressure, then thickness is not determined by internal pressure.
Operating service conditions in FR induce severe transients and high temperature differentials
between different regions of the structure. These temperature gradients dictate significant
thermal stresses that combined to mechanical compressive loads as those of seismic origin or
dead weight may induce non-linear collapse.
6.2.2 General
DCRC was set up by the European Design and Construction Companies in order to evolve
mutually agreed design as construction rules for the European Fast Breeder Reactor.
RCC-MR Code [6.2] has been considered as appropriate basis for common design and
construction rules, in particularly for the prediction of buckling resistance of real (imperfect)
structures. The formulation of buckling rules in RCC-MR is mainly based upon the
experience gained in Superphenix design and fabrication. The buckling rules are specified in
volume B, paragraph RB - 3270. As a rule, buckling can be defined by the appearance in the
structure, above a certain loading level, of a significant discontinuity in the stress strain
distributions produced. In critical reactor vessels components a conservative evaluation of
buckling loads requires:
Use minimum thickness , the additional thickness provided for corrosion if any,
being deducted.
Use of minimum material properties at operating temperatures.
23
Thermally induced progressive ratcheting in case of cyclic combined thermo-
mechanical loading.
Realistic assumptions and variations in boundary conditions.
Detailed parameter studies forjudging the parameter sensitivity .
The buckling may increase the risks of apparition of fatigue and ratcheting damage, this last
phenomenon can itself enlarge the risks of buckling. If the thermal stresses are cyclic with
time, they may induce residual stress and deformations in the structure higher than those
normally resulting from manufacturing operations and this may lead to a reduction of the
instability load for buckling.
The RCC-MR code contains rules to take account of buckling under strain in the case of
structures made up of thin shells. It proposes to consider the increase in the risk of the
appearance of other damage due to possible buckling behaviour. It may be noted that, while
buckling under load requires the consideration of all types of conventional damages
(instabilities, progressive strain, fatigue), buckling under simple strain is only limited in
terms of fatigue and ratcheting.
Practical procedures are suggested in RCC-MR giving guidance in order to perform simplified
buckling analyses. They are divided into two groups according to whether they are intended
for monotonie loading or cyclic loading. The main features of these guidelines are thereafter
outlined neglecting the creep effects on the buckling because the operating temperature of the
LWR are lower than the minimum temperature required for significant creep effect.
6.2.3 Rules for Shells
6.2.3.1 Case of monotonie loading
- Elastic Analysis
The appendix A7 2000 allows to perform a verification against elastic- plastic buckling
(without ratcheting or creep effects) performing only an elastic analysis of the structure
nominal geometry without taking into account neither plasticity, nor the tolerances, not even
the increase of deformations resulting from the loading application.
This method is applicable only for loading condition where secondary loads are absent.
Preliminary analyses may be carried out applying this method in order to find the heaviest
loading condition for each service level. This simplified analysis of the perfect structure
determines its elastic buckling load λ ε and the load λΥ for which a point of this structure
reaches a stress equal to the conventional limit of elasticity. The effect of plasticity, of the
tolerances and of the strains is taken into account by load reduction diagrams. The elastic
buckling load of a perfect structure is corrected by a buckling reduction factor based upon the
magnitude of the anticipated initial imperfections and the plasticity experienced by the
structure.
24
This correction factor χ takes into account the stable or unstable post-buckling response of
the structure too. The recommended procedure is illustrated. The code requires that no
buckling occurs after applying the following design safety factors to the loads acting on the
structure.
Service level Design safety

factor : shell
A/B 2.5
C 2.0
D 1.3
It should be noticed that the design safety factors are reduced respect to the ASME code
values passing from 3, 2.5, 1.5 to 2.5, 2.0, 1.3 respectively for service level A/B , C and D.
- Inelastic Analysis
Appendix A7 3000 deals with non-linear buckling analysis, giving guidelines on choosing
the worst geometry of the imperfect structure, computing the stress and strain distribution at
the load increasing and then assessing the structural stability. In order to save analysis effort
the structures may be classified according to their structural characteristic ratio ( ξ = λε /h y).
If λε /h y is greater than 20 the structure is assumed to be very stiff and cannot buckle, hence
rigorous plastic collapse calculations are not required. If λε /hy is greater than 5 then the
structure will collapse in the plastic range and the instability load is initial imperfection
insensitive. The structure is considered soft or flexible when the structural characteristic ratio
(ξ = λε /h y) is less than 0.2. The classical case of elastic buckling occurs in this range. The
analysis of structures with medium flexibility (0.2 < he Ih y <5) is complicated by the fact that
localised areas may experience plastic strains at higher load levels.
The behaviour of this structure (stress and strain distribution) is computed by combining
incremental calculations with large displacements and elastic/plastic bifurcation calculations.
The recommended procedure be resumed in the following steps:
1) Compute, by a bifurcation analysis on the nominal geometry, the bifurcation mode

shapes and the instability loads both in elastic and elasto-plastic fields.
■
2) Determine the modified geometry by taking into account the georcætrical

imp8rfections having a shape similar to the critical bifurcation mode and the
maximum value as resulting from fabrication tolerance. When 8ενεΓ3ΐ bifurcation
shape modes show very close to instability loads, a different modified geometry is
suggested following a comparison betw8en elastic and elastic/plastic bifurcation
loads.
3) Perform an elastoplastic analysis on the modifi8d g8omotry after multiplication of the

applied load by ίΐιε οοείΐΐοΐεηί required for the service condition in RB 3271.
4) Assess that the loading condition as defied at the previous point remains stable.
25
The instability is not reached if the following th ree conditions are satisfied :
the structure is in stable equilibrium,

no bifurcation is encountered,
the change in shape of the structure and the deformations of the materials are not
significant.
6.2.3.2 Case of cyclic loads
The rules allowing the consideration of cyclic loading are based on elastic analysis in which
the values of the primary and secondary stress8S are magnifÌ8d to take account of geometric
non-linearity due to possible buckling. The chapt8r A7.4000 d8scribc two ahernativ8 nrethods
requiring only an elastic analysis on the nominal geom8try. Both the næthods d8t8imine an
effective stress based on the primary stresses and the range of secondary stress.
The first method (A7.4200) limit the effective stress to a fraction of the allowable membrane
stress. In order to preclude buckling due to progressive deformations the rules contained in
RB 3261.11 must be verified by replacing Sm by 0.66 Sm. The cyclic secondary stresses can
be neglected. If the limit of 0.66 Sm is exce8d8d, the large displacement effects due to cyclic
loading should be considered in complying with the ratcheting and fatigu8 limits of the RCC-
MR. A second method (A7-4300) is then applied. The stresses calculated by performing an
elastic analysis are modified by taking into account both a parameter δ defined as the ratio
between the geom8trical d8fèct and the minimum εΐιείΐ thickness and a parameter α signifying
the def8ct influence on the secondary stress range. The latter method limits the effectiv8
stresses to a fraction of the instability loads. The effect of the modified primary stresses and
secondary stress range is measured by two effective stresses indicated as PI * and P2* as
defined by the efficiency diagrams. In this approach progressive buckling due to cyclic
loading is considered to be similar to the ratcheting phenomenon. The differences between
the two methods can be resumed in such a way:
in the first procedure, distortions due to cyclic loading can be neglected and the
calculation of the instability load can be perforated with initial geometric
imperfections
in the second procedure, a fraction of the cyclic load is assumed to be primary in the
calculation of the instability load (effective primary load)
6.2.4 Rules for Plates
The only difference from the slrell rules is in the design safety factors that can be reduced.
A set of design safety factors is recommended which is less severe than those given in RCC-
MR and ASME codes. The concept intends to closely follow the safety concept of the DAST
0.12 (Beulsichcrh8itsnachw8is8 fur Platten).
Differences in the post critical load carrying capacity and in imperfections sensitivity (plates
are less sensitive than shells) justify that two sets of design safety factors may be used. This
26
behaviour may he attributed to an in-plane tension field which can only bε pres8nt if Λε ρ^ίε
is allowed to dev8lop œrtain circumferential stiffness provid8d through Λε supports on all
four sid8s. This nev/ set of design safety factors is provided for the application to plate
structures in which the buckling behaviour is in accordance with the plate type buckling
mode. The proposal for the set of safety factors to be satisfied when assessing plates under
compression loading follows :
Service Level Design safety

factor : Plate
A/B 1.7
C 1.4
D L2
The use of the above design safety factors for plates requires that the plate structure doesn' t
buckle in column type mode. For a rectangular plate this leads to the following conditions:
all sides of the plate must be supported ( no free unsupported edges).

the ratio of sid8 tength a to side length b to be within the boundary of 0.67 < a/b <
1.5
For conditions where these requirenrents are not satisfied the design safety factors report8d for
shell structures should be applied.
6.2.5 Ru
l es for Piping
The RCC-MR code contains a simplified procedure for piping buckling 8valuation ref8rring
both to straight parts and olbows (RC 3670). A significant f8ature of Οίε ρΓορο5εά
nrethodology is ίΐιε possibility of taking into account differently primary loads and s8Condary
loads for stability analysis. Τΐιε sεcondary loads (strain induced) arc reduced for straight parts
by the coefficÍ8nts noted as αϊ and a2 calculated as the ratio of the elasticity moduli Es /E.
For elbows, 0Cj together with coefficients a 2 = a 3 = 1.1 Es iE.
Es = secant modulus
E = YOUNG modulus
Es is determined on the material tensile curves for an equivalent stress.
An iterative process is required.
Fig. 6.1 recalls the procedure proposed by the RCC-MR for straight parts.
6.2.6 Dynamic buckling
Dynamic buckling analysis is usually performed by using the traditional "freeze-in-time"

procedure. The maximum dynamic load on the structure is first det8rmin8d from dynamic
analysis and the margins to buckling d8t8imined by performing subsequent buckling analysis
assuming the calculated dynamic loads are applied statistically in case combined with an
elastic pressure field. This approach has be8n found to giv8 οΰ^εη^ύνε 385ε38ηΐ6ηΐ of the
27
dynamic buckling load as reported in the AGT 9B Milestone Report. To avoid unnecessary
conservatism in the superposition of static and dynamic loading for buckling analysis there is
a neεd for ίΐιε adjustment of the dynamic part of the loading before performing the static
buckling analysis. A simplified method has been developed in order to perform the
superposition of static and dynamic loading by combining only a part of the seismic loading
to the static one . The maximum dynamic loading should be multiplied by a knock-down
factor m which is a function of the ratio r = fo / fl where :
fo is the dynamic excitation frequ8ncy

fl is the frequ8ncy of the buckling mode
When a structure is loaded slowly ( fo / f1 < 0.1 ) it buckles at a dynamic pressure which is the
same as the static Euler bifurcation load, PE. In contrast, when the structure is loaded rapidly,
it can withstand five times the Euler bifurcation load without buckling.
6.2.7 Procedures for the Buckling Analysis
6.2.7.1 Simultaneous application of mechanical and thermal loads
In case of simultaneous application of mechanical and thermal loads the code RCC-MR does
not give guidance on how to increas8 the loads simultaneously or successively when
performing analysis. In the domain of buckling analysis by incremental analysis procedure,
the way to increase the loads acting on a structure in the case of combined mechanical and
thermal loading was found non trivial for certain loading configurations (eg cylinder under
extemai pressure in combination with axial tlrermal gradient ). Usually, the mechanical and
thermal loading are applied proportionally to the already geometrical imperiaci system. As a
result from the analyses carried out proportional load increase may lead to a prediction of
buckling loads which are abov8 the values computed for non - proportional load increas8s.
For example in the case of cylinder under external pressure in combination with axial thermal
gradient the phenomonon obs8rv8d is interpret8d as a stiffening produœd by the tlœrmal
gradient. Thus it is recommended to the designer to use proportional and non proportional
increas8 of loading in order to be sure that the results obtained aie on the safe 8nd.
The following strategy is recommended:
a) Thermal loads only :
The thermal gradient through the thickness shall be increased to their nominal value and are
afterwards not increased. The other thermal loads shall be increased in the same time and
later still increas8d.
b) Combination of nrechanical and tlrermal loads :
The thermal gradients through the thickness are suggested to be increment8d as in previous
case. The other tirermal loads and mechanical loads shall be incremented simultaneously.
28
6.2.7.2 Coupling betw88n nrechanical and thermal buckling
Experiments have be8n p8rform8d at CEA Saclay considering cylinders load8d by εχΐεπ^Ι
pressure, t8nsion and a fix8d level severe axial gradiεηί of t8mp8rature. Following
experim8ntal results the mechanical and thermal buckling modes are very different and there
is not interaction. When thermal stress8s are added to the pressure stresses the limit load is
infiuenœd only in a lirmted way being very different the shapes of the mechanical and
thermal buckling. The first is characterised by large blisters developed for low harmonics
(n « 12), while the last one is characterised by small blisters developed for high harmonics
(n « 36 ): then there is not any coupling between the two mode shapes.
Also experimental tests prc-νε that having no coupling between the two buckling failure
modes the critical load reduction is weak. The deformations resulting from temp8rature have
the same είΓεεί of gconretrical imperfections and must be evaluat8d accordingly. In the most
unfavourable case, the mechanical and thermal loading must be applied to the already
geometrically imperfect system. The thermal loading can be interpreted as additional
imperfection. Normally, the greatest reduction in limit load is in the initial range and with
further increasing imperfection t the relative limit load reduction becomes smaller. Since
thermal loading is already another imperfection the limit load reduction will relatively be
smaller having an additional tenuxrature loading. It is, how8V8r, to he not8d that
8xp8iim8nts p8rform8d at CEA hav8 shown that an intoraction 8xists b8tw88n tension load
and axial thermal gradient.
The fast reactor rules for buckling analysis incorporate significant developments which may
enhanœ 8xisting LWR cod8s although buckling is not g8ærally a big issu8 for thick
structures of LWR' s. For exampte it may b8 possibte to reduce the design safety factors with
respect to the ASME code values reducing from 3, 2.5 and 1.5 to 2.5, 2, 1.3 respectively for
service level A/B C and D. Considering DCRC recomm8ndations , in ΰιε d8sign of structures
having service conditions including superposition of static and dynamic loads (eg seismic
analysis ) it may be possible to avoid unneœssary cons8rvatism by reducing the dynamic
loading (a knock-down factor is used) before combination with the static value.
Typical LWR components have a much higher ratio of wall thickness to radius compared to
FR structures and are normally loaded by internal pressure. This means that buckling is not
an important failure mode. For spherical and cylindrical parts and tubular products there are
tables/graphs incorporat8d in ίΐιε App8ndices of the ASME code which are used to ensure
safety against buckling for each individual material. With these tables/graphs (in Appendix
VII in 92 edition in Subpart 3) a geomotrical factor A and material and a temperature
dep8nd8nt factor Β and finally an allowable external pressure p a can be calculated following
the rules given in NB-3133.
29
For Ιενεΐ D faulted condition loading a global factor is multiplied on the allowable external
loading and level A. This global factor is 2.5 for ovality less than 1% and 1.5 for great8r
ovality.
A m8thod for plastic instability load is provided also in App F.
Also, it should be noted that ASME CC-N-284 (6.5) provides buckling criteria for
containment shells with complex geom8trÌ8s and loading conditions.
In Germany, for any product form not regulat8d by NB 3133, national standards for εΐεεί work
are appli8d with the problem that the classification of loading in Ιενεΐ A, B, C, D under
ASME-jurisdiction has to be adopted in a similar way.
In France, rules have been extended in the RCC-M to materials for which charts were not
available by introducing a simplified and pessimistic procedure based on material yield
strength and Young's modulus. Simplified p8ssimistic hypoÜi8S8s are adapted for PWR
applications, where high ratios of thickness to radius of components are used. Resistance to
external pressure is not an important concern for LWR applications.
Neverthetess, there are som8 applications, where more refin8d analys8s or εχρειΐιηεηίβ hav8
b8en used to justify resistanœ to 8xternal pressure of sone components. This may concern
exchanger tubes, which may be subjected to high ext8rnal pressure during the secondary
hydrotest, or postulated accidents. Allowable ovalities have been considered for this
justification. Low pressure components may also be subjected to post accident pressure
conditions in the containment.
6.5 POTENTIAL BENEFIT TO LWR DESIGN CODES
Potentially the philosophy for cyclic and dynamic loading distinguished from static
monotonic loading could be a benfit. Also a εοηοερί for continuous variation of
imperfection instead of a 1% ovality criterion would be helpful. Any verif^d reduction of
design safety factors is appreciated.
6.6 CONCLUSIONS
Specific application and v8rification to typical LWR components should be perforated in

order to evaluate Λε pot8ntial benefits of FR-methods for LWR's. Also beamlik8 structures
may be covered in this study.
30
6.7 REFERENCES
6.1 EFR B4-01 3-472, DCRC Report n° 10 Buckling Analysis.

6.2 RCC-MR Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of Large
Pool-Type LMFBR, Paris, France.
6.3 Rcvi8w of strain buckling : Analysis M8thods, D Moulin, Nuctear Sci8ncc and
M8thodology.
6.4 WRC Bultetin 366 Chapt8r 12 Non Lfræar Collaps8, R L Roche and A K Dhalla.
6.5 ASME CC N-284. Metal Containment Shell Buckling Design Methods - Section III,
Division 1, Class MC.
31
FIGURE 6.1
PIPING BUCKLING RULE
Procedure for straight tubes
1) Evaluation of the secant modulus on the σ - ε curve
2) Calculation of the reduction factors αϊ and a2 for the secondary loads
α = a =
ι 2 Es / E
3) Calculation of the critical stress8s
- Axisymntetrical ones
- Eulerian ones
- Torsional ones
4) Calculation of the critical loads
- Normal force
- Bending moment
- Torsional πιοηιεηί
5) Verification of the limitation
-I2
Ν MTOR M*
■+
NCR MTOR,CR M R , CR
32
7 Interaction Diagrams for Assessing
Ratcheting
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Fast reactor structures may be subjected to combinations of cyclic thermal stresses and
constant primary stresses. Design assessment against ratcheting applying simplified methods
based on elastic analysis is required. DCRC Concluding Report No 17 [7.1] reviews the
practises used for assessment of ratcheting of fast reactor structures. A new method based on
interaction diagrams is proposed for EFR project. Details of the proposed method are
provided in the following section.
7.2 INTRODUCTION TO FR METHODS
7.2.1 General
Ratcheting is a p r o g r e s s ^ deformation caused by the interaction between a steady

mechanical load and a cyclic thermal stress. Τΐιε mechanism of ratcheting is associated with
the inelastic material behaviour. In principio, the codes allow structural assessment using a
fully inelastic analysis. This analysis is not suitable in the preliminary design phase, so
simplified methodologies using elastic analysis have been developed. Structural assessment
of ratcheting may be obtained using a simple method like interaction diagrams. Design codes
give guidance to prevent structural ratcheting following this methodology.
The French code RCC-MR [7.2] evaluates structural ratcheting on the basis of an Efficiency
Diagram that bounds the allowable value of the primary stress depending on the value of the
secondary stress range. This method, based on experimental results, may give unconservative
results in situation where significant thermal membrane stresses are present, without
significant primary stress. (Note: RCC-MR recommends that part of the stress is classified as
primary to be conservative; more work is required to investigate this aspect).
The ASME III code case N47 [7.3] relies on interaction diagrams based on Bree studies to
assess ratcheting, strictly for the case of cylindrical shell subjected to pressure with
superimposed cyclic through wall gradients. The diagram allows the user to verify if a
combination of the stresses due to pressure and thermal loading conditions can produce the
ratcheting on the cylinder for a given value of assumed yield strength.
The DCRC is in the process of proposing Concluding Report No 17 [7.1] which recommends
the use of an alternative set of diagrams, called Brussels diagrams, obtained from the
parametric analytical studies performed by Prof Ponter and co-workers at Leicester
University [7.6]. This work has resulted in two simplified diagrams covering axisymetric
cylindrical shells loaded by internal pressure combined with radial and axial temperature
gradients static and moving. On the basis of these interaction diagrams the designer is
33
enabled to perform a simple assessment against the ratcheting risk, to evaluate whether the
structure is free from ratcheting, whether a more detailed analysis is required or whether a
redesign is needed. The procedure is similar to those of the present codes, but in principle
appears to be more safe in cases where non-uniform axial temperature distribution is
involved. The method is complementary to the shakedown method described in the
concluding DCRC report N° 7 [7.5]. This last method is a lower bound approach (Melan' s
Theorem) while Brussels diagrams are an upper bound (Koiter' s Kinematic Theory).
7.2.2 Brussels Diagrams
7.2.2.1 Description
Two master diagrams are provided for axisymetric shell-like structures.
The first diagram considers a structure subjected to a through thickness gradient, without
significant thermal membrane stresses during the operating cycle. This loading condition
reproduces the Bree type situation and takes into account of several temperature gradients; see
Fig. 7.1.
The second is an extension of the previous diagram to cases involving axial temperature
gradient or a moving temperature front, with or without through-wall temperature gradients.
Both spike or ramp temperature profiles are considered.
The abscissa of each diagram is the non-dimensional primary membrane plus bending stress
C, defined as C= Op^KjSy), where σ ρ is the Tresca stress for primary membrane plus
bending, Sy is the 0.2% yield stress at the maximum value of the temperature within the shell
which is reached during the operating period. K t is a constant to cover the hardening
characteristic of the material. The ordinate of a diagram is a non dimensional thermal stress
T, defined as:
T= CTtmax/(KiSy), whereCTtmaxis the elastically calculated maximum value of thermal stress
(Tresca) within the shell throughout an operating period. If a reversal of the temperature
across the thickness occurs during the operating period then the boundary between the S and
Ρ regions with the R region is further restricted. The modified boundary is determined by a
parameter γ which is function of the absolute maximum through-wall temperature difference
arising in the structure during the operating period both in one direction and in the reverse
one.
In the Brussels diagrams curves delimit regions where shakedown, alternating plasticity or
ratcheting may occur. The combination of pressure and thermal stresses indicates what
structure behaviour may be anticipated. Three regions marked as S, Ρ and R are defined with
the following features:
S defines a region where ratcheting is avoided. Elastic cyclic state is possible after
shakedown of the structure
Ρ defines a region where no ratcheting is met, but allows local reverse plastic
straining where fatigue analysis is required
R defines a region where the assessment against ratcheting risk can not be proved.
34
In case of axial temperature gradient the shakedown and plasticity region are restricted by
lines of a constant factor F. It is a factor depicting the severity of the axial temperature or
stress gradient. If the stress analysis results are available, the factor F can be defined in terms
of a parameter G which is given by
Μα(σΓ)
where a t max is the maximum value of the thermal stress intensity, a m max is the maximum
value of the membrane component of the thermal stress intensity. The value of G used may
be doubled for stationary temperature distribution. In this case the range of oscillation of the
axial temperature ramp is less than 10% of the distance over which the steepest change of
temperature occurs. A value of F=l represents the maximum of severity (if the calculated
value is lower than 1, it should be set to 1), while values above 6 indicate a Bree like
behaviour.
7.2.2.2 Design Code Procedure
In performing the ratcheting assessment the following steps are scheduled:
1) Verify that the limitations set out in the paragraph 7.2.2.3 below are satisfied.
2) On the basis of the problem, select which of the two diagrams must be retained.
3) Evaluate the diagram abscissa represented by a non dimensional primary stress

parameter C.
Note that C must be < 0.67 not to exceed the primary stress limits.
4) Define the ordinate of the diagram in terms of a non dimensional thermal stress rangeT.
5) In presence of an axial variation of temperature evaluate the value of the severity

factor.
6) Position the loading point represented by the calculated values of C and Τ on the
appropriate diagram.
7) The design is acceptable if the loading point lies within the allowable domain.
(NB. Recent work performed on the interaction diagram method [7.4] has initiated an
improvement to the method to deal with secondary stress ranges and in the
presentation of the design procedure.)
35
7.2.2.3 Limitation of use
The use of interaction diagrams method is permitted only if all the following conditions are
satisfied:
- primary stress limits are verified according to RCC-MR RB3 111.

- the structure has axisymetric cylindrical shell shape
- the primary loading condition is axisymetric
Moreover it must be noted that:
- if there is a membrane axial component of the secondary stress, unless otherwise

justified the maximum value should be classified as primary to be conservative
- elastic analyses should be performed
- cases involving large displacements or significant follow-up must be checked
carefully
- fatigue analysis must be carried out separately
- the rules are applicable to any material provided that the appropriate K^ is used
- the rules can be applied to welded structures if the properties of the weld metal
don't differ significantly from those of the parent metal.
The method proposed in DCRC Concluding Report [7.1] can be considered as an extension of
RCC-MR and ASME procedures to cases involving axial temperature gradient and moving
temperature front. It is based on the Brussels diagrams that allow a preliminary conservative
assessment against the risk of ratcheting using only idealised temperature data or, if a more
accurate evaluation is required, using elastic stresses from finite element analysis. Their use
in the LWR design permits wider application and a more realistic simplified approach for
assessing ratcheting on the basis of elastic analyses.
Prevention of ratchetting by verifying that shakedown conditions is generally aimed at in

LWR design and analyses. Nevertheless, when these conditions cannot be met, for example
during severe thermal transients, the number of which is very limited during component life
(10 transients, for example), a more precise evaluation of the cumulated deformation may be
obtained by detailed elastic-plastic analyses. In this frame, FR-type procedures have been
used in some cases.
36
Development studies are performed in the LWR field in order to justify criteria applicable in
conditions where shakedown behaviour cannot be obtained. FR procedures shall be
considered in these studies.
This will allow cost reduction in analyses, by reducing the need for complete elastic-plastic
analyses. After validation through practical applications, simplified procedures may be
introduced in the LWR codes.
7.6 CONCLUSIONS
Application of DCRC recommendations should be performed on typical LWR applications

subjected to severe thermal loadings, with the objective of including simplified procedures in
the LWR analysis practice. In this context, reference should be made to the previous
investigations and applications performed in the WGCS and EFR programmes.
7.7 REFERENCES
7.1 DCRC concluding report No 17 Draft report Interaction Diagrams.
7.2 RCC-MR Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of Large
Pool-Type LMFBR, Paris, France.
7.3 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Case N47, Class 1 Components in Elevated
Temperature Service Section III Division 1, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, NY.
7.4 Design Rule for Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Axisymmetric Temperature Histories
ARS Ponter, K F Carter (Leicester University), Β Riou (Framatome/Novatome) CEE
Study Contract RAI-0224-UK,
Final Report September 1996.
7.5 DCRC concluding report No 7 Shakedown Design Methods.
7.6 The Computation of Shakedown Limits for Structural Components Subjected to

Variable Thermal Loading - Brussels Diagrams. ARS Ponter, S Κ Karadeniz,
K F Carter. Final Report. Contract RAP-054 UK, December 1987.
37
8 Rules for the Prevention of
Elastic Follow-up in Piping
8.1 Introduction
As explained in [1], elastic follow-up is not a failure mode, but a concept used to underscore
the importance of possible inelastic strain concentration in a structure designed primarily using
the elastic rules specified in design codes. Although not restricted to piping, elastic follow-up
is considered to be particularly important to piping. 40 years ago Robinson [2] was the first to
give some guidance for limiting the amount of elastic follow-up (EFU) in elevated temperature
piping. At that time the term elastic follow-up was only used with respect to creep behaviour,
but during the EFR project this term was often used with respect to any inelastic behaviour.
For distinguishing between time-independent and time-dependent origin of EFU, the terms
EFU in plasticity and EFU in creep were frequently used.
Inelastic strain concentration may occur if a structure is made up of parts with different
stiffnesses resulting from geometrical differences or from differences in material properties. If
the more flexible parts are highly stressed, stress concentrations cannot be removed by
inelastic material behaviour, neither by yielding nor by relaxation, since the surrounding elastic
material acts as restraint. Thus large strains can be accumulated without reducing the stress
significantly, Fig. 1. Piping systems may be particularly sensitive to this effect, if they are not
well balanced so that they consist of long stiff members (straight pipes) and short flexible parts
(elbows).
fictitious elastic behaviour
stress-controlled loadina
elastic-plastic behaviour
strain-controlled loading
Figure 1: Elastic follow-up in plasticity
The major source of EFU in LWR piping will be plasticity. Creep will be disregarded therefore
in the following. EFU is then very much related to plastic strain enhancement considered in
topic 9. The following definition of EFU is provided in [3]: "A structure is said to exhibit
elastic follow-up when stresses deviate from a suitably defined fictitious stress state because of
the compliance of the surrounding parts. ... In plasticity the fictitious state is the one provided
by linear-elastic analysis." Only strain-controlled loading as indicated in Fig. 1 will thus be free
of EFU, while stress-controlled loading gives rise to maximum amount of EFU. Realistic
configurations of geometry and loading usually causes EFU somewhere in between.
38
8.2 Description of FR Method
Three methods were used in the EFR project to quantify EFU: a method used by Novatome
layed down in the RCC-MR, another one used by Siemens and a third one used by NNC.
8.2.1 Method of RCC-MR
In a recent modification of the RCC-MR, rules to prevent excessive EFU in class 1 piping
have been issued. They are described in the DCRC concluding report no. 20 [4]. Three
different EFU parameters are introduced to quantify EFU: r M , r c and rf to account for
monotonic plastic, cyclic plastic and time-dependent (relaxation) behaviour, respectively. The
two plastic parameters indicate the slope of the EFU-line in the stress-strain diagram of Fig. 1,
see Fig. 2.
fictitious clastic behaviour fictitious elastic behaviour

σ I
y
fel
IV/-..EFU
/
el-pl F 1
h
1 / " m o n o t o n i e stress-strain curve
1 1
f.el . el-pl
Figure 2: Definition of EFU-parameters r M and r c
The EFU-parameters are determined by the Roche method as described in [1], [4], [5], [6],
[7], They take on values between -1 (elastic unloading which may happen due to plastic action
at other locations) and infinity (stress-controlled loading). r=0 corresponds to strain-controlled
loading. The general basis of this method is outlined in topic 9 (Strain Range Enhancement) so
that only its basic assumptions and the particular adaptation to piping systems shall be
mentioned here:
- the Kachanov hypothesis holds according to which stress does not redistribute due
to plastic action; only the level of stress is reduced by a factor φ which is a structure
constant, i.e. independent of the location
- in case of beams the structure constant φ applies to section forces
- only secondary stresses are considered (no primary, no peak stresses)
- the material behaviour can be described by a Ramberg-Osgood law:
ε = § + Βσ η or Δε = ^ + ΒΔσ η
39
the piping system is represented by beams; flexibility factors and stress indices are
used to account for the shell-type behaviour of the elbows; piping components other
than straight pipes and elbows (e.g. tees, reducers, etc.) cannot be accounted for
- the governing equations of the Röche method are:
T
ΓΜ(χ,γ,ζ)= 7 -l'
Vl(x,y,z)
t(x,y,z) = ΡΊΓ n-i (local resili

ency)
_ ƒ (CJR(KVZ))2 A dl
Τ = τ -4 (global resiliency)
J (σκ(χ,ν,ζ))2/ί(.χ,ν,ζ) A dl
V(0.79B2MF)2 + (0.87MT)2
σR(x y,z) = η (reference stress)
π rm t
M F and M T are resulting bending and torsion moment due to thermal expansion and imposed
' " 2 2/3
displacement. B 2 is the stress index for moment loading (=1 for straight pipes, 1.30/(tR/r )
for elbows, where R is the bend radius, t the wall thickness and rm the mean radius of the
pipe). A is the area of cross section. The integrals to determine the global resiliency T are to
be performed along the entire length 1 of the piping system. For calculating r c , the reference
stress G R and the moments M F and My are to be exchanged by their range values Δον, ΔΜρ
and ΔΜΤ.
According to [7] the above formulation of the reference stress was obtained semi-empirically
by adjusting the results obtained by a simplified inelastic Finite Element analysis of a piping
system under creep conditions typical of FR (with the FE code TEDEL) to an experimental
test.
The monotonie EFU parameter rM is used to capture effects of secondar}· stresses on the
plastic limit load and on buckling. This is done by adding a portion of secondary stresses with
EFU to the stresses due to pressure and load-controlled moments when satisfying primary
stress limits. The corresponding portion of secondary stress is identified by applying a
knock-down factor g to stresses due to displacement-controlled moments. The factor g
depends on r M and on the monotonie stress-strain curve (i.e. on material parameters Β and n).
Although it were possible to determine elastic-plastic strain ranges and thus the factor Ke in
the frame of the Roche method employing the parameter r c , this is not done in the RCC-MR.
Instead, the above procedure is only used to check whether the cyclic EFU parameter r c is
lower than 3 at each point of the piping system. If this is the case, the code assessment can
proceed as usual without making use of the Roche method any longer. This means that the
usual plastic strain enhancement factors of the RCC-MR (cf. topic 9) are assumed to
conservatively cover EFU. If r c cannot be shown to be lower than 3, a redesign of the piping
system shall be envisaged.
40
8.2.2 Siemens Practice
EFU in plasticity is accounted for in fatigue analysis by making use of a plastic strain range
enhancement factor Ke. Siemens' practice in determining K e is to use the method proposed by
Hübel in [8]. A more detailled discussion of this method is presented in topic 9 (Plastic Strain
Enhancement). Only its major ingredients shall be recalled here, along with special
justifications for its application to piping.
Three effects are distinguished causing plastic strain enhancement:

a) effects due to different Poisson's ratios in the elastic and in the elastic-plastic
regions, which may be significant under multiaxial strain-controlled loading
conditions
b) effects due to different uniaxial stress-strain relations, occurring locally in severely
limited regions of the structure without affecting the overall behaviour of the
structure (i.e. notch effects)
c) effects due to different uniaxial stress-strain relations, which determine the overall,
or global, behaviour of the structure, and which may be significant if the stress
distribution is inhomogeneous over a larger region of the structure (e.g. in the
presence of stiffness differences).
Each effect is quantified independently of each other by factors designated Κ , K . and K£E for
effects a, b and c respectively. E ach of these factors is determined on the basis of the primary
plus secondary plus peak stress range S obtained by the stress index approach. Only the
maximum of these three values is actually used in the fatigue analysis. Al three factors can be
determined by solving equations developed for some material models depending on the load
level and plastic material parameters.
K ¡ can usually be disregarded in piping analyses, since local effects do not arise at elbows,
which are the most highly stressed parts of a piping system. K is usually not effective, since it
can exceed K only at moderate load levels where both values exceed unity only moderately.
Essentially, K e thus reduces in piping systems to
K e = K S g(Sp).
In general, Κ£σ is to be taken from a catalogue of plastic strain enhancement factors for
smooth structures of different configurations of geometry and loading. However, it was shown
([8], [9]) that the factors of a cantilever beam of solid rectangular cross-section subjected to
displacement-controlled loading (Fig. 3) can be used if bending prevails.
This also conservatively covers elbows even if the piping system exhibits distinct E FU (i.e.
bending moments approaching those of force-controlled loading of an isolated elbow). This is
confirmed by the benchmark exercise in [10], even if bending does not prevail, provided that
the fictitious elastic stress state is obtained by the stress index approach considering the piping
system as a beam structure and accounting for the shell-type behaviour of the elbows by
flexibility factors and stress indices, which are known to be conservative with respect to
torsion. However, if the elastic solution is obtained via modelling the entire piping system by
shell elements (or employing special elbow elements based on shell theory), adopting Κ of a
cantilever may fail to be conservative, if torsion prevails in the elbows.
41
A similar way to account for E FU also in creep is presented in [1], which can, however, be
disregarded for the present purpose, since creep is considered to be not important in LWR
piping.
3 -
2.8-
C/E=0.025
2,6-
2.4-
0.05
2,2-
Ksg 2-
0.1
1,8 -
1,6-
1,4-
1,2-
- 1,5 2 2.5 3 3,5 4 4.5 5

Γε1
Δσ /2σν
Figure 3: Κ of a cantilever beam; linear kinematic hardening material model
8.2.3 NNC Practice
According to [4] NNC adopts the GLOSS method developed by Seshadri (e.g. in [11]). This
method is based on an iterative modification of the Young's modulus in a sequence of elastic
analyses and is a generalisation of ideas originally developed by Severud [12] and Dhalla [13]
for quantifying E FU in piping of Fast Reactors (primarily under creep conditions, cf. [1]).
Application of the GLOSS method results in the parameter r indicating the slope of the
EFU-line (likewise parameters rM and r c in Fig. 2) in the stress-strain diagram. This in turn
can be used to determine stress and strain values by adopting either a monotonie or a cyclic
stress-strain curve or a creep law. The procedure is as follows:
- a fictitious elastic analysis (=analysis 1) is performed with the real Young's modulus
E and Poisson's ratio v; this provides effective stresses σ ( ^, Ζ ) and strains ε ( ^ Ζ ) at
each location x,y,z of the structure
- assuming strain-controlled loading, the results of analysis 1 are used to modify the
(2)
Young's modulus by defining a secant modulus E as shown in Fig. 4 at each
location x,y,z; this becomes effective only at locations where the yield stress is
exceeded in analysis 1
- an elastic analysis (analysis 2) is performed with E (^y_z) but with Poisson's ratio and
the loading remaining unmodified (note that this is a difference to the method of
Zarka, cf. topic 12); this results in stresses σ(χ;ν,Ζ) and strains 8(¿.Z)
- the slope r of,f.el
>(2)_ the EFU-line can now be determined at each location by
r=E
σ
42
the plastic solution (stress σ ε p , strain ε ) at each location is estimated to be given
by the intersection of the EFU-line with the stress-strain curve; the corresponding
_ el-pl
plastic strain enhancement factor is K e = f d
if stresses redistribute due to plastic action, or if the volume of the material exceeding
yield depends on the load level (this is always the case in real design situations), then
the parameter r is not a constant in Fig. 4; a third, fourth etc. elastic analysis can then
be performed by successively modifying the Young's modulus.
σ
strain-controlled
σ.fel loading assumed
-(2L.
.el-pL stress-strain curve
σ
fel (2) el-pl
Figure 4: GLOSS method: modified Young's modulus
8.2.4 Benchmark on EFU in Piping
In [10] a benchmark exercise was undertaken for two piping configurations considered typical
of FR. One of these lines, qualitatively shown in Fig. 5, was considered to be well designed,
while leg LI was chosen to be very long in the other one in order to cause significant EFU.
The loading consisted of thermal expansion (600°C) and anchor movement at support A in
x-direction, both applied monotonically. At maximum load, a dwell period of 50000 h was
introduced. Primary stresses were not applied.
Different elastic analyses were conducted using different computer programs based on
different theories to approximate the shell-type behaviour of elbows. Large discrepancies were
found not only in the level of stress but even in identifying the highest stressed elbow. EFU in
plasticity as well as EFU in creep was investigated employing several methods including those
described in Sections 8.2.1 (Roche method), 8.2.2 (Hübel method) and 8.2.3 (Seshadri
method). A comparison was made with an inelastic analysis performed employing simplified
shell elements. Proper interpretation of the results is not easy due to the interaction of creep
and plasticity and due to different tools used to obtain the underlying elastic results. As far as
only EFU in plasticity is concerned, only very minor differences were found betwen Roche's
and Hübel's method in both piping configurations. Compared with the results of the inelastic
43
analyses, the plastic stresses and strains obtained with Roche's and Hübel's method are
conservative. The GLOSS (Seshadri's) method appeared to be unconservative, but possible
effects from the particular elastic analysis method (type of Finite Element used) could not be
sorted out.
Figure 5: Piping system investigated in [10]
8.3 Potential Application for LVVR Codes
As far as EFU in plasticity is concerned, the effect of EFU on the plastic collapse load of
elbows (related to monotonie plasticity) may in principle also be applicable to LWR. However,
2
differences in geometry typical of FR and LWR elbows (r/t and tR/r ) may have a strong
impact.
EFU related to cyclic plasticity affects the plastic strain range enhancement factor Ke.
Methods developed by Roche, Hübel and Seshadri were used in the EFR project to determine
K e in FR piping and may be applicable for LWR piping as well.
EFU due to creep is considered to be of minor importance for LWR, since cold creep and
other viscous effects are either less pronounced than plastic effects or become important only
in beyond design load cases.
As a by-product of dealing with EFU in piping, work was performed in the EFR project to
improve the elastic stress indices for elbows, which are to be used if the piping system is
modelled by beam elements, e.g. [4], [9]. Alternatively, elastic results can be improved, if
special elbow elements based on shell theory are used. In contrast to the stress index method,
stress indices and flexibility factors need not be defined and the stress distribution is obtained
around the circumference of an elbow. Different degrees of complexity are possible, e.g.
including or excluding carry-over effects to account for interaction of ovalisation between
adjacent elbow or straight pipe elements. Such elements are available in several commercial
Finite Element codes. They can also be used to perform elastic-plastic analyses at reasonable
cost [4], [10]. These developments made to account for different ovalisation due to in-plane
44
bending, out-of-plane bending and torsion with respect to the thin-walled elbows of FR may
also be interesting for the thicker geometries used in LWR piping.
8.4 Current LWR Procedure
Prevention of the elastic follow-up effect is obtained essentially through design (sizing)
provisions and limitation of primary stresses and primary plus secondary stress range (eg the
limitation of primary plus secondary stresses due to expansion P e under the 3 Sm criterion
avoids the risk of elastic follow-up more or less totally). Thus, significant risk of elastic
follow-up is precluded.
When the primary plus secondary stress range is larger than 3 Sm, the plastic strain correction
defined in the ASME III Code and also in RCC-M and KTA, is based on a pessimistic
geometrical configuration representative of a typical elastic follow-up effect, and thus takes
into account strain amplifications due to this effect in the worst acceptable cases.
8.5 Potential Benefit for LWR Design Codes
More realistic strain correction factors are proposed for thermal effects in the RCC-M (see
chapter 9). For mechanical effects, the current practice is to use the ASME correction. More
refined elastic follow-up evaluation of designs permitted by LWR codes may be made in
order to improve the correction to be applied to the mechanical effects.
Some benefits may be obtained on these corrections, but it shall be remembered that the
ASME code results from a very pragmatic approach, where pessimistic hypotheses may
compensate for some optimistic ones, its global validity being confirmed by return of
experience.
On this special topic, the Ke correction for mechanical loading of the ASME code is
pessimistic above 3 Sm, but may be slightly optimistic around and below 3 Sm. However, it
should be reminded on the correction of Poison's ratio up from 0.3 to values approaching 0.5
for consideration of local (peak) plastification which may cover the uncertainty below 3 Sm.
This means that using a more refined method may lead to complications as far as the 3 Sm
criterion should not remain in this case a threshold under which no correction is required.
8.6 Conclusions
Specific application to typical LWR configurations may be recommended in order to better

evaluate the potential benefit of the FBR methods.
Significance and definition of stress indices shall also be studied as far as prevention of elastic
follow-up in piping systems is concerned, differences existing between interpretations given
by various experts. A study on stress indices has been previously proposed in the frame of
WGCS AG2.
45
8.7 References
AGT9B:
[14] Drubay, Β: First Synthesis Report on Elastic Follow-Up and Strain Range
Enhancement, October 1992 (in AGT9B 93-01, Compendium of the AG T9B
Structural Integrity Seminar, January 1993, Paris).
[15] Touboul F and Martin Ph: First Synthesis Report on Piping Design (in AGT9B 93-
01, Compendium of the AGT9B Structural Integrity Seminar, January 1993, Paris).
[16] Martin Ph: First Milestone Report on Piping Elastic Follow-Up, AGT9B 91/52.
DCRC:
[4] Rules for the Prevention of Elastic Follow-up in Piping - DCRC Concluding Report
No 20, EFR B401 5 1392A.
WGCS-AG2:
[I] Hübel H and Zeibig H: State-of-the-Art of Simplified Methods to Account for Elastic
Follow-Up in Creep Commission of the European Communities, WG CS/AG 2,
RA1-0166-D, EUR 16556 EN, 1996.
[3] Maier G, Comi C, Corigliani A, Perego U and Hübel H: Bounds and Estimates on
Inelastic Deformations, Commission of the European Communities, RAI-0162-1 and
RA1-0168-D, EUR 16555 EN, 1995.
[8] Hübel H: Simplified Elastic-Plastic Fatigue Analysis of Smooth Structures,
Commission of the European Communities, Contract RA1-0150-D, EUR
Report 16097 EN, 1995.
[9] Touboul F, WirtzH and AutrussonB: Maximum Elastoplastic Strain in Elbows,
Commission of the European Communities, Contract RA1-0146-F, April 1992.
[10] Hübel H et al: Benchmark for Elastic Follow-up in Piping, Commission of the
European Communities, WG CS/AG 2, RA1-0194-D, October 1993.
Other sources (cf [1] for more references):

[2] Robinson: Steam Piping Design to Minimise Creep Concentrations, Trans ASME,
77, October 1955, pp 1147-1162.
[5] Roche R L: Estimation of Piping Elastic Follow Up by Using Conventional
Computations, Int J Pres Ves & Piping 26 (1986), pp 53-78.
[6] Touboul F, Drubay Β, Permezel Ρ and Roche R: Next Introductions in French Design
Code for FBR (RCC-MR) Class 1 Piping Rules, Post-SMiRT Seminar on
Construction Codes and Engineering Mechanics, Anaheim, August 1989.
[7] Berton Μ Ν: Estimating Creep Damage due to Elastic Follow-up in Piping Systems:
Reference Stress Determination from Stress Relaxation Test of Expansion Loop No 3
(VICTUS Tests), CEA-Bericht NT SDEC/LDCS 88.009, July 1988.
[II] Seshadri R: The Generalised Local Stress Strain (GLOSS) Analysis - Theory and
Applications, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
Vol 113,1991, pp 219-227.
[12] Severud L K: A Simplified Method Evaluation for Piping Elastic Follow-Up, Fifth
International Conference on Pressure Vessel Technology, San Francisco, 1984,
pp 367-387.
[13] Dhalla A K: Verification of an Elastic Procedure to Estimate Elastic Follow-Up,
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, Vol 108, 1986,
pp 461-469.
46
9 Strain Range Enhancement
9.1 Introduction
Nuclear components are often subjected to high cyclic loads causing plastic strain ranges
which determine the fatigue life (low cycle fatigue) of the structure. These strain ranges can be
calculated by two ways, which are principally different. Either a detailed inelastic analysis is
performed, whereby a given load histogram is analysed on a step-by-step basis. This provides
complete information about stress and strain at any location of the structure at any time. Or a
simplified inelastic analysis is used providing only partial information about the behaviour of
the structure on the basis of elastic analyses and additional reasoning.
Fatigue life of a structure is usually governed (however, there are exceptions due to
environmental effects and temperature) by the maximum elastic-plastic strain range at any
location (this location does not necessarily correspond to the location of maximum fictitious
elastic strain range). The elastic-plastic strain range at this location (but not necessarily at
other locations) is larser than calculated elastically, or "enhanced". The ratio of elastic-plastic
el-pl "~ . fel
strain range Δε and fictitious elastic strain range Δε ' (Mises effective values or Tresca
intensities) at the same location is termed strain range enhancement factor Κ :
Ac· el-pl
Almost 30 years ago a simple formula for estimating K e was introduced in the ASME Code
Section III, NB for LWR primary components and subsequently adopted by many national
design codes, e.g. in F, D and UK . Several simplified methods were developed since then for
determining the elastic-plastic strain range based on different degrees of approximation with
respect to various arguments in theoretical mechanics (heuristic assumptions). A particular
method is the one developed by Zarka and co-workers described in topic 12. Specific methods
related to piping (e.g. GLOSS/Seshadri) are described in topic 8: Rules for the Prevention of
Elastic Follow-up in Piping.
Three methods developed for FR application will be described in the following: the methods of
the RCC-MR, of Roche and of Hübel. Derivatives of the last two methods for application to
piping are presented in topic 8. Apart from these methods another method particularly
developed in the EFR project for zones containing geometrical discontinuities (crack-like
defects) has been developed: the od approach, which adopts the Neuber method, applied to
the stresses at the distance d=0.05 mm from the tip of the discontinuity using Creager's
approximation and the Rankine instead of the Mises criterion (for some more details see [5],
where a worked example is provided).
Time-dependence of material behaviour (creep) may influence the elastic-plastic strain range.
Methods to estimate the strain range amplification due to creep were considered in the FR
work but will be disregarded in the following assuming that this will not be a problem in LWR.
47
9.2.1 RCC-MR Method
The elastic-plastic strain range is given by

Δ ε βΐ-ρΐ = Δε ι + Δε2 + Δε3 + Δε4 (2)
where Δε[ represents the fictitious elastic strain range
Δε,=|(1 + ν ) ^ . (3)
All stresses are Von Mises intensities. The relation between effective stress and effective
el
elastic strain in eq. (3) does not match the usual definition (Δε =Δσ/Ε) of uniaxial stress-strain
relation.
Δε 2 is the plastic portion of the elastic-plastic strain range due to the primary stress range and
is read from the cyclic curve (stress range vs. strain range at half the number of cycles to
failure). Since the cyclic curve is given as a Ramberg-Osgood law
Aêl-pl = Δρ + ΒΔ(_η = M (l + ( α Δα)1"1] (4)
(i.e. without any region of proportionality between stress and strain) in the RCC-MR, Δε 2
cannot be zero if any cyclic primary stress exists. However, this term can be expected to be
small enough in FR design practice that it can be neglected. According to the RCC-MR, care
should be taken if appreciable elastic follow-up exists. Details how to deal with elastic
follow-up are not provided, however. Note that the definition of the elastic portion of the
elastic-plastic strain in eq. (4) is not consistent with eq. (3). It is stated in the RCC-MR that
this difference is neçlisible.
"β"0*
Δε, accounts for local effects arising at notches. If Δε 2 = 0, Δε 3 reduces to Neuber's approach
which states that the product of effective stress range and effective strain range in the
elastic-plastic state is identical to its value calculated by a fictitious elastic analysis:
Δσ 6 ΐ _ ρ 1 Δε ε1 " ρ1 = A a f e l Δε Γβ1 (5)
A modification of the Ramberg-Osgood material model of eq. (4) is used by the RCC-MR to
be consistent with eq. (3):
Ae ei-pi = ψ ( | ( 1 + V) + ( α Δα)"-1) (6)
The strain range enhancement factor due to Neuber's approach is termed K£ in the following.
It depends on the load level and on the material behaviour (constitutive equations and material
parameters), [1]. According to the RCC-MR, it additionally depends on Poisson's ratio, which
is due to the particular definition of elastic stress-strain relationship in eq. (3) and as part of
eq. (6). K £ is shown in Fig. 1 for two values of the stress exponent n.
Δε 4 is to capture the effects arising from the fact that Poisson's ratio is different in the
elastic-plastic state (v=0.3 ... 0.5, depending on load level and material parameters) from the
value assumed in the fictitious elastic analysis (v=0.3). This is due to the incompressibility
assumption in plasticity which means that the volume of material is conserved under purely
plastic (but not under elastic-plastic) deformation, corresponding to v=0.5. The term Δε 4
becomes effective if the stress state is not uniaxial. It becomes maximum if the stress state is
equi-biaxial. The strain range enhancement factor due to this effect is termed Κ ,. It depends
not only on the load level and material behaviour (constitutive equations and material
parameters), but also on the state of stress expressed by the ratio of two principal stress ranges
[2] taken from the fictitious elastic analysis. This is shown in Fig. 2 for a uniaxial and an
48
equi-biaxial stress state. As a consequence of the relation between stress and elastic strain in
eqs. (3) and (4), the factor K v is not unity for uniaxial stress conditions.
4 -
3,5"
3 -
η=1θ/"
2,5-
2 -
^___ ' n=3
1,5-
Γ
1 -
(D 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
1
α Δσ^
Figure 1: Κ of RCC-MR for Ramberg-Osgood material model; v=0.3
n=10 (equi-biaxjal)—
1,45-
1,4-
1,35- n=3 (equi-biaxial)
1,3-
^ 1.25-
1,2-
1,15- n=10 (uniaxial)
1,1 - n=3 (uniaxial)
1,05-
•
1 - I I — — h
(D 0,5 1 1, 5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
α Δα™
Figure 2: Κ of RCC-MR for Ramberg-Osgood material model; v=0.3
If plasticity due to primary stresses can be neglected, the method of the RCC-MR reduces to
XVe = K.F. + Kv — 1 . (7)
As already mentioned, the method of the RCC-MR makes use of the cyclic curves, provided in
the code for several materials at several temperatures. Complete cyclic hardening is thus
49
inherently assumed, overestimating the hardening and thus underestimating the plastic strain
enhancement representative of the design life of the structure.
9.2.2 Roche Method
Roche assumes that three effects can be distinguished to cause plastic strain range
enhancement (cf. various papers, e.g. [3]):
(i) global effects due to secondary stresses causing gross yielding; captured by factor K e]
(ii) effects related to peak stress redistribution in the vicinity of a stress raiser (local
effects, notch effects); captured by factor K e0
(iii) Poisson effects due to the fact that the volume of material does not vary during
plastic deformation (multiaxiality effects); captured by factor Ky.
Effects (ii) and (iii) are those captured by Δε 3 and Δε 4 in the RCC-MR. While factor K y for
effect (iii) is identical with the factor Κ , of the RCC-MR, the factor Ke-, is, however, not
identical with factor Kg of the RCC-MR.
Factor K el for capturing global effects is based on the following asumptions:
- the Kachonov hypothesis holds, i.e. stress is assumed not to redistribute (neither
spatially nor directionally), but only to relax due to plastic action; mathematically:
fel
Δσ(ΧΛ.,Ζ) = φ ■ Δσ (ΧΛ . ιΖ) ; 0 < φ < 1 (8)
so that the stress range at the location with coordinates x,y,z of the structure is φ
times the fictitious elastic stress range at this location, but the value of φ is
independent of this location, i.e. a structure constant, depending only on material
behaviour and loading
f.el
- the fictitious elastic stress range Δσ in eq. (8) is a secondary stress range, i.e.
primary and peak stress ranges are not included
- in beam or shell structures, the stress range Δσ in eq. (8) is exchanged by ranges of
section forces AS or generalised stresses As:
fel fel
AS(x) = ( p - A S ( x ) ; As(x,y) = φ · As ( x , y ) (9)
effects due to the distribution of stress across the wall are reflected by interpreting
AS and As as reference stresses combining all section forces or generalised stresses in
a section to a single value based on its plastic limit load
- the material behaviour must satisfy the relation
A s j k ) = Φ( Φ) · Δε&) (10)
(where φ is an arbitrary scalar value), practically enforcing the use of the Ramberg-
Osgood model; in contrast to calculating the factor K y , where Roche uses the
Ramberg-Osgood model in the form of eq. (6), he uses the form of eq. (4) to
calculate K e l ; the stress exponent η must not vary during the loading cycle
50
The procedure for determining Kel starts with defining a local resiliency t at each location of
the structure:
fel aΔ
u σ
f. el
Δε(ΧγΖ) fei (x,y,z) , .Pi
ii ,,ι ¡ι
f.el ι
t(x,y,z) = — ^ r — withΔε (χ>ΥιΖ) = — ^ — ; Δεδ(χ,Υι2) = B(Aa ( x , y i 2 ) J ( i l )
Δε0(Χιν>Ζ)
By making use of the principle of complementary virtual work the global resiliency Τ of the
structure can be calculated:
2
J (Δσ^., ζ) ) dV
Τ (12)
ƒ ( A Œ [ £ U ) 2/t(x,y,z) ¿V
For beam or shell structures the volume integrals in eq. (12) degenerate to line integrals
(dV=A dl) or to area integrals (dV=h dA), respectively. The integrations in eq. (12) can be
performed numerically. For that purpose a postprocessor must be provided. The structure
constant φ can be determined from solving numerically
Τ · ( φ - 1 ) + φη = 0 (13)
The strain range enhancement factor Kel at location x,y,z is given by
Kei(x,v.z) = 1 + Γ(χ,ν,ζ) · ( 1 - φ ) w i t h r ( x,v iZ) = 1 (14)
VÎ(N,y,Z) '
where r is a parameter independent on the load level. r=0 indicates strain-controlled loading,
r=co stress-controlled loading (cf. topic 8: Rules for the Prevention of Elastic Follow-up in
Piping).
As an illustrative example consider a bar consisting of two different cross sections (areas A1
and A2, lengths lj and 12) subjected to cyclic displacement-controlled tension and compression
(cf. topic 12: Zarka Method, where the same configuration is considered; however with a
different material model):
Making use of the equilibrium condition

A f- e l A A f- e l A
A a t Αι = Δ σ 2 A 2
we get the local resiliencies n-1
ti= λ
, _n-1, ; ti = 1
f.el f.el
n-1 A,
ΕΒ^Δσι ΕΒΙ^Δσ!
and the global resiliency
1 1ι/12+Αι/Α2
T= _1
f.eiV li/l2 + ( A i / A 2 ) n
ΕΒΔσ
For a specific load level the equation
51
(φ-1) 1ι/12 + Α,/Α2
1 η- + φ η = ο
f.el V " 1ι/ΐ2+(Α,/Α 2 )
Δσ
can be solved for the structure constant φ (e.g. by Newton iteration). The elastic follow-up
parameter r is in the part of maximum stress
n-1
'A.
AT
1
Γ2 =
1
^llVA;
so that the strain range enhancement factor K el can be computed with eq. (14). This solution
coincides with the exact analytical results, which is not surprising, since the underlying
assumptions of the Roche method are exactly met by the present configuration: the spatial
distribution of the stress range (but not the level of the stress range) is known a priori, since it
is independent of the material behaviour and the load level. Therefore the Kachanov
assumption holds true. This does, for example, not equally apply for a junction between plate
and shell investigated in [1]:
'ummplate
cyclic temperature difference
PIP
pipe
<
' -' i W ^ \
Figure 3: Cylindrical shell subjected to cyclic thermal growth at the clamped support;
factor Ke, for location of maximum stress range (inner surface at clamped end);
Ramberg-Osgood material model (E=149000, B=7.826E-26, n=10.417, v=0.3;
stress in MPa)
52
Disregarding notch effects at the intersection, the results of Fig. 3 are obtained for a particular
set of material paramaters. Roche's method is compared with detailed elastic-plastic Finite
Element analyses. The difference between simplified and detailed analysis is relatively large,
which is due to the fact that the Kachanov hypothesis is not adequate to that kind of problem,
since spatial redistribution of stress is not negligible. However, the Kachanov hypothesis is
conservative.
The second plastic strain range enhancement factor introduced by Roche in [4], termed K e2 , is
to account for local effects, i.e. for capturing plastic strain range enhancement due to peak
stresses at notches:
Δε* 1 -? 1 = Ke2 Kei Δ ε ™ (15)
f.el
where the fictitious elastic stress at the notch root Δε ' is given by the fictitious elastic
nominal strain range Δε^ and the theoretical elastic stress concentration factor YL^:
Δε^^ΚίΔεΝ1. (16)
By definition the elastic-plastic nominal strain range is
Ρ — xv 6
ΔεΜ~
-Ν = Kei
e l "Δε!'
c-N · (17)
The well-known Neuber approach of eq. (5) (in terms of stresses and strains at the notch root;
superscript el-pl omitted)
Δ σ Δ ε = Δσ™ Δε™ (18)
is modified by Roche through adopting the J-integral known from fracture mechanics:
Δ σ Δε Δσ™ Δε™
(19)
J Jf'e
leading Roche finally to
ΔσΝ Δσ Ν 1 ΔσΝ
Ke2 = K t 1+fi f, = (0 < f ι < 0.5) (20)
Δσ Ε Δε Ν (2σ )2 + Δ σ ^ γ
with 2σ being the range of tensile and compressive yield stress. This turns out to be an
implicit equation for determining Ke-,, since Δσ on the right hand side of the first equation
depends on K e2 . K e0 can be found iteratively after providing a material model, cf. Fig. 4. The
factor Ke-,, accounting for notch effects, should vanish (K e ,= l) if there is no notch (1^=1).
Fis;. 4 reveals that this is not the case.
1.8 -
1,7 -
^___^—— K^3; α2σχ=1
1,6 - jr ■
■ /
K
e2
1,4 ■
J
J K=1.5; a2a y =l
1,3 - / >*~"—
/ X ^ — K^T5; α.2σν = 05
1,2-
1,1 - ■ i // K,=1; α2σγ=1
1-
ij>^^~,
D 1 2 3 4 5 6
w Λ «el
Figure 4: Factor K e2 for notches; Ramberg-Osgood material model (n=3)
53
The third factor used by Roche is the factor K v of the RCC-MR. However, no guidelines
could be found for combining K with the other two factors in order to account for their
interaction. G uidelines to deal with the strain range enhancement effects arising from the
portion of primary stress range in the total stress range, but excluded from factor K e] , could
also not be found. Effects due to spatial redistribution of stress are not accounted for. In
contrast to the other methods investigated, special analysis tools are required (postprocessor).
9.2.3 Hübel Method
Likewise the method of Roche, the method proposed by Hübel (e.g. in [1]) assumes that three
different causes for plastic strain range enhancement must be distinguished: global effects,
local effects and multiaxiality effects. Each of these effects is evaluated separately by
introducing the factors K K , and Κ ,, respectively. Certain similarities exist to the factors
K.,, K o and Κ of the Roche method, but there are also significant differences.
*ei
It is proposed to set up a catalogue of plastic strain range enhancement factors Κ determined

by detailed elastic-plastic analyses for a variety of structure geometries and loading conditions
considered as typical of real design situations. It is argued [1] that a cantilever beam of solid
rectangular cross section subjected to displacement-controlled loading is representative of
many different design situations encountered in Fast Reactors, at least if bending prevails. This
covers, for example, a cylindrical shell subjected to any kind of axial temperature gradient,
even if stiffness differences are involved, and elbows. The degree of conservativeness varies,
however. Primary stresses are also covered. Caution must be exercised if membrane stresses
are significant. In these cases the cantilever may (e.g. in case of a cylindrical shell subjected to
an axial thermal gradient, where the hoop membrane strain is kinematicallv determinate) or
may not be conservative (as in thin-walled elbows subjected to torque).
Any kind of material model may be adopted, e.g. linear kinematic hardening (Fig 5):
Ε Δε ΐ ί Δ σ < 2 σ > . . Ç_ E t
Δσ (21)
2σν(1-Εί/Ε) + Ε£Δε ifAc>2uy ' E==E-Et
11
3 - li Ι Δw
2,8-
τ C/E = 0 . 0 2 5
2,6-
2ay" Et
2.4-
0.05
2.2- /F
2
Ksg -
0.1
1,8-
1.6-
1,4-
1,2-
1.5 2 2.5 3 3,5 4 4 5 5

Γε1
Δσ /2σ ν
Figure 5: Factor Κ for a cantilever beam; linear kinematic hardening material model
54
The material parameters should be identified not on the cyclic (i.e. fully hardened) curve, but
on the stress-strain hysteresis loops at a partially hardened state of the material, say the tenth
cycle.
Local notch effects are captured by the factor Κ ε 1 according to the unmodified (i.e. K gl is
independent of Κ ) Neuber approach, eq. (5) and (18). For a linear kinematic hardening
material model the curves of Fig. 6 are obtained. In contrast to factor K£ of the RCC-MR, Κ
εΐ
is determined employing the usual definition of the elastic stress-strain relationship instead of
eq.(3).
Figure 6: Factor K£l ; linear kinematic hardening material model
1,35"
1,3" 2cy C/E=0.025

/
1 25"
. ¿E 0.1
1.2-
Kv
1,15
1,1-
1,05-
1,5 2,5 3 3,5 4,5

Γ 6ΐ
Δσ · /2σ„
Figure 7: Factor Kv; linear kinematic hardening material model; v=0.3
55
The third factor, Kv, is to account for multiaxiality effects arising from the difference in
Poisson's ratio between elastic and plastic deformation. The background ofthat factor is very
similar to that of the corresponding factor in the RCC-MR and in the Roche method, except
that the usual definition of the elastic stress-strain relationship is used instead of eq. (3), and
that only the bounding values for equi-biaxial strain-controlled loading are used. For a linear
kinematic hardening material model, the curves of Fig. 7 are obtained.
Equations are available providing all three factors for several material models. Adaptation to a
real material is then a simple task, even if the material parameters such as 2σ ν and E t depend
on the load level (elastic-plastic strain range).
The interaction of the three different effects captured separately by factors Κ Κ , and Κ is
rather complicated. A conservative estimation can be achieved in the following way. First, the
analyst must judge whether one or two of these factors can be dropped. For example, if a
location of the structure remote from notches is considered, then factor Κ -, can be omitted.
ε-
For simplicity and conservatism, the remaining factors are then evaluated for the entire
fictitious elastic stress range (i.e. primary plus secondary plus peak stress range S ), although
theoretically not necessarily requested (considering the theoretical background, factor Κ 0
should intrinsically be calculated excluding peak stresses). If this is done, only the maximum of
the remaining factors needs to be used in subsequent fatigue considerations. The strain range
enhancement factor is therefore
Kv(Sp)
Ke = max Kdcsp) (22)
KEg(sp)
unless one or two of the factors Κεσ, Κ ε 1 and K v can be justifiably excluded from this
condition. Application of the present method is rather simple. A special postprocessor is not
required.
9.3 Potential Application for LWR Codes
National design codes for LWR such as the German KTA rules are still based on the ASME
formula for Kg. This factor is known to be ([1])
- potentially unconservative in certain design situations; e.g. in fillet radii (at least in a
certain domain of level of stress range), since notch effects (peak stresses) are not
accounted for adequately
- overly conservative in other design situations as known from many detailed
elastic-plastic analyses of smooth structures subjected to displacement-controlled
loading
- difficult to be calculated, if the two surfaces of the wall are not parallel.
A further deficiency of the ASME approch is that individual features of a structure under
consideration cannot be accounted for, such as its particular geometry and material. The three
methods presented in Section 9.2 try to avoid these shortcomings. They all have advantages,
but also some disadvantages (for example, peak stresses in notches due to purely thermal
loading across the wall are treated unsatisfactorily by all methods, causing excessive
conservatism) . Since their underlying assumptions are not strictly related to design situations
typical of FR, they are expected to be potentially applicable to LWR design situations as well.
56
The key ingredient of all methods presented and thus the criterion for choosing one method
(or even more than one) is, whether the heuristic nature of the underlying assumptions is
adequate to the field of application intended.
The basis of the ASME Ke factor is given in [11] and [12].
It has been recognised very early (see for example ref [23] of [1] that ASME Ke factors were
unduly conservative in some cases and potentially non conservative in other cases. The
overall result of fatigue evaluations was nevertheless considered acceptable, taking into
account the whole fatigue evaluation provisions, including load case combination methods,
which are very detailed in the RCC-M.
In order to obtain more realistic corrections, the French practice, included in the RCC-M since
the 1993 Edition, uses a specific method, called "mixed Ke", where ASME correction is
applied to the mechanical part of the loading and a specific correction (based on ref [23] of [1]
is applied to the thermal part of the loading. This thermal effect correction includes the
Poisson ratio "Kv" effect. Some views were given in [13] with comparison to the RCC-MR
method. The proposed method has been presented in [14] and also in a more general survey
[15].
This method has been validated on representative configurations under combined loadings, by
comparison to results of elastic-plastic analyses.
The German KTA practice is based on ASME. As far as the known conservatism on Ke leads
to acceptable results for the cumulative fatigue usage factor U the common procedure is used.
In cases where due to a very high correction factor Kg the usage factor U is too high (>1) the
following approach is more and more introduced in Germany:
- Calculate the plastic strain in the given structure for the loading which gives in a linear
analysis the highest Kg-factor
- evaluate a Kg-factor for the actual strain enhancement found in the structure
- then evaluate the adjusted factors m and n appropriately
- rerun the fatigue analysis on an elastic basis but with the corrected values for m and n.
It is often observed that the cumulative usage factor U is reduced dramatically.
Refinements coming from the EFR approach have been used in some LWR applications in
some highly stressed regions, in order to evaluate the potential benefit of the method (see for
example [13]). The use of Tresca or Von Mises approaches for equivalent strain range
determination has to be taken into account through the use of specific fatigue curves or Kv
coefficient.
57
The complexity of some methods, leading to a multiplication of corrections, may be adapted
to known loading histories. However, if the designer wants to cover all the possible
combinations of load cases, such complicated methods may lead to drawbacks, and possibly
to a more pessimistic global result. If the designer wants to be pessimistic on all corrections:
the larger the number of correction types, the larger the sum of the "conservatism factors"
taken on the various corrections. Such methods may be applied on specific cases, but should
not be applied systematically.
Particular comments from Siemens are that the FR-methods are too complicated for practical
use for the designer.
The calculation of the K^-factor, which takes into account local effects was practically
impossible for very complex geometries like nozzles with sleeve and connecting pipes.
In addition the fact that Kg was greater than 1 indicates also that shakedown has to be proved
and verified. This means that
(a) stress ranges Sn except thermal bending has to be verified to be below 3 Sm and
(b) a ratcheting analysis has to be performed.
For (a) and (b) stresses have to be calculated and linearised.
In the proposals from the FR-side it can't be seen how these requirements are satisfied,
implicitly fulfilled and therefore the benefit can not be clearly seen at the moment.
Simplifications should be proposed as mentioned in 9.2.3, for example, subject to design

precautions, a unique Neuber-type correction may seem appropriate in most cases and easy to
apply.
9.6 Conclusions
An examination of the current factor Ke will be included in DG XI study on "Réévaluation of

fatigue analysis criteria". Proposals for future evolutions will be included. Comparison of
various codified rules may be made on practical examples in view of further improvement of
LWR codes.
9.7 References
AGT9B:
[6] Autrusson B: First Milestone Report on Strain Range Enhancement, AGT9B 87-07.
[7] Hübel H: Second Milestone Report on Strain Range Enhancement, AGT9B 89-34.
[8] Drubay B: First Synthesis Report on Elastic Follow-Up and Strain Range
Enhancement, October 1992 (in AGT9B 93-01, Compendium of the AGT9B
Structural Integrity Seminar, January 1993, Paris).
DCRC:
[5] Elastic Fatigue and Creep-Fatigue Rules - DCRC Concluding Report No 6 (1994).
58
WGCS-AG2:
[I] Hübel H: Simplified Elastic-Plastic Fatigue Analysis of Smooth Structures,
Commission of the European Communities, Contract RA1-0150-D, EUR Report
16097 EN, 1995.
[9] Touboul F, Wirtz H and Autrusson B: Maximum Elastoplastic Strain in Elbows,
Commission of the European Communities, contract RA1-0146-F, April 1992.
[10] Autrusson B: Simplified Elasto-Plastic Methods of Analysing Fatigue in Notches,
Commission of the European Communities, contract RAI-0113-F, EUR
Report 14765 EN, 1993.
Other sources (cf [1] for more references):

[2] Moulin D, Roche R L, Autrusson B: Poisson's Ratio Correction in Elastic Analysis
of Low Cycle Fatigue, SMiRT 7, paper G/F 7/3, 1983.
[3] Roche R L: Simplified Elastic-Plastic Analysis of Fatigue Damage, 2nd Int. Seminar
on Standards and Structural Analysis in Elevated Temperatures, ENEA-ENEL,
Venedig, October 1986.
[4] Roche R L: The Use of Elastic Computation for Analysing Fatigue Damage,
SMiRT 9, Vol D, August 1987, pp 325-333.
[II] B F Langer, "Design-Stress Basis for Pressure Vessels" Exp. Mech (Jan 1971).
[12] S W Tagart, "Plastic Fatigue Analysis of Pressure Components" ASME Paper 68-
PVP-3.
[13] "Improvement on Fatigue Analysis Methods for the Design of Nuclear Components
Subjected to the French RCC-M Code" WRC Bulletin 361, February 1991.
[14] J M Grandemange, D Le Roy, "Corrections de plasticité dans les analyses de
fatigue".
[15] C Heng, F Champomier "Survey of Conditions for Cyclic Loading in shell, Valve
and Piping Analyses" ICPVT-8, Montreal 1996.
59
10 C onstitutive Equations for Inelastic
Analysis
10.1.1 Introduction
Constitutive equations, or material models, describe the relationship between stress and strain
in a structural material depending on variables such as temperature and so-called internal
variables to account for the history of stress and strain. After implementing in finite element
codes constitutive equations may be used to perform inelastic (either simplified or detailed)
analyses of engineering structures.
During the EFR project mainly five models (and some derivatives of them) were considered:
- ORNL model
- Chaboche model
- Interatom model
- Robinson model
- FRSV model.
An essential feature of these models with respect to FR application was the description of
creep (including stress relaxation) and plasticity-creep interaction. The ORNL and the FRSV
model distinguish between plastic and creep strains, which are determined separately, but not
independently. In contrast to this, a unified inelastic strain driven by an overstress Λ, without
differentiating between plastic and creep strains, is assumed by the other models which are
therefore called "unified models" or sometimes "overstress models".
All models mentioned rest upon the following assumptions:

- small deformations: ε « 1
- additivity of elastic, inelastic and thermal strain: ε = εε1 +ε , η ε Ι + ε Λ
- Mises yield surface (i.e. isotropy, no strength differential effects, inelastic
incompressibility, inelastic strain is independent on hydrostatic stress), Fig. 1
- associated flow rule (inelastic strain increment d8¡ ' normal to yield surface, Fig. 1)
1
d q P ^ ^ áj™ l\
σι, k /ÊÊÊÈ
flÈk ση
y mm y M. jk
σ3 σ
2 \ \ σ
3 σ^/^^^^Ρ^
YMises yielc1 surface s^
elastic dc»main
Figure 1: Mises yield surface in deviatoric stress space (fixed principal directions);
plastic and visco-plastic model based on overstress A
60
The main source of difference between the various models is their way of accounting for
history effects (number of cycles, dwell period, etc.) by introducing internal variables. Number
and kind (i.e. physical meaning) of internal variables and of evolution laws specifying the
variation of the values of the internal variables depending on the history of stress, strain,
temperature and internal variables themselves vary from one model to the other. They either
directly or indirectly govern plastic and creep hardening and softening. This can be visualised
by change of size (isotropic hardening, yield stress σ , scalar variable) and translation
(kinematic hardening, backstress ξ, tensorial variable) of the Mises yield surface in the space
of deviatoric stresses (cf. Fig. 1).
Work within the FR programme was almost entirely related to parent material so that
peculiarities of welds such as anisotropy were not studied. The constitutive equations were
envisaged to be applied to austenitic stainless steels of type AISI 304 and 316 (with some
modifications).
The five models mentioned above will now be presented in some detail. For simplicity, only
the uniaxial isothermal formulation for monotonie loading will be provided [1]. Thus, the
Mises yield condition degenerates to
3 _ ] = 0 for non - unified models
σ - f ξc - σγ = Λ
A
> 0 for unified models
10.1.2 ORNL Model
The model developed at the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) [2], [10] is non-unified, i.e. the
inelastic strain is the sum of plastic and creep strain, or equivalently, the inelastic strain rate is
the sum of plastic and creep strain rate:
ginel _ ε ρ1 + £ cr . ¿mel _ ¿pi + ¿cr
with
¿•P1 — ÉL · ¿-cr _ ¿.cr
ε ε
- Q » - ε (εΗ, σ ) ·
Two internal parameters are used to describe plasticity: ξ and σ Their evolution laws are:
ρ1
ξ =Cέ ; C = const, (linear kinematic hardening)
J ayo for 1 st loading
[ σγι after 1st reversed yield, or if £cr > 0.2%
σ 0 is the yield stress of the first cycle and σ j the yield stress of the tenth cycle. For
determining σ 0 and C, the monotonie stress-strain curve must be bilinearised in a specific
way, Fig.2. σ , is found by an "equal area" construction. The actual values of σ 0 and C to be
used in an element of a finite element inelastic analysis depend on the strain or strain range
anticipated. This is a shortcoming of the model, since it is in general hardly possible to
estimate the strain at many locations in a structure in advance.
The precise equation of έ " is rather complicated and cannot be provided in closed form. It
consists of three elements: a creep equation, a strain hardening formulation and auxiliary rules
for reversed creep.
61
Kinematic hardening is assumed to be linear by the ORNL model, Fig. 2. A non-linear portion
however, seems important for accumulating strains [4], at least in case of unsymmetrical
loading (mean stress effect) [3], which thus cannot be captured by the ORNL model (Fig. 3).
σ
' ! t
> - /—Ξ-'— " 1 / /

"yo
2 E
°yi A
/Τ ■■Α" Χ
I ' Ι
Ι
- ε
1 j ^ ' / / ε
max ε
max /
"5 ma χ / Χ
"yi
ν / £.
Figure 2: Stress strain cycles predicted by ORNL model for strain-controlled

symmetrical loading
Figure 3: Stress strain response predicted by ORNL model for stress-controlled

unsymmetrical loading
In the absence of creep, a subclass of this model is the linear kinematic hardening model,
where the yield stress σ is constant (so that isotropic hardening cannot be accounted for).
The simplicity of this model gives rise to many advantages. Disregarding the process of
isotropic hardening may be acceptable for determining strain ranges for use in a subsequent
fatigue analysis, but rules out the corresponding ratcheting phenomenon [3] and is therefore
questionable if accumulated strains are sought.
62
10.1.3 Chaboche Model
This model is a unified visco-plastic model. The inelastic strain rate is based on overstress Λ
by a power law [1], [6]:
Ainel
= ^Φ (Λ) ^
Φ(Μ __
'(Λ) =
Ι Λ
Ko + CCKR
Five internal variables are used ξρ ξ7, R, Q, and p. Kinematic and isotropic hardening are
described by:
ξ = ξ ι + ξ 2 ; a y = = σ>Ό + a R R
and the evolution laws are:
ξ1=εΐΦ(Λ)^1-ί(ρ)ξ1]-β1(ξ1Γ
ξ2 = ο 2 Φ ( Λ ) [ ^ - ί ( ρ ) ξ 2 ] - β 2 ( ξ 2 ) Π 1 2
with f(ρ) = f« + (1 - f«) exp(-bp)
p = |Φ(Λ)|
R = b ( Q - R ) 0 ( A ) + Y ( Q r - R )m
with Qr = Q - Q* \ -
Q = | η μ (Qmax - Q) Φ(Λ)
The internal variable ρ increases monotonically, even in a cyclic process [10]. In a monotonie
process, ρ=ε . The last terms in the evolution laws of the internal variables ξ] and ξ2
represent recovery which is essentially only effective in creep conditions. The purpose of the
function f(p) is to increase, at the same strain value, the tangent modulus co/râmel with the
number of cycles.
These evolution laws allow for non-linear kinematic and non-linear isotropic hardening so that,
in contrast to the ORNL model, the stress-strain hysteresis loop develops smoothly with the
number of cycles, Fig.4. Note that in contrast to the ORNL model, kinematic hardening is
bounded.
Figure 4: Prediction of stress strain cycles of unified models due to symmetrical

strain-controlled loading
63
Another feature of this kind of model is that ratcheting due to mean stress effects can be
simulated which occurs due to unsymmetrical loading in tension and compression [3], Fig.5.
Figure 5: Ratcheting due to mean stress (unsymmetrical stress-controlled loading) as

predicted by unified models
10.1.4 Interatom Model
The Interatom model reveals some similarities with the Chaboche model. However, there are
also some differences. A unique feature of the Interatom model is, for example, that it can
account for extra hardening due to non-proportional stress paths through a memory function
[1], [5], [10]. This however cannot become evident in the following uniaxial formulation.
Further- more, a peculiarity of the Interatom model is that the inelastic strain rate depends not
only on the overstress, A, but also on the rate of overstress, A, to better account for primary
creep:
έ ώ β 1 = φ (Λ,Λ) 1 ( φ ! - φ ) tanti (a Λ J + ( Φ ι + Φ )
Φ(Λ,Λ)
2L
2 2
withOi=y|(l + A ; Φ 2 = c 6 A C7
Two internal variables are used: backstress ξ and yield stress σ (or equivalently the inelastic
work κ of the yield stress in uniaxial formulation) with the evolution laws:
ξ = C(Et(s),K) Φ (Λ,Λ) - do _ξ
Et(e) Etoo
ΊΓ
+ yCl( C y o - a y s ) e x p ( - c j κ )
Ε
With CfE^lK) = Co + τ Ε
Ε,(ε) 1 Et»
1- E
Gy = a y s + (GyO - Cys) CXp(~C 1 K) κ = a y ε inel
The last term in the evolution law of the internal variable ξ is the recovery term which
becomes effective only in creep conditions. Ει(ε) is an analytical expression of the tangent
modulus of the "static" (i.e. έ —> °o) monotonie stress strain curve. For very high loading,
64
Ει(ε) approaches the constant value Et ». The yield stress σ increases from its initial value σ 0
to its final value (at saturation) σν_.
The uniaxial stress-strain curves of the Interatom model are qualitatively almost the same as
for the Chaboche model, depicted in Figs. 4 and 5.
10.1.5 Robinson Model
Likewise the Chaboche and the Interatom model, the Robinson model belongs to the class of
unified visco-plastic models and shows similar features. However, it appeared less suited for
FR application and received less attention.
The inelastic strain rate is given by [1

¿inel .= Φ(Λ) A
; 0(A) = ai +1 -ι
Two internal variables are used: backstress ξ and yield stress σ (or equivalently the inelastic
work W) with the evolution laws
ξ = 32ξ-2Ρφ(Λ)-Ε3ξ2^
σ^ = ays + ( a y 0 - a y s J exp(~^-) W a¿inel
10.1.6 Fast Reactor State Variable Model (FRSV Model)
This model is not unified, i.e. plastic and creep strains are separated. Since treatment of creep
was not fully elaborated in the FR programme, only the equations governing plasticity are
presented [1]:
¿P' = | with^ 1 -1 1
Ε-too ι /1 -b» too "v * 7
L EF
+
V 1x
' V ~EF ' / 2
E
Three internal variables are used: back-stress ξ, γ and the yield stress σ (or equivalently the
plastic work W) with the evolution laws:
αβσ Υ ο rj 1 if Oy < Gys
ξ = 1-Γ σ with Γ =
l + ßWC_ 0 if Oy = a y s
O
Etoo Ν 1~Υ
Ε Ι 2
γ = Μ 0^ Ε too / -ι _ E tco\ 1 ~Υ
+
Ε V ι Ε ) 2 J
ρ1
W=σέ
Gy = min [Gys ; ayo(l + α ln(l + ßW))]
Due to the non-linear description of kinematic and isotropic hardening, it can be expected that
this model exhibits similar features as the unified models (Figs. 4 and 5). However, it could not
be tested to the same degree as the other models.
65
10.1.7 Comparison of the Models
The ORNL model is the simplest of the five models considered. Kinematic hardening is
accounted for only linearly. Isotropic hardening is captured only crudely by a step change in
yield stress from the first to the tenth cycle. The model is inconsistent in that its parameters
depend on the strain anticipated (and therefore vary from one location in the structure to the
other). In case of being wrong, a second detailed inelastic analysis may be required. Neverthe
less, the simplification of the model provides also advantages in terms of interpretation of the
results and engineering and computational effort required to obtain a solution.
The other models aim to avoid the deficiencies of the ORNL model for the cost of increasing
complexity. The non-linear description of kinematic as well as isotropic hardening gradually
developing during monotonie and cyclic loading causes the numerical effort of calculating one
load step to be higher by at least one order of magnitude than for the ORNL model. In
addition, more cycles need to be calculated until extrapolation to a saturated state is possible.
Furthermore, identification of the material parameters is more difficult. This is partly simply
due to the number of parameters (ORNL: 3 plastic parameters, Chaboche: 23 visco-plastic
parameters, Interatom: 14 visco-plastic parameters; all numbers apply to isothermal
conditions) and partly because experimental material data are needed, which however are
often not available in the extent and quality required [1].
The Robinson model turned out to be not well suited for FR application due to its description
of creep and plasticity interaction. The FRSV model was not fully developed to account for
creep at that time so that finally only the Chaboche and the Interatom model were considered
as candidates for use in FR design work. These two models seem to provide similar results in
many respect. Their differences, which must exist due to their different mathematical structure,
could not be made evident before the R&D activities in support of the EFR project was
cancelled [1],
All models are implemented in commercial finite element codes such as ABAQUS, SYSTUS,
etc.
10.2 Potential for LWR Codes
Description of creep during dwell periods at elevated temperature (above 500CC) was an
important feature of the constitutive equations for use in FR design. Furthermore, other time
dependent (viscous) effects were modelled (at least in the unified models) such as "cold" creep
which may occur at room temperature, anelasticity effects and strain rate effects. It is evident
that elevated temperature creep does not occur in LWR, except in cases beyond design. But it
is not clear whether the other time-dependent effects may be disregarded as well. Apart from
describing time-dependent effects, the FR constitutive models are capable of describing
complicated features such as hardening due to non-proportional loading paths and various
phenomena of ratcheting (e.g. temperature history effects and mean stress effects) which are
certainly important for LWR. At least for calculating accumulated strains, the non-linearity of
kinematic and the isotropic hardening is essential.
Neglecting all viscous effects would mean: overstress Λ=0. The unified models are not
designed to deal with that. Thus, ifall viscous effects can really be neglected in LWR, these
66
models cannot be used directly. Specific non-viscous versions of the Chaboche and the
Interatom model are available instead.
While the structural material envisaged in FR for performing detailed inelastic analyses was
austenitic steel, ferritic steel may also be considered in LWR. Ferritic steels may exhibit some
different features than austenitics, such as cyclic softening. It can be asumed that the models
discussed above (or at least some of them) can account also for those features.
Although not discussed above, extensive effort beyond just establishing constitutive equations
may be required to run practical design problems. Expertise developed during the FR project
to identify the material parameters in the models based on experimental data
(multi-dimensional optimisation problem far beyond simple curve-fitting) and
to implement constitutive equations in finite element codes (essentially providing
algorithms for numerical integration of a highly nonlinear system of "stiff '
differential equations [9])
are of potential value for LWR as well.
Simplified rules for prevention of progressive deformation and fatigue are included in the
LWR codes. When these rules are not fulfilled, it is acceptable (particularly in the RCC-M
code) to perform experimental or elastic-plastic analyses, for a direct evaluation of the damage
risks.
In this case, models of elastic-plastic behaviours have been used (including the Chaboche
model), and validated, for the specific applications by comparison to experiments. This
permits the evaluation of strains or strain ranges. Comparison with experiments were never
perfect and evaluation of results have to take account of this fact.
Another point is the definition of the acceptable level of accumulated strains. This shall not
impair component function, nor exceed a given percentage of the elongation at fracture, in
order that this accumulated strain may be considered as having no impact on the demonstrated
margins against plastic instability, and fatigue analysis method validity. The proposed
criterion, used by Framatome is 0.1 times the elongation at fracture for the total accumulated
strain.
Methods presented in this report are useful when elastic-plastic analyses are performed.
Experience shows that progressive deformation evaluation necessitates sophisticated models

and that results obtained have a limited accuracy.
For fatigue evaluation, elastic-plastic results are more accurate and it is envisaged to codify
cyclic stress-strain laws for this evaluation.
67
10.5 Recommendations
Detailed criteria should be available to LWR designers, and guidance for elastic-plastic
analyses should be envisaged for introduction in LWR codes.
Nevertheless, it is not recommended to introduce in LWR codes detailed methods for elastic-
plastic evaluations. Introduction of stress-strain laws in LWR codes for fatigue evaluation
may nevertheless be recommended.
10.6 References
AGT9B:
[I] Hiibel,H.: Synthesis Report Constitutive Equations, September 1992 (in AGT9B
93-01, Compendium of the AGT9B Structural Integrity Seminar, January 1993, Paris)
[4] Hübel,H.: Benchmark Exercise Report on Plates with Hole, AGT9B 90-45, October
1990
[7] Hubel,H.: First MR on Constitutive Laws, AGT9B 89-33, November 1989
DCRC:
none
WGCS-AG2:
[8] Corsi,F. and Donarelli,F.: INS A - EdF's Cyclic Thermal Axial Gradient: Cold Creep
Calculations, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2, RAP-063-I,
January 1986
[9] White,P.S. et al.: Guidance Document for the Choice and Use of Constitutive
Equations in Fast Reactor Analysis, Commission of the European Communities,
WGCS/AG2, RA1-0164-UK, January 1994
[10] Bruhns,O.T. et al.: Constitutive Modelling in the Range of Inelastic Deformations,
Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2, RAP-055-D,
EUR 11799 EN, 1988
[II] Donarelli,F. and Corsi,F.: Benchmark Calculation Programme Step 2 Phase 4,
Leicester Two Bar Test, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2,
RAP-0821, January 1986
[12] White,P.S.: Constitutive Modelling in the Range of Inelastic Deformations - Uniaxial
Evaluations, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2, RAP-084,
August 1987
[13] White,P.S.: Constitutive Modelling in the Range of Inelastic Deformations - Multiaxial
Evaluations, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2, RAl-0101-UK,
1989
[14] White,P.S.: Benchmark Exercise for the Comparison of Complete Analysis and
Simplified Methods of Assessment for a Problem of Stress Concentration Involving
Cyclic Plasticity and Creep, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2,
RA1-0148-UK, December 1992
[15] White,P.S.: CEC Benchmark Exercise on a Circular Plate in Cyclic Loading,
Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2, RA1-099-UK, February
1990
68
[16] White,P.S. and Lohse,U.¡Benchmark E xercise on a Circular Plate in Cyclic Loading -
Extension of Calculations, Commission of the European Communities, WGCS/AG2,
RA1-0216-UK, December 1993
[17] White, P.S.: A cooperative Benchmark E xercise in the Simulation of an E xperiment,
Inelastic Analysis of Type 2 Salt-Bath Specimens, Commission of the E uropean
Communities, WGCS/AG2, RAI-0161-UK, December 1992
other sources :
[2] Coram, J.M. et al. : Interim Guidelines for Detailed Inelastic Analysis of High-
Temperature Reactor System Components, ORNL Report 5014, 1974
[3] Hübel,H.: Ratcheting Phenomena, SMiRT 12, paper L08/1, 1993
[5] Bruhns, Ο.T. et al. : The Interatom Model, Proceedings of International Conference
on Constitutive Laws for E ngineering Materials, Chongqing, China, 1989, Vol. I,
pp 16-21
[6] Rive, D. et al. : Creep Fatigue Analysis for LMFBR's Structures : Identification of
Chaboche's Model for the Stainless Steel 316 SPH ; SMiRT 11, Tokyo, August
1991, Paper L06/1
Note: Further details of the guidance on the choice of constitutive equations for non-creep
conditions is provided in the following reference:
Ρ S White, H Hübel, J Wordsworth, A Turbat. Guidance Document for the Choice and Use of
Constitutive E quations in Fast Reactor Analysis - CEC Contract RA1-0164-UK.
ERC(W)15.1098, January 1994.
69
11 Margins on Level D Criteria
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Level D loadings are defined as extreme or low probability design basis events in which the
essential requirement is to maintain the integrity of structures, in order to ensure protection of
the public from the release of radioactivity, rather than continued operation of the plant.
Currently, FR design codes in France, RCC-MR (11.1) and in the US, ASME Code Case
N47, (11.2) contain the same time-independent (ie excluding creep) Level D criteria as the
concomitant LWR design codes RCC-M (11.3) and ASME Section III (11.4). These can be
satisfied either by elastic or elastic-plastic analyses methods.
Within the AGT 9B European Fast Reactor R&D collaboration work was performed to
investigate margins between failure and Level D criteria (11.5). Interatom identified varying
design margins for elastic analysis criteria against predicted collapse calculations, and
recommended a revised section shape factor K* to maintain consistent design margins. AEA
Technology performed a Level D assessment of the PFR Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX)
using large displacement inelastic finite element analysis with true stress-strain material
properties. Recommendations were made for consideration of a ductility based criteria for
secondary or displacement controlled strains at structural discontinuities, and a need for
clarification in the determination of the Plastic Instability Load (P¡) for load controlled
stresses. The definition of P¡ in current LWR design codes is only appropriate when using
small displacement finite element analysis with engineering stress-strain material properties.
These FR developments are equally applicable to LWR design codes and further details are
provided in the following section.
11.2 DESCRIPTION OF FR DEVELOPMENTS
11.2.1 Elastic Analysis Criteria
Interatom carried out detailed inelastic calculations on simple beam structures with
rectangular, circular, and annular cross-sections to determine the load capacity for
combinations of membrane and bending load. Current FR and LWR design codes limit the
primary membrane plus bending stress intensity, P m + P b or P L + P b , to 0.7 KSu (Su - tensile
strength) where K is the section 'shape factor' which accounts for the increased load capacity
under bending compared to pure membrane, which is limited to 0.7 Su.
It has been demonstrated that the safety margin between the current bending criteria and the
calculated failure load tends to be reduced, and is only just conservative for bending, as the
membrane component approaches the 0.7 Su limit, for a rectangular section.
70
To maintain consistent design margins compared to pure membrane loading, ie = 1.43,
Pm
Interatom have developed a revised K* shape factor which depends on the ratio Pm + Pb
and the material strain hardening exponent a.
The proposed additional criteria for Level D loadings is therefore given by:
P m + P b < 0.7 K* Su (P L excluded)
11.2.2 Large Displacement Inelastic Analysis
AEA Technology performed a 'large displacement' inelastic finite element analysis of the
PFRIHX to determine the ultimate internal pressure capacity under a postulated steam
generator unit sodium-water reaction transient. These results, were then used to establish the
Level D allowable pressures using ASME III CC-N47 criteria. The inelastic analysis made
use of true stress-strain material properties, which as explained later, requires some
interpretation of the ASME criteria.
(a) Finite Element analysis
Under the pressure loading the outer shell displaces radially outwards until it contacts the
outer liner after which further significant displacement was effectively limited. The
unsupported length of shell below the liner continues to displace outward, further increasing
the distortion at the shell to tubeplate junction.
Large tensile strains occur in the bottom tubeplate at the inner ligaments on the lower surface
and also in the shell mid-way between the end of the liner and the bottom tubeplate. Both
these strains are classified as load controlled since the stresses are in direct equilibrium with
the pressure. However, the maximum strains of all occurred in the outer shell, close to the
lower tubeplate to shell junction, and were due to the formation of large bending stresses
across the shell section. These strains are classified as secondary or displacement controlled,
since they are generated by the displacements and rotations of the adjacent shell and tubeplate
structures under load control.
For these displacement controlled bending conditions, strains could go beyond 90%.
However, in the test specimen this is a localised strain, occurring after 'necking' or geometric
instability, a phenomenon which is not modelled in the finite element analysis. Therefore, it
was decided that a more appropriate limit would be the 29% true strain limit which is
equivalent (ie ε = In [1 + e]) to the 34% uniform engineering strain at failure of the test
specimen.
71
For load controlled conditions occurring in the unsupported length of shell and in the lower
tubeplate, strains were limited to the 18% true strain (ie equivalent to the 20% engineering
strain at Su) after which 'necking' or geometric instability would be expected to occur,
(although this may be pessimistic for tubeplate bending). However, the pressure was 50%
greater than for the above strain controlled conditions and therefore the pressure limit of the
IHX was conservatively set by the displacement controlled bending strains in the lower shell
region reaching the 29% true strain limit.
(b) ASME III Level D assessment
For the elevated temperature operating conditions (585°-410°C) the appropriate code to use is
ASME III Code Case N47. However due to the short term duration of the sodium-water
reaction transient, the limits reduce to the following time-independent criteria of Appendix F,
The Plastic Instability Load criteria (F-1341.4) is that:
Applied Load < 0.7 Pr
The plastic instability load, PIs is defined as that load at which unbounded plastic deformation
can occur without an increase in load and is indicated by a representative load-deflection or
load-strain curve approaching an asymptotic value.
Maximum strains under load controlled conditions were plotted at the mid-outer shell and
lower tubeplate positions. However, well before the asymptotic pressure P r was approached,
the 18% load controlled true strain limit was exceeded, after which in reality, 'necking' or
geometric instability would be expected to occur. Beyond this point the finite element
pressure-strain curves are unrepresentative and for this reason Pr was taken at the 18% true
strain limit and multiplied by 0.7 to derive the ASME Level D allowable pressure.
Note that as previously mentioned, the strains at the lower tubeplate to shell junction are
strictly classified as secondary. In fact, the strains will follow the displacement of the
adjacent load controlled structures and would only become 'unbounded' at the same pressure
P! as determined above. Nevertheless, as noted above in (a), the ductility limits may be
reached before 0.7Pj, and may need to be considered in determining the allowable pressure.
The Plastic Analysis criteria (F-1341.2) is defined as follows:
P m < greater of : 0.7 Su or Sy + (Su-Sy)/3 (Sy = yield stress)
Maximum primary stress intensity <0.9 Su
Tm < 0.42 Su
For the large displacement analysis, the true stress-strain material properties were used to
derive the allowable stress intensities, ie Su being taken at the 18%) limit of uniform
elongation.
72
The interpretation of the maximum primary stress intensity was taken as that due to primary
loading (ie pressure) including secondary and peak effects. In fact this criterion dictated the
lowest allowable pressure due to the high bending stresses at the lower shell tubeplate
junction. The allowable pressure was 57% ofthat calculated using the Plastic Instability
Criteria (F-1341.4) and reflects the reduced ductility limit in this region of 10%
(corresponding to 0.9 Su).
The Elastic Analysis criteria (F-1331.1) required the finite element model to be re-run with
linear elastic properties. The applicable criteria are:
P m < 2.4 Sm or 0.7 Su (lesser of)
P L + P b < 1.5 χ Pm limits
x m <0.42 Su
For the 'small displacement', analysis, the engineering stress-strain properties were used to
derive the allowable stresses, ie Su being taken at the 20% limit of uniform elongation. (Also
note that 0.7 Su < 2.4 Sm.)
The maximum pressure was again dictated by the primary bending criteria with the maximum
bending stresses occurring in the lower tubeplate and the lower outer shell regions. Note for
the latter, although the bending stresses are displacement controlled and are strictly classified
as secondary, Appendix A-8142.1b implies that they may need to be reclassified as primary,
since they provide rotational restraint for the tubeplate. However, this did not affect the
allowable pressure.
The allowable pressure was 31%» ofthat calculated using the Plastic Instability Criteria (F-
1341.4).
In summary, the large displacement inelastic analysis demonstrates that there is a need for
consideration of the inclusion of ductility based criteria for displacement controlled secondary
strains at structural discontinuities, and clarification in the determination of the Plastic
Instability Load in load controlled members when using finite element analysis. The existing
definition of the Plastic Instability Load in current LWR design codes is only appropriate to
small displacement analysis using engineering stress-strain properties.
Level D criteria for non-creep conditions in FR codes are identical to the LWR equivalent,
and work in the European FR programme has identified variable design margins in elastic
analysis criteria, and a need for supplementary consideration, when using large displacement
inelastic analysis to satisfy the Plastic Instability criteria. These developments are equally
applicable to LWR criteria and potentially provide for more accurate consideration of Level D
margins.
73
In France, criteria have been justified in relation with the margins against plastic instability.
These criteria apply to primary stresses, by definition: primary stresses may also be defined as
those stresses which shall be limited in order to prevent excessive deformation and plastic
instability damage risks.
Secondary strains at structural discontinuities are considered through the choice of materials
(ductility requirements) and design provisions.
A direct evaluation by experimental or elastic-plastic analysis of the margins against plastic

instability is also permitted by the RCC-M.
In KTA for linear elastic analysis, the allowable stresses for membrane are 0.7 Su and for
membrane plus bending 1.0 Su.
Much more detailed acceptance criteria are given in the ASME code Appendix F. Distinction
is made between different types of structures (component, component supports, core support
structures), different types of failure modes and different analysis methods (elastic, plastic).
It should be noted that the ratio P m +P b /P m = 1.5 instead of 1.43 for elastic analysis. The
concept of shape dependent factors α is introduced in NB-3000 which is not easy to handle
for various cross-sections under complicated loading conditions.
Under faulted conditions a link to this concept to have consistency is missing.
For plastic analysis under faulted conditions a better implementation and recommendations
related to the type of stress-strain curve (TRUE-STRESS-STRAIN or ENGINEERING) in
connection with the finite element type used in the plastic analysis would be helpful.
The only case where explicitely the true stress S ut is mentioned is F-1440 core support
structures.
For plastic analysis the MISES equivalent stress should be explicitely mentioned.
An implementation of cross-section dependent factors α for P m + P b /P m could be helpful.
In parallel to stress-based criteria additional strain limits in combination with a clear

defimtion of an equivalent strain to be computed should be introduced.
74
11.6 CONCLUSIONS
The Interatom proposal has identified variable design margins for Level D elastic analysis
criteria. However, current methods in LWR codes are considered to be sufficiently
conservative to compensate for this effect and, therefore, no recommendations are made.
Large displacement inelastic analysis is only used in exceptional circumstances and, therefore,
does not justify code revisions. However, the guidance provided by the FR analysis is noted
and may be referred to for this type of analysis, if required.
11.7 REFERENCES
11.2 ASME Section III, Division 1, Code Case N-47-32, Class I Components in Elevated
11.3 RCC-M. Design and Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of PWR
11.4 ASME Section III. Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components,
Division 1, Sub-section NB : Class I Components.
75
12 Zarka Method for Estimating
Inelastic Strains
12.1 Introduction
The Zarka method is a so-called simplified method, which means that certain quantities related
to the inelastic behaviour of a structure may be estimated without performing a detailed
inelastic step-by-step analysis. The method can be used to evaluate various aspects of inelastic
structural behaviour. Related to FR only the options dealing with quasi-static cyclic loading
were investigated, namely estimating the following post shake-down quantities
- inelastic strain range after plastic shake-down has been reached and
- inelastic strains accumulated in the state of elastic or plastic shake-down.
It is possible to include dynamic effects in the Zarka method, but this option was not
considered in the FR work. The Zarka method may also be used to estimate the plastic limit
load under monotonic loading. This as well was not considered, but may be interesting for
LWR application.
The inelastic strain range calculated with the Zarka method may be used in a subsequent
fatigue analysis - in the same way as if it was calculated by other simplified methods via the
factor K e (cf. topic 9: Plastic Strain Enhancement). The accumulated inelastic strain may be
used to demonstrate that the strain limits set by design codes are satisfied so that progressive
deformation, or ratcheting, is limited.
Three types of response of a structure must be distinguished, elastic shake-down, plastic

shake-down and ratcheting (Fig. 1):
(a) Elastic shake-down means that the stress strain behaviour becomes purely elastic after
some number (between one and infinite) of loading cycles with associated plastic straining.
Global elastic shake-down means that the condition of elastic shake-down is met at any
location in the structure. The strain range is then the same as calculated elastically so that
the Zarka method is only applied to predict the accumulated strains. Local elastic
shake-down means that elastic shake-down occurs at the specific location under
consideration, regardless of whether elastic or plastic shake-down occurs at other locations
of the same structure.
(b) In case of plastic shake-down, a closed and stationary hysteresis loop is achieved in the
stress strain diagram so that plastic strains are produced of the same magnitude but
different sign in any two consecutive half cycles. Local plastic shake-down means that
plastic shake-down is encountered in the specific location under consideration, while global
plastic shake-down is said to occur if at least one location in the structure exhibits plastic
shake-down, while simultaneously the structure may respond purely elastically at other
locations. In contrast to the case of global elastic shake-down the strain range at these
locations is not known a priori, although being purely elastic. It may be larger or smaller
than calculated by a fictitious elastic analysis, due to cyclic redistribution of stress and
strain because of cyclic plasticity at other locations.
(c) Ratcheting means that a net increase in strain occurs during a complete loading cycle.
Some sort of ratcheting, sometimes called transient or finite ratcheting, occurs in a
structure before the steady states of global elastic or plastic shake-down are reached.
Ratcheting in the sense of an (e.g. constant) increment of strain in each cycle cannot occur
within the frame of the assumptions of the Zarka method concerning the material
behaviour.
76
A number of (modified) elastic analyses and additional calculations are required by the Zarka
method. A variant of this method is that it can be used to extrapolate results obtained by a
detailed inelastic analysis of one half or one complete cycle to a large number of loading
cycles. This option is implemented in the RCC-MR (Appendix AIO.7: Extrapolation Method
B).
f.el
Δ σ
elastic shake-down plastic shake-down

Δ σ | Δ σ Γ ε 1 < 2 σ7. Δσ ^ Δ σ Γ ε Ι > 2 σ .
y
Figure 1: Global elastic shake-down and plastic shake-down in case of a bilinear
(linear kinematic hardening) material model
Although the Zarka method is a "simplified" method in the sense defined above, it is not at all
simple to understand the way it works. One reason for this is that its description in the
literature published by Zarka and co-workers is based on a rather abstract mathematical
language that may discourage a design engineer as potential user of the method.
There exist many publications by Zarka and co-workers describing the method since about
1979, e.g. [1] and the booklet [2]. Furthermore, some secondary literature has been published.
The corresponding chapters in a review by Maier et al. [3] are particularly recommended (look
there for further literature). However, attention must be paid to the fact that occasionally the
method is interpreted differently and contradictory in the literature so that it is not easy to get
a clear picture of its performance.
Due to the underlying assumptions concerning the material behaviour the structure will attain
a steady state condition after some number of cycles of loading so that either global elastic or
plastic shake-down is enforced. The Zarka method predicts, whether global elastic or plastic
shake-down will occur, but not, after which number of cycles. Its aim is (at least in the limited
context considered here) to predict the strain range and accumulated strain at each location in
a structure after shake-down has been reached.
77
12.2.1 Material Behaviour
The material model used to describe the stress strain relation must satisfy specific conditions.
For a detailed discussion of these conditions the reader is referred to Section B.9 of [3]. In the
FR work only a relatively simple variant was adopted, based on a Mises yield surface and
linear kinematic hardening (cf. topic 10: Constitutive Equations), Fig. 2. A Tresca yield
surface or multilinear kinematic hardening would also be possible. Isotropic hardening,
however, is excluded.
The elastic material parameters Young's modulus E and Poisson's ratio ν as well as the plastic
hardening modulus C must be constant during the cycle so that their variation due to
temperature change cannot be accounted for. The yield stress σ however, may vary during
the cycle.
Due to numerical reasons, the linear kinematic hardening model must not degenerate to a
perfectly plastic model (C=0).
σ'< σ' k
-fif ^ ^ ^ 1
σ
>~ V
r_EEt
/ ^ E E- t
Iß E
lì il
^ ^
ε ρ1 e 1 ε ε ρ1
ε
Figure 2: Bilinear (linear kinematic hardening) material model
12.2.2 General Idea
For simplicity, the Zarka method will be presented for principal stresses and strains with fixed
principal directions i=l,2,3. The stresses σ- in an elastic-plastic body can be interpreted to be
f.el
composed of a fictitious elastic stress σ; ' and a residual stress p¡ :
f.el ·
ox = a ¡ + P i ; i = 1,2,3 (1)
Due to the material model employed plasticity is governed only by the deviatoric parts of
stresses and strains:
G[ = σ ι - } ( σ ι + σ 2 + σ 3 ) (2a)
or equivalently
78
( 2 1 1 Λ
3 3 3
1 2 1
a ¡ = Ly σι ; Lij = 3 3 3 (2b)
1 1 2
^~3 3 3 J
so that we can rewrite eq (1):
/ f e l
_/ _ , „/
G\ = G{ + Pi (3)
The Mises yield condition is adopted in the material model:
lifo ξ ι ) 2 + ( σ 2 - ξ 2 ) 2 + ( σ / 3 - ξ 3 ) 2 = σ.
The yield surface given by eq. (4) may be plotted as a circle in the space of deviatoric stresses.
(4)
The radius of the circle is the yield stress σ and the center coordinates ξί represent the
amount of kinematic hardening that is, due to the material model used, proportional to the
plastic portion of strain:
ξ, = fee? (5)
Stress states within the Mises circle can only cause elastic action. Stress states outside the
circle cannot occur. If stress states on the circle are causing plastic straining, the differential of
plastic strain is directed to the outward normal at that point (Fig.3).
After introducing eq.(l) and the abbreviation

(6)
eq. (4) becomes
/f.el , /f.el
Y. Hi G2 Y- +1 σ3 Y, = σ. (?)
which can be interpreted as circle in the Y¡-space (Fig. 3).
Figure 3: Yield surface in deviatoric stress space and in Y-space
The position of the yield surface in the Y-space can be considered to bé known at each point
in time during a loading process, since it only depends on a fictitious elastic solution.
However, the specific values of Y¡ (somewhere on the yield surface) are not known. A key
ingredient of the Zarka method is to achieve a reasonable estimate of these values at any
79
location of the structure. E stimating the range of Y¡ between the extremes of the loading
cycles is required if the plastic strain range is sought, whereas mean values of Y- are to be
estimated for determining the accumulated strains.
12.2.3 Choice of Y-
The kind of reasoning used for a suitable choice of Y¡ will be illustrated in the following for a
particular application of the method, namely determination of the elastic-plastic strain range in
case of global plastic shake-down, if the loading is "radial".
"Radial" loading means that the fictitious elastic stress components are proportional to each
other during the loading cycle:
f.el f.el A /4 v ( f.el f.el ^
a A
i ( t ) = ûmin + ( t ) I î,max ~ CTi>min I . (8)
The factor of proportionality, A(t), increases monotonically from 0 to 1 during loading time t
and then decreases from 1 to 0. It must not depend on the direction of stress nor on the
location in the structure so that the extreme values of stress are reached at the same time
everywhere in the structure. This condition is at least approximately met in many real design
conditions. According to eq. (8) the fictitious elastic stresses vary along a straight line between
a minimum and a maximum state in the Y-space of Fig. 3.
The entire volume V of the structure is divided into two subvolumes, V e and V Locations of
the structure (coordinates x,y,z) where local elastic shake-down takes place belong to V ,
locations with local plastic shake-down to V A first guess to identify V e and V is made by
assuming that they can be found on the basis of fictitious elastic analyses. It is simply checked
whether the maximum Mises effective stress range Δσ ν ' exceeds the range of tensile and
compressive yield stress, Δσ (assuming that the maximum and minimum values of σ occur at
maximum and minimum stress states):
fel
y e Ve , ίίΔσ ν ( χ > Υ ) Ζ ) < Δ σ γ VP = V V. (9)
In many practical cases eq. (9) will not provide an adequate approximation. An improvement
is then possible by applying the Zarka method iteratively.
In Ve, the range of Y¡ vanishes:

ΔΥ; = 0 inVe . (10)
In V two different estimates are to be distinguished, referred to as upper and lower bound
(however, the ΔΥ value of the upper bound is not necessarily a real bound in a strict sense):
(
/f.el Δσ3 inV,
ΔΥ i,lower = Δσ 1 A f.el ,
(Ila)
Δσν /pi
/f.el 2 Δε i,asy
AYi.upper = Δ σ , Δσ^ 1 Ρ
inV, (lib)
ΛΡ '
¿Abv.asy
with
/f.el /f.el /f.el
Δσ; 'i.max - a ¡ ,min (lie)
80
The lower bound, eq. (11a), can be interpreted easily in the Y-space as minimum distance
between the Mises circles owing to the two extremes of the radial loading, Fig.4. Note that
these circles do not intersect in case of local plastic shake-down. A similar interpretation of the
upper bound is more complicated and must be omitted here. Just let us note that a preceding
application of the Zarka method is required to determine the asymptotic plastic strain range
Asf^y. The upper bound becomes effective if the stress components do not change
proportionally to each other during plastic action. Accordingly, upper and lower bound
coincide if directional redistribution cannot occur such as in uniaxial stress states.
/ / vdsfi\
\.y
' 'f.el
f
\AYijowerî Λ
... ■-> -fel
i,ma\ I
î,min
άε
(
?1 Ì/AY
If l.upper
radial loading
Y3 Y
2
Figure 4: Choice of AY in Y-space in case of local plastic shake-down
12.2.4 Modified E lastic Analysis
The Y-values determined by eqs. (10) and (11) are used to perform an elastic analysis that is
called "modified" to indicate that the elastic material parameters as well as the loading are
changed in the following way.
Making use of Hooke's law (for the principal directions i,j=l,2,3)

Λ
( 1 -ν -ν
ε?=Έϋ1^ ; E ^ i -ν 1 -ν (12)
ν-ν -ν 1 )
and of the additivity assumption of the material model employed (the elastic-plastic strain & "p
is simply the sum of elastic strain ε and the plastic strain ε ρ ) we have after introducing eqs.
(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) at locations of local plastic shake-down
el-pl -r^-l f.el Λ---1 3 1τ ^ 3 1 v
p 1 1
(13)
£i =Eij cJ +Êij + | ^ L i j J p j + | ^ Y i .
Eq. (13) can be interpreted as a modificationel-pl
of Hooke's
f.el law:
sí = (E*j) pj + εκ) ; ε* = E¡ Si (14)
1
where (Ε*:) is the inverse matrix of the modified elastic constants:
81
-1
_ E -i + 31 L .. (15)
i.e. E* = Et ν* = 0,5-(0,5-ν)ί|
and s i0 are initial strains which are to be considered as loading of the structure
3 1
Ρ - Υ · (16)
Sl
°-2CY'·
After having performed the modified elastic analysis of the structure subjected to the loading
Q-I0 (all other loading set zero) with material constants E* and v* the residual stresses p· are
known and the elastic-plastic strain can be computed everywhere in the structure. Normally,
three different modified elastic analy
analyses are required to determine ε1οννβρ ε and ε using
Y Y and Y respectively.
lower' asy upper
A check can be made now, whether Ve and V were estimated reasonably by eq. (9).
Otherwise an iteration process can be started where Ve and V are redefined and (eac
three) modified elastic analyses are repeated in each iteration step.
12.2.5 Illustrative Example
A simple example may help to understand the method. Consider a bar consisting of two
different cross sections (areas A. and A2, lengths 1¡ and 12) subjected to cyclic
displacement-controlled tension and compression:
The fictitious elastic stress range is

E Au A fel E Au A2
Δσ 9 = Δσ, =
1 ι ^ + ΐ2Αι
Determination of Ve and V depends on the load level. Provided that
A Al A f.el A
Aay—— > Δ σ 2 > Δ σ γ
then part 1 belongs to Ve and part 2 to V Since the stress state is uniaxial in the structure we
know in advance that the upper bound coincides with the lower bound. Therefore we may
omit to determine the asymptotic plastic solution ε ^ and need to perform only a single
modified elastic analysis. For the initial strains
Δε 0)2 = 7 ^ Δ σ 2 β Ι - &°yj i Δε
ο,ι = 0
and the material constants
E2 = Et ; E\ = E
we obtain
Aa 2 el - Δσ γ E
Δ Ρ 2 Api = ΛA A 2-
P 2
" ι.Α2+Ε C ·
12 Αι ^ Et
82
(obey the boundary condition u=0!). The elastic-plastic solution in the most highly stressed
part (part 2) is
f.ei Δ σ 2 6 - Δ σ
Δσ2 = Δσ2 -
iiAi+E. C
T
12 Ai Et
6 £
ei-pi Δσ 2 Δσ2 - Δσ γ f\ Et
Ε E (j£ + | ) ^ Ε
which coincides with the exact analytical results. Examination of the corresponding stress in
part 1 reveals that part 1 remains elastic and that the initial partitioning of the volume of the
structure into V e and V was therefore correct. Thus an iteration process for improving the
results is not required. If higher load levels are admitted so that
f.el „ Aj_
Δ σ 2 > AG y
'A2
then the entire structure (part 1 and part 2) must be assigned to V . Examination of the results
obtained with the Zarka method may show that part 1 still remains elastic and should have
been assigned therefore to V e and that stress and elastic-plastic strain are overestimated in part
2. After one iteration however, the correct results are obtained.
In other configuration of structure and loading the Zarka method may initially underestimate
stresses and strains so that early iterations may be unconservative.
12.2.6 AGT9B, DCRC and WGCS-AG2 Experience
Subgroup 2 of AGT9B applied the Zarka method within a benchmark exercise of two plates
with a central hole subject to force controlled cyclic tension and compression at 550°C [5].
Intermittent hold times were introduced in one of the tests to allow for creep effects. The
material was a German version of AISI 304 ss. Elastic shake-down was predicted in the major
part of the plates and plastic shake-down in a relatively small zone at the hole. Some results
looked quite reasonable (e.g. lower strain range estimate), others looked strange. This may be
because the Zarka method was applied without any iteration. Two sets of material parameters
(different values of C and σ ) were investigated. They showed that the results of the Zarka
method may be sensitive with respect to the plastic slope, at least in early iterations. A
modification of the Zarka method is proposed in [6] based on empirical arguments to improve
the hollowed plate results.
The DCRC did not treat the Zarka method.
A benchmark exercise performed for the Commission of European Communities

(WGCS/AG2) was undertaken in [4]. The elastic-plastic strain range of a hollowed plate (of
different geometry than the hollowed plates investigated in AGT9B) subjected to cyclic
displacement-controlled loading was determined with the Zarka method and compared with a
detailed inelastic (step-by-step) analysis adopting the same material model and material
parameters. The level of loading was such that local plastic shake-down occurred everywhere
in the structure. Lower and upper estimates of the strain range were almost identical. Good
agreement was achieved between the detailed inelastic analysis and the Zarka method,
although the option of iteratively improving the results of the Zarka method was not used. The
Zarka method was also used within another benchmark exercise sponsored by the CEC,
83
related to the DEFT experiment [8]. Only strain ranges were estimated (no accumulated
strains) and compared with a detailed inelastic analysis adopting the same material model and
material parameters. The strain range is slightly underestimated by the Zarka method. As
already mentioned earlier, Maier et al. provided an extensive review of the Zarka method in
[3]·
In general, estimation of strain range with the Zarka method is not bad. In particular, the lower
bound turns out to be a good approximation, sometimes even without iteration. The upper
bound may be not applicable to the relatively small strain ranges encountered in nuclear
technology. Estimation f the accumulated strain deserves more consideration. But the
restrictions concerning the material model inherent to the Zarka method (no isotropic
hardening) seem more restrictive for estimating accumulated strains than for strain ranges.
12.3 Potential Application for LWR Codes
The options of the Zarka method as described above are not specifically related to FR
problems. In FR work an attempt has been made [5] to include creep effects by identifying the
plastic slope C and yield stress oy based on isochronous stress strain curves. The results
obtained were found to be not satisfactory, in particular if the dwell periods are not symmetric
at the two extremes of the cycle. Applicability of the Zarka method thus seems even more
limited with respect to FR problems than to LWR problems.
The assumption of the method that some of the material parameters (E, C, v) do not vary
during a cycle (due to temperature variation) is less restrictive for LWR than for FR, since the
temperature range is much smaller.
As indicated above, the Zarka method can also be used to determine the plastic limit load.
This may even be more important in LWR than in FR design.
Thus, there is a large potential of the Zarka method for application in LWR codes to
determine the
- elastic-plastic strain range (fatigue assessment)
- strain accumulation (ratcheting assessment)
- plastic limit load
Zarka method has been used for some simplified elastic-plastic analyses under the
responsibility of the designer, essentially on:
- plastic strain correction in fatigue analyses,

- alternative approach to the Bree diagram, for thermal ratchet (progressive deformation risk)
prevention
The common practice for plastic problems is more and more to perform elasto-plastic
calculations. For the proposed fields of application are
84
- elastic-plastic strain range
- strain accumulation
The Zarka Method may be useful to verify benchmarks exercised with finite element plastic
analysis.
As explained in the report, the benefit of the method is to evaluate the inelastic behaviour
without needing a detailed step by step analysis. Nevertheless, a good knowledge of the bases
and assumptions of the method is needed, even for the evaluation of relatively simple
configurations. Application of this method shall therefore only be made under expert
supervision, as it shall be the case for any elastic-plastic analyses.
12.6 Recommendations
The code should be limited to guidance for the use of inelastic analyses. Zarka method is a
calculation method, which shall be qualified for the intended applications. It is not the
purpose of codes to give precise description of such methods.
12.7 References
AGT9B :
[5] Hübel,H.:Benchmark Exercise Report on Plates with Hole, AGT9B 90-45, October
1990
[6] Combescure, Α.: An Improvement of Zarka's Method, Application to Hollowed
Plate Experiment, CEA Report DMT/91.305
[7] White, P.S. : Synthesis Report on Simplified Methods for the Assessment of Damage
and Progressive Deformation, November 1992 (in AGT9B 93-01, Compendium of
the AGT9B Structural Integrity Seminar, January 1993, Paris)
DCRC:
none
WGCS-AG2 :
[3] Maier,
G ., Comi, C , Corigliani,A.,Perego,U. and Hübel,H. :Bounds and estimates on
inelastic deformations, Commission of the European Communities, RA 1-0162-1 and
RA1-0168-D, EUR 16555 EN, 1995
[4] Tribout,J.:Benchmark Exercise on Simplified Methods for Cyclic Analyses,
Commission of the European Communities, RAP-064-F,1986
[8] G O' ara, D.M.:Benchmark for Assessing Thermal Ratcheting in 316 ss Cylinders,
Commission of the European Communities, RAI-0209-UK, 1995
[9] Save,M., De Saxce, G. and Borkowski,A.Computation of Shakedown Loads
Feasibility Study, Commission of the European Cornmunities, RA1-0100-B, EUR
13618 EN, 1991, pp 281-296 and 353-356
other sources : large number of publications by Zarka and coworkers ; in particular :

[1] Zarka, J., Engel, J.J. and Inglebert, G . : On a simplified Inelastic Analysis of
Structures, Nuclear Engineering and Design 57 (1980), pp 333-368
[2] Zarka,J., Frelat,J., Inglebert,G. and Kasmai-Navidi, P.: A new Approach to Inelastic
Analyses of Structures, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988
85
13 Summary of Conclusions
13.1 INTRODUCTION
This section summarises the conclusions and recommendations for the potential improvement
of LWR design codes from the review of FR developments in the preceding section.
13.2 NEGLIGIBLE CREEP CRITERIA
Negligible creep criteria are not needed for LWR applications since transients in the design
basis do not exceed the temperature limits in LWR design code (ie 375°C - ferritics; 427°C -
austenitics). However, negligible creep curves for LWR materials may be useful for the
exclusion of creep effects in consideration of beyond-design accident conditions. No
recommendations are made for the introduction of such criteria into LWR design codes.
13.3 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS RULES FOR WELDMENTS
A detailed review of the methods for assessing the fatigue life of weldments, and the
adequacy of the design margins of 2 and 20 in the design fatigue curve, will be included in
CEC DGXI study 'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis Criteria'. The UK FR procedures
provides an alternative approach to introducing fatigue strength reduction factors based on
tests of actual weldments. This has particular advantage in dealing with as-welded weldments
with indeterminate surface geometries and partial penetration weldments with sharp crevice-
type features.
Recommendations for the improvement of fatigue analysis criteria of weldments in LWR

design codes will be made as part of the synthesis in the above study and, as such, no specific
recommendations are made within the present study.
13.4 SHAKEDOWN DESIGN RULES
The Shakedown Method provides an alternative approach to establishing freedom from

ratcheting in structures. It has general applicability to all types of structures and makes use of
elastic analysis results to establish an elastic core, thus avoiding the complexities and
uncertainties of inelastic analysis. Current LWR procedures are well established and, perhaps,
more straightforward to use, making use of the 3 Sm limit in conjunction with the Bree
diagram.
It is concluded that the Shakedown Method provides a useful more detailed approach to
establishing shakedown. It is, therefore, recommended that the method be evaluated for
improvement of current LWR design code procedures by application on LWR components
and comparison with experimental results.
86
13.5 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TUBEPLATES
The equivalent solid plate elastic constants developed for the triangular penetration pattern are
considered to be an improvement on ASME values, and can be used to evaluate existing
margins in current LWR design codes. Improved guidance for the analysis of the transition
between the perforated region and outer rim are also of interest for LWR application. The
development of methods for circular patterns and dished tubeplates are not relevant to current
PWR designs but should be referred to if this type of feature is considered in future designs.
Evaluation and updating of methods applicable to square penetration patterns, and the
development of equivalent elastic constants for holes with other than round geometries (eg
steam generator tube support plate) has been identified as additional requirements for LWR
design codes.
13.6 BUCKLING RULES
The FR developed methods offer the potential of reducing design margins for Levels A/B, C
and D, plus a less onerous procedure for combining static and dynamic (eg seismic) loadings.
Also, the concept for continuous variation of geometric imperfection instead of the 1% ovality
criteria could be of benefit.
It is recommended that specific application and verification against typical LWR components
should be performed in order to evaluate the potential benefits of the FR developed criteria.
An additional requirement identified for LWR design codes is the applicability to beam-like
structures.
13.7 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF RATCHETING
Interaction Diagrams are analogous to the Bree type approach extent in current LWR design
codes but have been extended to allow a more generalised treatment, particularly to cases
involving an axial temperature gradient or moving temperature front. Alternative procedures
are used in LWR applications for severe transients that do not meet current criteria, in order to
avoid inelastic analysis, and Interaction Diagrams should be considered in this context.
It is recommended that applications to typical LWR components subjected to severe thermal

loadings should be performed with the objective of evaluating the potential for improving
current LWR design code procedures. In this context, reference should be made to the
investigations performed under the WGCS and FR programmes which may also be relevant to
LWR components.
13.8 RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF ELASTIC FOLLOW-UP IN PIPING
Currently, elastic follow-up is prevented in LWR applications through design (sizing)

provisions and limitation of primary stresses, and primary plus secondary stress range (eg Pe).
It is recommended that FR developed methods be evaluated by application to typical LWR

piping configurations. Also, the significance and definition of stress indices for piping should
87
be studied in the context of elastic follow-up due to differences in interpretation between
various experts. A study on stress indices has been previously proposed to CEC DGXI
WGCS AG2.
13.9 STRAIN RANGE ENHANCEMENT
The FR developed strain enhancement factors are more precise evaluations of different effects
compared to the current LWR method based on Ke which is known to have some
shortcomings. Nevertheless, the FR method may be difficult to apply in practice and may
compound conservatisms resulting in a more pessimistic overall result. Simplifications
should be proposed, for example a unique Neuber-type correction may seem appropriate in
most cases and easier to apply.
A review of the current Ke factor in LWR design codes will be included in CEC DGXI study
'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis Criteria'. Proposals for future developments and
comparison of various rules on practical examples should be performed to evaluate and
further improve LWR codes.
13.10 CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS FOR INELASTIC ANALYSIS
The FR review provides useful guidance when performing inelastic analysis. However,
experience shows that evaluations of progressive deformation requires sophisticated
constitutive models and that the results obtained have a limited accuracy. For fatigue
evaluations, elastic-plastic results are more accurate and it is envisaged to introduce into LWR
design codes cyclic stress-strain curves for this evaluation. Nevertheless, it is not
recommended to introduce detailed inelastic analysis methods into LWR design codes,
although consideration should be given to providing guidance analagous to RCC-MR,
Appendix 10.
13.11 MARGINS ON LEVEL D CRITERIA
FR calculations have established that the margin between Level D elastic analysis allowable
stress limits and elastic-plastic collapse load is not uniform with a minimum occurring for
combined high membrane and bending loads. However, current methods in LWR design
codes are considered to be sufficiently conservative to compensate for this effect and,
therefore, no recommendations are made.
Large displacement inelastic FE analysis was also performed to establish the ultimate load
bearing capacity of a FR Intermediate Heat Exchanger. However, this type of analysis is only
used on an exceptional basis and does not justify code revisions. Nevertheless, the guidance
provided on establishing ductility based criteria at structural discontinuities, and in
determining the Plastic Instability Load with this type of analysis is noted and may be referred
to if required for LWR applications.
88
13.12 ZARKA METHOD
The benefit of this method is to evaluate the inelastic behaviour without resort to a detailed
step-by-step inelastic analysis. The method can be used to estimate:
- elastic/plastic strain range (fatigue assessment)

- strain accumulation (ratcheting assessment)
However, the common practice for more detailed analysis of LWR applications is to use
inelastic analysis to evaluate the above parameters, rather than such calculation procedures as
the Zarka method. Nevertheless, the Zarka method may be used to confirm or supplement
such calculations rather than being included as a specific method in LWR design codes.
13.13 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
This study has confirmed that several FR developments have the potential for making
significant improvements to LWR design codes. In particular, the developments on
shakedown, tubeplates, buckling, interaction diagrams, and piping elastic follow-up are
judged to be of sufficient benefit that recommendations are made for trial applications on
typical LWR components, in order to further quantify the potential improvements.
Recommendations on the topics of weldment design-by-analysis methods and strain range
enhancement will be further considered within the scope of a current CEC DGXI study
'Re-evaluation of Fatigue Analysis Criteria'. The developments on constitutive equations,
Level D criteria, and the Zarka method may be used as guidance to confirm or supplement
existing LWR procedures, if required.
89
o
CORDIS
The Community Research and Development Information Service
Your European R&D Information Source

CORDIS represents a central source of information crucial for any organisation - be it industry, small and
medium-sized enterprises, research organisations or universities - wishing to participate in the
exploitation of research results, participate in EU funded science and technology programmes and/or seek
partnerships.
CORDIS makes information available to the public through a collection of databases. The databases cover
research programmes and projects from their preparatory stages through to their execution and final
publication of results. A daily news service provides up-to-date information on EU research activities
including calls for proposals, events, publications and tenders as well as progress and results of research
and development programmes. A partner search facility allows users to register their own details on the
database as well as search for potential partners. Other databases cover Commission documents, contact
information and relevant publications as well as acronyms and abbreviations.
By becoming a user of CORDIS you have the possibility to:

• Identify opportunities to manufacture and market new products
• Identify partnerships for research and development
Identify major players in research projects
• Review research completed and in progress in areas of your interest
The databases - nine in total - are accessible on-line free of charge. As a user-friendly aid for on-line
searching, Watch-CORDIS, a Windows-based interface, is available on request. The databases are also
available on a CD-ROM. The current databases are:
News (English, German and French version) - Results -

Partners - Projects - Programmes - Publications -
Acronyms - Comdocuments - Contacts
CORDIS on World Wide Web

The CORDIS service was extended in September 1994 to include the CORDIS World Wide Web (WWW)
server on Internet. This service provides information on CORDIS and the CORDIS databases, various
software products, which can be downloaded (including the above mentioned Watch-CORDIS) and the
possibility of downloading full text documents including the work programmes and information packages
for all the research programmes in the Fourth Framework and calls for proposals.
The CORDIS WWW service can be accessed on the Internet using browser software (e.g. Netscape) and
the address is: http://www.cordis.lu/
The CORDIS News database can be accessed through the WWW.
Contact details f or further Information

If you would like further information on the CORDIS services, publications and products, please contact
the CORDIS Help Desk :
CORDIS Customer Service Telephone: +352-441012-2240

B.P. 2373 Fax: +352-441012-2248
L-1023 Luxembourg E-mail: helpdesk@cordis.lu
WWW: http://www.cordis.lu/
European Commission
EUR 17575 — Improved design-by-analysis procedures for LWR design codes
J. M. Grandem ange, H. Hübel, M. Orsini, K. Schram m , N. G. Sm ith
Luxembourg: Office for Officiai Publications of the European Communities
1998 — VII, 89 pp. — 21 χ 29.7 cm
Nuclear science and technology series
ISBN 928284191X
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 16.50
The European fast reactor (EF R) collaboration with the EF R Associates Design and
Construction Rules Committee, and the R & D agreement (AGT 9B), produced significant
developments in designbyanalysis procedures for high temperature plant. Many of these
developments are judged to be relevant to the noncreep conditions of LWR plant, and for
this reason, the CEC DG XI working group 'Codes and standard's supported this study to
review and make recommendations on their potential application for improving LWR design
code procedures.
The topics considered are judged to be those where the most significant and relevant devel
opments have been made and the list, although not exhaustive, is as follows:
— negligible creep criteria;

— designbyanalysis procedures for weldments;
— shakedown design rules;
— designbyanalysis methods for tubeplates;
— buckling rules;
— interaction diagrams for assessing ratcheting;
— rules for the prevention of elastic followup in piping;
— strain range enhancement;
— constitutive equations for inelastic analysis;
— margins on Level D criteria;
— zarka method.
For each of the fast reactor developments, the background to the procedure plus the poten
tial application to LWR design codes is first described. This is followed by a description of
the current LWR design code procedure and the potential benefit to LWR design codes.
Venta · Salg · Verkauf · Πωλήσεις · Sales · Vente · Vendita · Verkoop · Venda · Myynti · Försäljning
eiGIQU E/BELGIË NEDERLAND CYPRUS INDIA
jMn De Lan noy SDU Servicecentrum Uitgevers Cyprus Chamber of C ommerce EBIC India
Arenue du Roi 202/Koningslaan 202 Christoffel Plantijnstraat 2 and Industry 3rd Floor, Y. B. Chavan Centre
5-1190 Bruxelles/B russel Postbus 20014 PO Box 1455 Gen. J. Bhosale Marg.
Ta (32-2) 538 43 08 2500 EA Den Haag CY-1509 Nicosia 400 021 Mumbai
FU (32-2) 538 08 41 Tei. (31-70)378 98 80 Tel. (357-2) 66 95 00 Tel. (91-22)282 60 64
F>mail: jean.de.lannoy@infoboard.be Fax (31-70¡ 378 97 83 Fax(357-2¡66 10 44 Fax (91-22) 285 45 64
ifiL http://www.jearv-de-lannoy.be E-mail: sdu@sdu.nl E-mail: info@ccci.org.cy E-mail: ebic@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in
URL: httpi/www.sdu.nl URL· http://www.ebicindia.com
U librairie européenne/De Europese
EESTI
Boekhandel
ÖSTERREICH Eesti Kaubandus-Tööstuskoda (Estonian ISRAEL
Fus de la Loi 244/Wetstraat 244
B-1040 Bruxelles/B russel Manz'sehe Verlags- und Chamber of Commerce and Industry) ROY International
TIL (32-2) 295 26 39 Untveraltätsbuchhandlung GmbH Toom-Kooli 17
Fax (32-2) 735 08 60 EE-0001 Tallinn PO Box 13056
irai!; mailOlibeurop.be Kohlmarkt 16 Tel. (372) 646 02 44 61130 Tel Aviv
URL· htlpi/www.libeu rop.be A-1014Wlen Tel. (972-3) 546 14 23
Fax (372) 646 02 45
Tel. (43-1)531611 00 Fax ¡972-3) 546 14 42
lionlteur bel ga/Belgisch Staatsblad E-mail: einfo@koda.ee
Fax(43-1¡53 1611 67 E-mail: royil@netvision.nct.il
E-Mail: bestellen θ manz.co.at URL: http://www.koda.ee
Fue de Louvain 40-42/Leuvenseweg 40-42
B-100O Bruxelles/B russel URL· httpi/www.austria.EU.netei/manz Sub-agent for the Palestinian Authority:
lä (32-2) 552 22 11 MAGYARORSZAG
Index Information Services
F» (32-2) 511 01 84 PORTUGAL Euro Info Service
PO Box 19502
Distribuidora de Livros Bertrand Ld.' Europa Haz Jerusalem
¿ÃNMARK ~ Marqitsziget
Grupo Bertrand, SA Tel. (972-2)627 16 34
J.H. Schultz Information A/S PO Box 475 Fax ¡972-2) 627 12 19
Rua das Terras dos Vales, 4-A H-1396 Budapest 62
HersteoVang 10-12 Apartado 60037
DK-2620 Albertslund Tei. (36-1)350 80 25
Ρ-2700 Amadora Fax¡36-1¡350 90 32 JAPAN
Π. (45) 43 63 23 00 Tel. (351-2) 495 90 50 E-mail: euroinfo@mail.matav.hu PSI-Japan
Fax (45) 43 63 19 69 Fax (351-2) 496 02 55 URL· http://www.euroinfo.hu/index.htni
Ε-nail: Schultz & schultz.dk Asahi Sanbancho Plaza #206
URL httpi/www.schultz.dk Imprensa Nacional-C asa da Moeda, EP
7-1 Sanbancho, Chiyoda-ku
Rua Marquês Sá da Bandeira, 16-A MALTA
Tokyo 102
DEUTSCHLAND ~ P-1050 Lisboa Codex Miller Distributors Ltd Tel. (81-3)32 34 69 21
Tei. (351-1)353 03 99 Fax¡81-3¡32 34 6 9 1 5
Sundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH Fax(351-1¡353 02 94 Malta International Airport
PO Box 25 E-mail: books@psi-japan.co.jp
teWebsabteilung E-mail: del.incm@mail.telepac.pt URL· httpi/www.pst-japan.com
URL: http://www.incm.pt Luqa LQA 05
i.T.sterdamer Straße 192 Tel. (356) 66 44 88
D-50735 Köln Fax (356) 67 67 99 MALAYSIA
W. (49-221) 97 66 80 SUOMI/FINLAND E-mail: gwirth@usa.net
Fax (49-221 ¡ 9 7 66 82 78 EBIC Malaysia
E-Mail: vertrieb® bundesanzeiger.de Akateeminen Klrjakauppa/Akademiska
Bokhandeln POLSKA Level 7, Wlsma Hong Leong
URL http://www.bundesanzeioer.de 18 Jalan Perak
Keskuskatu 1 /Centralgatan 1 Ars Polona 50450 Kuala Lumpur
ΕΛΛΑΔΑ/GREECE ~ PL/PB 128 Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 Tel. (60-3) 262 62 98
FIN-00101 Helsinki/Helsingfors Skr. pocztowa 1001 Fax ¡60-3) 262 61 98
; C . Eleftheroudakls SA Pitfn(358-9)12144 18 PL-OO-950 Warszawa E-mail: ebic-kl@mol.net.my
rtemational Bookstore Fifax (358-9) 121 44 35 Tel. (48-22)826 12 01
Panepistimiou 17 Sähköposti: akatilaus@stockmann.fi Fax (48-22) 826 62 40
GR-10564 Athina URL· http://www.akateeminen.com PHILIPPINES
E-mail: ars_.pol@bevy.hsn.com.pl
Tel. 30-1) 331 41 80/1/2/3/4/5 EBIC Philippines
Fax (30-1 ¡ 3 2 3 98 21 SVERIGE ROMANIA
E-mail: elebooks @ netor.gr 19th Floor, PS Bank Tower
BTJAB Euromedia Sen. Gil J. Puyat Ave. cor. Tindalo St.
Makati City
ESPAÑA Traktorvägen 11 Str. G-ral Berthelot Nr 41 Metro Manilla
S-221 82 Lund RO-70749 Bucuresti
Boletín O f i c i a l d e l E s t a d o Tfn. (46-46)18 00 00
Tel. (63-2) 759 66 80
Tel. (40-1)315 44 03 Fax ¡63-2) 759 66 90
Trafalgar, 2 7 Fax (46-46) 30 79 47 Fax (40-1) 315 44 03 E-mail: eccpcom@globe.com.ph
E-28071 Madrid E-post: btjeu-pub@btj.se URL· httpiAvww.eccp.com
Tá(34) 9 1 5 3 8 2 1 11 (Libros)/ URL: http://www.btj.se SLOVAKIA
9 1 3 8 4 1 7 1 5 (Suscripciones)
Fax (34) 9 1 5 3 8 2 1 2 1 Libros j / UNITED KINGDOM Centrum VTI SR RUSSIA
9 1 3 8 4 1 7 14 (Suscripciones) Nám. SI obody, 19
E-mail:clientes@com.boe es The Stationery Office Ltd CCEC
SK-81223 Bratislava
URL http://www.boe.es International Sales Agency Tel. (421-7) 531 83 64 60-letiya Oktyabrya Av. 9
51 Nine Elms Lane Fax (421-7) 531 83 64 117312 Moscow
Mundi P r e n s a L i b r o s , S A
London SWS 5DR E-mail: europ@tbbl.sltk.stuba.sk Tel. (70-95)135 52 27
Castelo, 37 Tel. (44-171)873 90 90 URL: http://www.sltk.siuba.sk Fax ¡70-95) 135 52 27
E-28001 Madrid
Fax (44-171) 873 84 63
Tel. (34) 9 1 4 3 6 3 7 0 0
E-mail: ipaenquiries@trieso.co.uk SLOVENIA SOUTH AFRIC A
Fax (34¡ 9 1 5 7 5 3 9 9 8
URL: http^/www.the-stationery-office.co.uk
E-mail: libreria@mundiprensa.es Gospodarski Vestnlk Satto
URL http://www.mundiprensa.com
ÍSLAND Dunajska cesta 5 Safto House
SLO-1000 Ljubljana NO 5 Esterhyzen Street
FRANCE Bokabud Larusar Blondel Tel. (386)611 33 03 54 PO Box 782 706
Journal o f f i c i e l Skólavördustig, 2 Fax (386) 611 33 9 1 2 8 2146Sandton
IS-101 Reykjavik E-mail: repansekj@gvestnik.si Tel. (27-11)883 37 37
Service des publications des C E URL: http://www.gyestnik.si
Tel. (354) 551 56 50 Fax ¡27-11)883 65 69
ft, rue Desaix
Fax (354 552 55 60 E-mail: emalstar@ide.co.za
F-75727 Paris C e d e x 1 5 URL· http:/www.salto.co.za
Tel (33) 1 4 0 5 8 7 7 3 1
TURKIYE
Fax (33) 1 4 0 5 8 7 7 0 0 NORGE DOnya Infotel AS
100. Yil Mahallessi 34440 SOUTH KOREA
Swets Norge AS
BELAND ~
Østenjoveien 18 TR-80050 Bagcilar-Istanbui Information C entre for Europe (IC E)
Boks 6512 Etterstad Tel. (90-212)629 46 89
Government S u p p l i e s A g e n c y 204 Woo Sol Parktel
N-0606 Oslo Fax (90-212Í 629 46 27
Publications S e c t i o n 395-185 Seogyo Dong, Mapo Ku
W Harcourt R o a d Tel. (47-22) 97 45 00 121-210 Seoul
Fax (47-22) 97 45 45 AUSTRALIA Tel. (82-2) 322 53 03
Dublin 2
Tel. (353-1) 6 6 1 31 11 Hunter Publications Fax ¡82-2) 322 53 14
Fax(353-1)475 2 7 6 0 SCHWEIZ/SUISSE/SVIZZERA E-mail: euroinfo@shinbiro.com
PO Box 404
Euro Info Center Schweiz 3067 Abbotslord, Victoria
ITALIA ~ Tel. (61-3)94 17 53 61 THAILAND
c/oOSEC Fax (61-3) 94 1971 54
Licosa S p A Stampfenbachstraße 85 EBIC Thailand
E-mail: jpdavies@ozemail.com.au
Via Duca di C a l a b r i a , 1/1 PF 492 29 Vanissa Building, 8th Floor
Casella postale 5 5 2 CH-8035 Zurich Soi Chidlom
Tel. (41-1)3655315 CANADA
FMI 25 Firenze Ploenchit
Tel.(39-55)64 54 15 Fax (41-1) 365 54 11 Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd 10330 Bangkok
Fax(39-55¡64 12 5 7 E-mail: eics@osec.ch Tel. (66-2) 655 06 27
URL: http://www.osec.cn/eics 5369 Chemin Canotek Road Unit 1
E-mail: licosa@ftbcc.it Fax ¡66-2) 655 06 28
URL http^/www.Hbcc.it/licosa
K U 9J3 Ottawa, Ontario
Tel. (1-613)745 26 65 E-mail: ebicbkk@ksc15.th.com
BÃLGARIJA Fax (1-613) 745 76 60 URL· http:/www.ebicbkk.org
LUXEMBOURG E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
Europress Euromedia Ltd URL: httpinvww.renoufbooks.com UNITED STATES OF AMERIC A
»«aageries d u livre S A R L
59, Mvd Vitosha
- ucRaifleisen BG-1000 Solia Beman Associates
EGYPT
1-2411 L u x e m b o u r g Tel. (359-2)980 37 66 4611 -F Assembly Drive
W. (352) 4 0 1 0 2 0 Fax (359-2) 980 42 30 The Middle East Observer Lanham MD20706
F« (352) 4 9 0 6 6 1 E-mail: Milena@mbox.cit.bg 41 Sherif Street Tel. (1 -800) 274 44 47 (loll free telephone)
E-mail: m d l @ p t l u
IML http://www.mdl.lu
Cairo Fax ¡1-800Í 865 34 50 ¡loll free fax)
CESKA REPUBLIKA Tel. (20-2) 393 97 32 E-mail: query@beman.com
ârmements: Fax (20-2Í 393 97 32 URL: http://www.bennan.com
USIS
Kwsagertee Paul Kraus NIS-prode|na HRVATSKA ANDERE LANDER/OTHER C OUNTRIES/
11, rue Christophe Plantin Havelkova 22 AUTRES PAYS
ί-2339 Luxembourg CZ-130 00Praha3 Medlatrade Ltd
î«. (352) 49 98 88-8 Tel. (420-2)24 2314 86 Pavia Hatza 1 Bitte wenden Sie sich sn ein Büro Ihrer
Fax (352¡ 49 98 88-444 Fax(420-2¡24 2311 14 HR-10000 Zagreb Wahl / Please contact the sales office of
«nai: rnpkOpLIu E-mail: nkposp@dec.nis.cz Tel. (385-1)43 03 92 your choice / Veuillez vous adresser su
URL· http://www.rnpk.lu URL: http://www.nis.cz Fax(385-1¡43 03 92 bureau de vente de votre choix
NOTICE TO THE READER
Information on European Com m ission publications in the areas of research and innovation can
be obtained from :
♦ C ORDIS, the C ommunity R & D Information Service

For more information, contact:
CORDIS Customer Service, BP 2373, L1023 Luxembourg
Tel. (352) 44 10 122240; fax (352) 44 10 122248; email: helpdesk@cordis.lu
or visit the website at http://www.cordis.lu/
♦ Euroabstracts
The European Commission's periodical on research publications, issued every two months.
For more information, contact:
RTD help desk, European Commission, DG XIII, L2920 Luxembourg
Fax (352) 43 0132084; email: rtdhelpdesk@lux.dg13.cec.be
Price (excluding VAT) in Luxembourg: ECU 16.50
OFFICE F OR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
• if • L2985 Luxembourg

Crna17575ens 001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crna17575ens 001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-uropean Commission

Improved design-by-analysis procedures

This work was performed for the European Commission

1998 EUR 17575 EN

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998

© European Communities, 1998

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER

- Negligible creep criteria

A summary of the recommendations for each of the topics is as follows.'

Design-by-analysis procedures for assessing weldments - Recommendations for the

Constitutive equations - No recommendations are made to introduce specific constitutive

2 NEGLIGIBLE CREEP CRITERIA 3

3 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS RULES FOR WELDMENTS 6

4 SHAKEDOWN DESIGN RULES 12

5 DESIGN-BY-ANALYSIS METHODS FOR TUBEPLATES 16

7 INTERACTION DIAGRAMS FOR ASSESSING RATCHETING 33

8 RULES FOR THE PREVENTION OF ELASTIC FOLLOW-UP

9 STRAIN RANGE ENHANCEMENT 47

10 CONSTITUTIVE EQUATIONS FOR INELASTIC ANALYSIS 60

11 MARGINS ON LEVEL D CRITERIA 70

12 ZARKA METHOD FOR ESTIMATING INELASTIC STRAINS 76

1. Introduction (background and relevance to LWR's).

2. Description of FR Method (review and summary of procedure including background and

3. Potential Application to LWR Design Codes (eliminate creep, assess applicability, eg

4. Current LWR Procedure (description of existing method, plus historical background).

6. Conclusions (consensus conclusions on introducing the FR procedure to LWR design

J M Grandemange, Framatome, France

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF FR METHODS

2.3 POTENTIAL APPLICATION TO LWR CODES

2.4 CURRENT LWR PROCEDURE

2.5 POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR LWR DESIGN CODES

An evaluation of mechanical behaviour at higher temperatures may be performed for

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FR METHOD (UK PROCEDURE)

UK RCC-MR DRESSED AS WELDED

3 V, VI, VII 3.2 N/A 1.5

In principle, the UK FR procedure is applicable to any material or weldment type, although as

In summary, the UK FR procedure provides a definition of FSRF which incorporates the

3.4 CURRENT LWR PROCEDURE

3.5 POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR LWR DESIGN CODES

3.1 DCRC Concluding Report No 5. Design Rules for Welds (EFRB401.5.322C)

TABLE A1 - FSRF'S FOR UK RULES

UK RCC-MR DRESSED AS WELDED

3 V, VI, VII 3.2 N/A 1.5

Δε = Δε, + Δε2 + Δε3 + Δε4

where for Δε3,Κε is based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + F )

and for Δε4, Kv is based on Δσ(Ρ + Q + Fg + Fft)

Same as for dressed weldments.

The shakedown condition is established by satisfying the following condition:

4.4 CURRENT LWR PROCEDURE

If the 3 S m criterion is not satisfied two additional verifications have to be performed:

- proof of shakedown according to Bree-diagram with a limitation of thermal bending as a

4.5 POTENTIAL BENEFIT FOR LWR DESIGN CODES

The FR procedures seem difficult to be applied by manual iteration, even by "personnel

5.2 DESCRIPTION OF FR METHODS

5.2.1. Flat Tubeplates

5.2.1 (a) Triangular Penetration Pattern

1) the holes are in array of equilateral triangles or with a circular pitch

επ 1/E* -v'/E' -v*/E* 0 " rr

Following this methodology the determination of the following values is required :

- equivalent material properties

- corrective factor for moments

επ 1/E* -v'/E' -v/E 0 " rr