Status of Alloy 800 H in Considerations construction of many components, including large components,
such as the steam generator and the intermediate heat exchanger
for the Gen IV Nuclear Energy Systems
Weiju Ren
Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Materials Science and Technology Division,
MS-6155, Building 4500-S,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
e-mail: renw@ornl.gov
Robert Swindeman
Cromtech,
125 Amanda Dr,
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
e-mail: rswindeman@comcast.net
Alloy 800 H is currently under consideration for applications in
the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP) at operational temper-
atures above 750  C. This paper first describes service require-
ments of the nuclear system for structural materials; and then an
extensive review of Alloy 800 H is given on its codification with
respect to development and research history, mechanical behavior
and design allowables, metallurgical aging resistance, environ-
mental effect considerations, data requirements and availability,
weldments, as well as many other aspects relevant to the intended
nuclear application. Finally, further research and development
activities to support the materials qualification are suggested.
[DOI: 10.1115/1.4025093]
Introduction
Alloy 800 H is currently being considered as one of the near-
term candidate materials for design and construction of some
major high-temperature components in the NGNP based on the
very high-temperature reactor (VHTR) concept selected by the
United States (US) for development and demonstration of the Gen
IV nuclear reactor system. The VHTR concept is intended for
very high temperature and long life operation for superior energy
efficiency as well as production of both electricity and hydrogen.
It has been envisioned as a graphite moderated, helium-cooled,
prismatic, or pebble-bed, thermal neutron spectrum reactor with
the goal to produce helium output at temperatures up to 950  C
and pressures up to 7 MPa for a design life of 60 years. The US
NGNP will use very high burn-up, low-enriched uranium, tri-
isotopic (TRISO)-coated fuel. Approximately, 90% of the NGNP
output heat was planned for generating electricity and 10% for
producing hydrogen. Depending on further development, the per-
centage of output heat for hydrogen production may significantly
increase. To cautiously explore the high-temperature capacity of
metallic structural materials as well as the VHTR concept, and to
ensure a smooth, safe development of the Gen IV nuclear energy
systems, the near-term design for NGNP may consider a lower
initial helium output temperature starting from 725  C, and the
follow-on plants may eventually reach the desired 950  C for
superior efficiency of the VHTR.
Due to its relatively mature ASME Codification status, high-
temperature service experience, and abundant historical data,
Alloy 800 H is identified as an alternative candidate material for
Alloys 617 and 230 in the near-term NGNP design consideration
[1–3]. For the VHTR system, Alloy 800 H may be considered for
Contributed by the Pressure Vessel and Piping Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF PRESSURE VESSEL TECHNOLOGY. Manuscript received March 3, 2011;
final manuscript received October 12, 2011; published online June 24, 2014. Assoc.
Editor: Allen C. Smith.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology Copyright V
C 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
(IHX). In addition to the compact heat exchanger that is favored
from advanced development perspective, other concepts, includ-
ing tubular helical coil, plate-stamped, plate-fin, and plate-
machined heat exchangers, may also be considered [4]. Other
components that may be constructed using Alloy 800 H are
listed in Table 1, along with their corresponding major loading
conditions [4,5].
Alloy 800 H has been studied for nuclear system construction
since its introduction into the marketplace. However, for applica-
tions in the severe working conditions required by the NGNP, a
close review of its qualifications is still necessary. Furthermore,
its qualifications for the NGNP may also apply to other Gen IV
nuclear reactor concepts. In this paper, considerations of Alloy
800 H for NGNP design and construction are discussed, with the
major focus on its qualification for nuclear use through the Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure
Vessel Code (BPV Code).
The Material
Alloy 800 H (UNS No. N08810), also known as Incoloy 800 H,
is a variant of Incoloy 800 (UNS No. N08800) with a nominal
composition of Fe-32.5Ni-21Cr. The alloy provides high-
temperature strength and resistance to oxidation, carburization
and other types of high-temperature corrosion. The specification
of Incoloy 800 does not require minimum carbon content. How-
ever, through its applications, it was learned that higher carbon
concentration in Incoloy 800 would provide higher creep and rup-
ture properties. The alloy was therefore often produced intention-
ally with no less than 0.05% of carbon unless customers specified
lower carbon content. With this minimum carbon limit restriction
and an additional requirement for a minimum average grain size
of ASTM No. 5 (American Society for Testing and Materials), the
chemistry-restricted version of Incoloy 800 was approved by
ASME BPV Code with higher design stresses for Code Section I
and Divisions 1 and 2 of Section VIII in Code Case 1325-7. After
that, it has been formally referred to as Incoloy 800 H or simply
Alloy 800 H to differentiate it from its parent alloy Incoloy 800.
The composition limits for Alloy 800 H are given in Table 2.
The total concentration of Al þ Ti in Alloy 800 H is normally
restricted to 0.30–1.20%. With further restrictions on the total of
Al þ Ti to 0.85–1.20 and C to 0.06–0.10 in an attempt to ensure
optimum high-temperature properties, the resulting material is
designated as Incoloy 800 HT (UNS No. N08811), another variant
of Incoloy 800. Since the composition of Alloy 800 HT falls
within the limits of Alloy 800 H, both alloys are often considered
together as Alloy 800 H/HT.
Alloy 800 H has an austenitic structure and often contains tita-
nium nitrides, titanium carbides, and chromium carbides. The
nitrides are stable at all temperatures below the melting point and
are therefore unaffected by heat treatment. Chromium carbides
precipitate at temperatures between 540 and 1095  C. However,
the alloy is mainly strengthened by solid solution. Its carbon
content provides high-temperature strength and resistance to creep
rupture. Exposed to the temperature range of 540–760  C, Alloy
800 H can be sensitized, i.e., can become susceptible to
Table 1 Potential NGNP components for Alloy 800 H
Component Major loading
Shutdown cooling system tube Thermal stress LCF/HCF
Steam generator tubing Thermal stress LCF/HCF
Core barrel Core weight
Core support floor Own weight
Hot duct Own weight
Bellows Fatigue
Helium circulator Fatigue, creep fatigue
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-1
 Table 2 Chemical composition (wt. %) of Alloy 800 H Table 3 Comparison of chemical compositions (wt. %) of Alloy
800 H and variants
Fe Ni Cr Al Ti C Mn Cu Si S
ASME DIN ASME
Minimum 39.5 30.0 19.0 0.15 0.15 0.05 – – – – Element 800 H 800 H 800 HT JIS-G-4904
Maximum – 35.0 23.0 0.60 0.60 0.10 1.50 0.75 1.0 0.015
Ni 30.0–35.0 30.0–34.0 30.0–35.0 30.0–35.0
Fe shall be determined arithmetically by difference Cr 19.0–23.0 19.0–22.0 19.0–23.0 19.0–23.0
Fe 39.5 Min. Balance 39.5 Min.
C 0.05–0.10 0.05–0.10 0.06–0.10 0.05–0.10
Mn 1.50 Max. <1.5 1.50 Max. 1.50 Max.
intergranular corrosion in certain aggressive conditions, such as S 0.015 Max. <0.010 0.015 Max. 0.015 Max.
chlorides-containing environment. Normally, the alloy is solution Si 1.0 Max. <0.70 1.0 Max. 1.0 Max.
annealed as a final stage of production to optimize the carbon con- Cu 0.75 Max. <0.45 0.75 Max. 0.75 Max.
tribution to high-temperature properties. The solution annealing Al 0.15–0.60 0.40–0.75 0.15–0.60 0.15–0.60
also results a large grain size which further contributes to strength Ti 0.15–0.60 0.25–0.65 0.15–0.60 0.15–0.60
resistance to creep and rupture at high temperatures. Al þ Ti – – 0.85–1.20 –
Alloy 800 H has been widely used in service conditions that P – <0.015 – –
involve long-term exposure to elevated temperatures and corro- N – <0.03 – –
sive atmospheres. Typical applications include three major areas: Co – <0.45 – –
chemical/petrochemical processing, industrial heating, and power
generation. For chemical/petrochemical processing, the alloy is
used in steam/hydrocarbon reforming for catalyst tubing, convec- Relative Strength
tion tubing, pigtails, outlet manifolds, quenching-system piping, Compared with the leading candidate materials that are under
and transfer piping; in ethylene production for both convection consideration for NGNP, high-temperature strength of Alloy
and cracker tubes; in oxo-alcohol production for tubing in hydro- 800 H is noticeably weaker.
genation heaters; in hydrodealkylation units for heater tubing; and For long-term time-dependent strength, comparison can often
in production of vinyl chloride monomer for cracking tubes, be made with respect to 100,000-h creep strength at the tempera-
return bends, and inlet and outlet flanges. For industrial heating, ture of interest. For the aforementioned near-term design at a
Alloy 800 H is used in various types of heat treating furnaces for lower temperature range, the 100,000-h creep strengths of Alloy
radiant tubes, muffles, retorts, sheathing for electrical heating ele- 800 H and several candidate materials are compared in Fig. 1. The
ments, and assorted furnace fixtures. For power generation, it is 100,000-h strength values are extracted from the stress allowables
used in fossil energy systems for steam superheater tubing and in of ASME BPV Code Section II Part D [31]. Apparently, at tem-
nuclear energy systems for high-temperature heat exchangers. peratures around 800  C, Alloy 230 is slightly stronger than Alloy
617, followed closely by Alloy 625. Alloy 556 is significantly
Investigation for Nuclear Application weaker but maintains a strength advantage over Alloy 120 and
Investigation of Alloy 800 H for high-temperature use in nu- Alloy X. The NF-709 represents a class of enhanced strength
clear energy systems has mainly been focused on its applications stainless steel tubing alloys and is approved for Section I construc-
in gas-cooled reactors in several countries around the world. tion in Code Case 2582. Modifications have been rolled to sheet
In the United States, Alloy 800 H was introduced into the high- and foil and have undergone testing to 750  C in those product
temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) research program in the forms. Alloy 811 (800 HT) and Alloy 810 (800 H) are significantly
early 1970 s. The material was tested in various HTGR impure weaker than the other candidates.
helium environments at temperatures over 800  C, and also gained For short-term time-independent strength, typical ultimate
experience in the Fort Saint Vrain Reactor, one of the two HTGR tensile stress (UTS) and yield stress (YS) of Alloy 800 H are com-
power reactors in the United States. Research was undertaken to pared with those of several other candidate materials in Figs. 2
qualify both Alloy 800 and Alloy 800 H in the nuclear Code Case
1331-5 [6–9]. The evaluation of Alloy 800 H spanned over 30
years with many research reports generated. By the end of the
1990 s, abundant data and information on Alloy 800 H had been
accumulated in the United States [6–13].
In Japan, the HTGR research program started in 1969 and
undertook work on commercial alloys as well as efforts to develop
new alloys with specific performance characteristics. The investi-
gated commercial alloys included Alloy 800 H, Alloy X, and
Alloy 625. In the 1970 s, an effort was made to qualify Alloy 617
and Alloy X for use in a nuclear steel making project [14–16].
In Europe, the HTGR research program focused mainly on
Alloy 800 H and Alloy 617, along with several other promising
alloys. The investigation included evaluation in helium environ-
ment [17–29]. In the draft German design code KTA 3221.1 for
Manufacture of Materials and Product Forms, three grades of the
20Cr-32Ni-Fe alloy, including Alloys 800DE, 800RK, and 800 H
were qualified [30]. It should be noted that the Alloy 800 H used
in KTA 3221.1 follows the Deutsches Institut f€ur Normung (DIN)
chemistry specification, which is slightly different from the
ASME chemistry specification in element limits, as shown in
Table 3. However, if the product check of the DIN 800 H heats
that were tested to generate the data for KTA 3221.1 fell within
the ASME 800 H specification, they can be considered equivalent Fig. 1 Comparison of the strength based on 100,000 h for can-
to ASME 800 H heats since both have similar requirements for didate materials considered for service at temperatures around
grain size. 800  C

054001-2 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Fig. 2 Comparison of typical UTS values of Alloy 800 H and
other candidate materials at various temperatures
and 3 for the temperature range of 600–980  C. Again, the UTS
and YS of Alloy 800 H are obviously lower than those of the other
alloys.
Although Alloy 800 H is relatively the weakest among theses
alloys presented in the above three figures, it has the great advant-
age of being well-investigated for the gas-cooled nuclear reactor
with nuclear service experience. In other words, its readiness for
use in the NGNP at a lower temperature range is relatively
much better than the other alloys presented in the three figures.
Therefore, for near-term NGNP consideration, it stands out as an
attractive candidate material. With its better readiness for nuclear
service, qualification of the alloy for NGNP consideration is logi-
cally focused on extension of the design and construction rule
coverage governed by the ASME BPV Code.
Codification Status and Design Stresses
To construct a pressure vessel and related components, the
structural materials must be approved by the ASME BPV Code.
The current major Code acceptance of Alloy 800 H is summarized
in Table 4. As shown in the table, the Class 1 components are
Fig. 3 Comparison of typical YS values of Alloy 800 H and
other candidate materials at various temperatures
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
covered by subsections NB and NH of Section III. For IHX and
the components listed in Table 1 that are intended to operate at
temperatures in the range where creep and stress-rupture strength
govern, Alloy 800 H components must be used in compliance
with Subsection NH if they are designed as Class 1 components.
It can be seen from Table 4 that the maximum temperature for
time-independent stress values (Su, Sy, and So) is limited to
800  C, while that for time-dependent stress values is limited to
750  C. Beside the coverage in the Code sections, Alloy 800 H has
also been in several Code Cases for use at various temperatures,
as summarized in Table 5. Note that Case 1983, which allows the
alloy for use up to 982  C, and Case N-47-33, are currently
annulled and inactive. Two classes of weld materials, ENiCr-Fe-2
and ERNiCr-3, are also accepted by Code for Alloy 800 H.
The Code stress allowables of Alloy 800 H for temperatures in
the time-dependent range covered by subsection NH are compared
in Table 6. Around the time-independent range for S, So is differ-
ent from S in value because the values of Smt at 300,000 h exceed
those of S, therefore So is equal to Smt at 300,000 h rather than S.
In the time-dependent temperature range, the S and So values are
consistent. It can also be seen from the table that the S values are
less than values based on 0.80 Sr, 100,000 h. The St, 100,000 h values
are equivalent to or less than the 0.67 Sr, 100,000 h values except a
few as shown marked in bold font in Table 6. These greater St,
100,000 h values could have resulted from two sources: (1) roundup
in conversion from the original U.S. customary unit system; (2)
lower average stress required to obtain a total (elastic, plastic, pri-
mary, and secondary creep) strain of 1% or 80% of the minimum
stress to cause initiation of tertiary creep. A check on the values in
U.S. customary unit system indicated that the St, 100,000 h values
are insignificantly greater at 1000 F (286 psi greater) and 1350 F
(17 psi greater), which may reasonably be considered negligible
and therefore no corrections are needed to these Code permissible
design stresses.
A slight editorial inconsistency in the maximum temperature is
noted in NH where the original 1400 F has been converted to
750  C for creep related values and to 760  C for mostly fatigue
related values. For nuclear quality assurance (QA), such inconsis-
tency should be eliminated.
The editorial inconsistency, in spite of its slightness, however,
draws attention to a fact that because the data used to develop
Code rules and design values, such as the average stress required
to obtain a total strain of 1% and 80% of the minimum stress to
cause initiation of tertiary creep in the present case, are not always
conveniently accessible, it is difficult to check reliability of Code
rules and allowable values that were developed many years ago.
Furthermore, the early developed rules and values may have been
based on datasets that were significantly smaller in size and scope
than the databases currently available. Without a centralized
digital database to manage the data for Code development, it is
difficult to update the Code rules and allowable values as more
new data become available. It seems that a web-based digitized
database may provide a solution. In cases, such as using the data
generated under the DIN specification for ASME BPV Code
extension consideration, as previously mentioned in discussion of
Table 3, such a database should also provide accurate and conven-
ient traceability of specimen materials pedigree information.
Data Requirements for NGNP Applications
It can be observed from Table 4 that for Alloy 800 H to be con-
sidered for NGNP construction, the maximum allowable tempera-
ture in Section III subsection NH for Class 1 component must be
extended above 750  C. The extension would require examination
of Alloy 800 H properties at temperatures to at least 850  C, hope-
fully 900  C, for acceptance into subsection NH. Certain behav-
ioral features are required for metallic materials to be approved
for the design and construction of components under the rules of
subsection NH [32]. The required knowledge of the behavioral
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-3
 Table 4 Current major Code acceptance of Alloy 800 H

Code section Component Design stress values Tmax  Ca

Section I Section I Section II-D Table 1B 900

Section III Classes 1, SC, and TC Section II-D Table 2B 425
Classes 1 Sub NH: NH-3225-1 (Su), I-14.2 (So), I-14.5 (Sy) 800
Sub NH: I-14.2, I-14.3 C, I-14.4 C, I-14.6 C, 750
I-14.10 C-2, T-1420-1 C, T-1522-3, T-1820-1
Classes 2, 3 Section II-D Table 1B, 3 900
Section VIII Division 1 Section II-D Tables 1B, 3 900
Division 2 Section II-D Table 3, 5B 900
Section XII Section XII Section II-D Table 1B, 3 900
a
Roundup values provide by the B&PV Code metric version.

Table 5 Major code cases involving Alloy 800 H

Case number Case title

1325-18 Nickel–iron–chromium Alloys 800 and 800 H (UNS N08800 and N08810) and nickel–iron–chromium–molybdenum–copper
low-carbon alloy (UNS N08028) Section I
N-201-5 Class CS components in elevated temperature service Section III, Division 1
N-253-14 Construction of Class 2 or Class 3 components for elevated temperature service Section III, Division 1
N-254 Fabrication and installation of elevated temperature components, Classes 2 and 3 Section III, Division 1
1983 Alloy UNS N08810 up to 1800 degrees F Section VIII, Division 1—ANNULLED SUPP 2
N-47-33 Class 1 components in elevated temperature service Section III, Division 1—ANNULLEDa
a
Replaced by subsection NH.

Table 6 Comparison of allowable stresses for Alloy 800 H in ASME Section III, subsection NH

T,  C S, MPa So, MPa St 100000 h, MPa Sr 100000 h, MPa 0.80Sr 100000 h, MPa 0.67Sr 100000 h, MPa

425 104 105 132 387 309.6 259.29

450 102 104 130 338 270.4 226.46
475 100 103 127 279 223.2 186.93
500 99 101 125 228 182.4 152.76
525 97 99 119 186 148.8 124.62
550 96 89 103 148 118.4 99.16
575 92 74 83 124 99.2 83.08
600 76 68 67 101 80.8 67.67
625 63 62 55 82 65.6 54.94
650 51 51 45 67 53.6 44.89
675 41 41 37 55 44 36.85
700 34 34 29 45 36 30.15
725 28 28 24 36 28.8 24.12
750 23 23 20 29 23.2 19.43

features is linked to the seven structural failure modes that should
be precluded
(1) ductile rupture from short-term loading;
(2) creep–rupture from long-term loading;
(3) creep–fatigue failure;
(4) gross distortion due to incremental collapse and ratcheting;
(5) loss of function due to excessive deformation;
(6) buckling due to short-term loading; and
(7) creep buckling due to long-term loading.
In the draft Code case for Alloy 617, when the alloy was con-
sidered for HTGR applications, an additional failure mode, i.e.,
nonductile rupture, was also listed [33].
Given consideration of these failure modes, it is apparent that
the data required for extending subsection NH coverage of Alloy
800 H should include tensile, creep, stress-rupture, fatigue, and
creep–fatigue interaction properties for the specific products that
will be used for NGNP construction. Because subsection NH
requires consideration of the load-time-histogram for all load-
controlled conditions, the stress allowables are time-dependent
and must be applicable to the duration of the expected compo-
nents life. This life can be up to 500,000 h or more for the 60 years
of the desired design life of NGNP components. Similarly, the cri-
teria governing strain and deformation-controlled loading must be
applicable for the duration of service. Furthermore, subsection
NH requires consideration of aging effects on short-term proper-
ties. Adequate datasets covering welding issues must also be
acquired and supplied for Code acceptance. Although environ-
mental effects are not addressed in subsection NH, resistance to
corrosion for the design lifetime is specifically considered in the
bounding conditions for NGNP [34,35]. Currently, environmental
effects that should be considered are summarized in Appendix W
of Section III, for service below the creep range, and Appendix A
of Section II Part D, which includes some high-temperature degra-
dation mechanisms. An example of data requirements for the DIN
Alloy 800 H to 750  C can be found in the draft German design
code KTA 3221.1 [36]. It should also be noted that compared with

054001-4 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 7 Comparison of the data that produced the N-47 Code Case with additional data for ORNL evaluation [37]
Item Number of lots Number of data
Case N-47 15
Additional data 21
Table 8 Comparison of the data that produced the N-47 Code Case with more additional data for ORNL evaluation [39]
Item Source Number of lots
N-47 INCO 15
Additional data Sandvik 32
Additional data NIMS 12
Additional data British 13
Additional data Other 8 68
“Censored” INCO 14
Alloy 617 and ferritic steels, Alloy 800 H has significantly higher
coefficient of thermal expansion, which makes the alloy poten-
tially susceptible to thermal fatigue. This should be a factor to be
considered when investigation on creep–fatigue of the alloy is
conducted.
Properties and Data Evaluation
Stress Allowables. In the late 1960 s and early 1970 s, data col-
lection and analysis effort for Alloy 800 H as well as Alloy 800
were undertaken by the International Nickel Company (INCO),
the Westinghouse Electric Company, and Gulf General Atomics
(GA) to support work on nuclear components for the gas-cooled
reactors [6]. However, datasets for the alloy were not readily
available in the open literature or as company reports at the time
the original Code work was conducted. To expand data collection
for all of the materials in the Class 1 components nuclear con-
struction Code Cases, data acquisition efforts, including testing
were sponsored by the Metals Properties Council and the U. S.
Atomic Energy Commission. Furthermore, collection of data from
both U. S. and overseas sources was also undertaken by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) [7,37].
An evaluation was performed at ORNL to compare the dataset
that produced the nuclear Code Case N-47 stress allowables and
the additional data acquired after the Code Case was developed
[37]. The comparison for Alloy 800 H is presented in Table 7.
The evaluation revealed that the long-time (100,000 h) stress
allowables in Code Case N-47 for Alloy 800 H were high rela-
tive to the result from the analysis with the additional data. Fur-
thermore, it was found that the tertiary creep criterion controlled
the stress allowables for Alloy 800 H for some combinations of
time and temperature. The analyses of ORNL and earlier work
of GA contributed to changes in the stress allowables for Alloy
800 H, which were lowered in a subsequent revision to Code
Case N-47 [38].
Further collection of the Alloy 800 H data was conducted by
ORNL in the early 1990 s, as shown in Table 8 [39]. The col-
lection included data from several additional sources and
greatly expanded the original dataset used to establish the
stress allowables in Code Case N-47. The compilation shown
in Table 8 included many lots of Sandvik steels that did not
meet the specifications for the 800 H grade (chemistry or grain
size) and some lots that did not meet the special Code Case N-
47 minimum requirements for aluminum plus titanium content.
In the analysis, 708 data were selected from 66 lots that
seemed to meet the requirements for Alloy 800 H specified by
Code Case N-47. The analysis results of the selected data pro-
duced minimum strength to rupture values for 100,000 h that
were fairly close to values listed in current edition of subsec-
tion NH for Alloy 800 H.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Temperature range,  C Longest life, h
241 538–982 22,000
209 538–816 24,000
Number of data Temperature range,  C Longest life, h
241 538–982 22,000
360 549–816 83,000
120 600–800 33,000
47 500–800 46,000
649–816 24,000
167 538–816 34,000
Tensile Properties. Data of the yield and ultimate strengths
from at least three commercial heats are required for a metallic
material to be considered for Code acceptance. The data are used
to develop trend curves which anchor the Y-1 and U tables in
Section II Part D once the minimum yield and ultimate strengths
are specified. In the current Section II, the trend curve, the yield
strength value Sy in Table Y-1, and the tensile strength value Su
in Table U all exist for Alloy 800 H. However, the values in
Tables Y-1 and U only cover temperatures up to 525  C, and no
values are provided for higher temperatures where the yield and
ultimate tensile strength become rate dependent. In subsection
NH, the high-temperature values of Su and Sy are provided in
Tables NH-3225-1 and I-14.5, respectively; and these values are
intended to be consistent with Section II Tables Y-1 and U values
in the lower temperature range below 525  C. However, in the
current Code version, discontinuity has been found in both Sy
and Su values between the high and low temperature ranges, and
the issue is currently being addressed by the relevant Code com-
mittees. It should be noted that although the Sy and Su values in
subsection NH only cover temperatures up to 750  C, data for
higher temperatures up to 900  C are available for the desired
Code coverage extension [40].
Tensile Reduction Factors. The tensile and yield strength
reduction factors provided in subsection NH are based on
estimates of the aging effects spanning the temperature–time cov-
erage of the Code. For Alloy 800 H, the currently provided reduc-
tion factor covers temperatures greater than 730  C. Typically,
aging studies included the development of temperature–time-
precipitation (TTP) diagrams, hardness studies, toughness studies
(Charpy-V impact energy), and tensile properties. The TTP dia-
gram has been developed for Alloy 800 H [41] for times to beyond
10,000 h. Abundant literature also exists on the effect of aging on
hardness, Charpy-V impact energy, and tensile properties of Alloy
800 H [42].
Tensile Stress–Strain Curves. Tensile stress–strain curves of
Alloy 800 H to a few percent tensile strain are needed for the
construction of external pressure charts in Section II Part D and
for external pressure time–temperature limit curves in subsection
NH Figs. T-1522-13. They are also needed for construction
of the “hot tensile curves” which anchor the isochronous stress–
strain curves in subsection NH Figs. T-1800-C-112. Such curves
need to be consistent with the Y-1 or Sy values, after consideration
of whether minimum or average values are needed. Good records
of the original hot tensile curves which extend to 760  C are avail-
able for Alloy 800 H in historical Code subcommittee minutes.
New data will be required to extend the curves to 850  C. The
desired tensile stress–strain curves can be developed and compiled
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-5
 based on information that may be extracted from these historical
documents [40].
Like nickel-base alloys, there are two concerns for Alloy 800 H
in collecting and representing the tensile stress–strain curves. The
first concern is the specification of the strain-rate for testing at
temperatures of 700  C and above. Alloy 800 H exhibits an
increase in yield strength at high temperatures due to strain-aging,
and the phenomenon tends to be strain-rate dependent. Since
establishing Y-1 or Sy values does not permit an increase in the
values with increasing temperature, such strain-rate dependency
creates a problem. The standard strain-rate for tensile testing is
around 0.005/min, which is sufficiently slow to produce strain-
aging effects at the temperatures of interest. The second concern
is the possibility of creep effects. The separation of time-
independent plasticity and time-dependent creep at the standard
testing strain-rate above 700  C becomes difficult, if not abso-
lutely impossible. Hence, the tensile flow curve may manifest an
undetermined portion of creep deformation.
Creep and Stress-Rupture. Just as for tensile properties, creep
and stress-rupture data from at least three commercial heats are
required for the assignment of stress allowables for Code accep-
tance and incorporation of allowables into Section II Part D when
temperature extends into the creep range. As shown in Table 4,
Alloy 800 H has already been permitted for construction under the
rules of Sections I, III, VIII, and XII. The criteria for setting the
stresses for Section I and Section VIII Division 1, specified in
Section II Part D Appendix 1, differ from the criteria in Section
III subsection NH specified in NH-3221 which require considera-
tion of 1% total strain creep data and tertiary creep data for setting
the allowable in Table I-14.3 and Table I-14.4. Testing considera-
tions for generating such data from candidate alloys to enable sub-
section NH coverage extension to the desired NGNP design life
and maximum operation temperature were discussed in open liter-
ature [43,44]. For Alloy 800 H, its data status relative to the 1%
and tertiary creep data, needed to extend coverage in subsection
NH to 500,000 or 600,000 h and for temperatures to at least
850  C, has been reviewed several times, and recommendations
for further testing have also been made [11,45]. For the most part,
only a modest experimental effort is needed along with a more
vigorous evaluation of existing data [43,44,46]. It is worth men-
tioning that sufficient creep data exist to permit the DIN Alloy
800 H to be introduced into the draft German design code KTA
3221.1 [36], which is obviously encouraging for current efforts on
Alloy 800 H. Based on a more recent review and compilation of
existing creep–rupture properties data of Alloy 800 H and its
variants, it was judged that existing datasets are adequate, for the
Fig. 4 Stress versus the Larson-Miller parameter for rupture of
Alloy 800 H
054001-6 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
most part, to meet the needs for time-dependent properties in the
extension of subsection NH coverage to 850  C and 500,000 h.
It should also be noted that based on the available data, the
stress-rupture behavior of Alloy 800 H can be well-represented by
the Larson-Miller Parameter (LMP)
LMP ¼ T ðC þ log tr Þ (1)
where T is absolute temperature, tr is rupture life, and C is a para-
metric constant. A plot of stress versus the LMP for Alloy 800 H
is shown in Fig. 4. The value for the parametric constant, C, repre-
sents correlations for data at the upper temperature range [47].
The arrows in the figure represent the LMP values for 600,000 h
at 800 and 900  C. It is clear that there is a dearth of data on which
to base stress allowables at 600,000 h and 900  C, especially in
view of the fact that the subsection NH criterion is based on mini-
mum strength, not the average strength, and such data are needed
for Table I-14.10.
Creep Strain Versus Time. Among the issues that need to be
resolved for Alloy 800 H to be used in construction of nuclear
components, two are derived from the criteria for setting allow-
able stresses [48]:
(1) based on the average stress to produce 1% total strain in a
specific time;
(2) based on the 80% of the minimum stress to initiate tertiary
creep in a specific time.
The 1% total strain includes elastic, plastic, primary, and sec-
ondary creep strains. Creep strain versus time curves are available
for addressing these issues.
For the conditions where most creep data are available, the 1%
total strain in Alloy 800 H comprises some primary creep which
depends on a number of metallurgical factors and is highly vari-
able from one heat (or heat treated condition) to the next. Two
stress values can be used with respect to the 1% total strain:
(1) the average stress;
(2) the minimum stress.
The current subsection NH criterion is based on the 1% total
strain, and the average stress rather than the minimum stress is
used. So the penalty on strength is not as severe as when it is
based on the minimum stress for 1% total strain. Nonetheless, a
large variability complicates the development of creep models
needed for producing isochronous stress–strain curves in the low
strain region. Thermomechanical studies may offer insight with
respect to methods to minimize the variability of primary creep
behavior. A simple stabilizing anneal may provide the answer
[49].
Tertiary creep in Alloy 800 H has been a concern ever since the
material was first proposed for use in gas-cooled reactors in the
early 1970 s. Consideration of tertiary creep in materials behavior
modeling for component analysis is the essential feature of the
Omega approach utilized in API 579 [50]. The omega function is
only one of several models for continuum damage mechanics
(CDM) that capture tertiary creep behavior, but it has been shown
to represent ferritic steels quite well. The appearance of some
primary creep in solid-solution austenitic alloys, such as Alloy
800 H, after a stabilizing heat treatment suggests that considera-
tion of the primary creep component is needed as an add-on to the
omega model. In this respect, other representations of the full
creep curve, such as those of Evans-Wilshire [51] and Dyson [52],
may be better suited to accommodate the creep behavior of Alloy
800 H.
Relaxation. In subsection NH, a procedure is outlined that esti-
mates relaxation from the isochronous curves which are based on
Transactions of the ASME
 monotonic deformation. However, it is unlikely that there will be
an uninterrupted period of service in a component that would
result in relaxation over tens of thousands of hours. It is possible
that cycling, when it occurs, could cause a relatively brief change
in the elastic stress and a return to the pre-interruption relaxation
condition after the transient. This situation would be more likely
in the lower temperature range where thermal recovery during
unloading is not rapid. In lab testing, a single relaxation run typi-
cally lasts about 100 h or so, and in some studies repetitive runs
are conducted on the same specimen to examine the high-
temperature creep hardening or softening behavior. Relaxation
can also be calculated from a creep model with some assumption
as to the creep-hardening mechanism. Such calculation has
been demonstrated for Alloy 800 H [53]. Generally, test results
revealed satisfactory prediction of behavior, with a tendency for
some hardening for repetitive relaxation runs at lower temperature
and stabilized relaxation rates at higher temperatures. It is appa-
rent that validation is needed and important for the subsection NH
procedure for estimating relaxation from the monotonic deforma-
tion based isochronous curves. Although creep–fatigue testing
with hold times at the strain limits provides some data on the
effect of cyclic strain on relaxation rates, the hold times are gener-
ally short, mostly about 10 h or less, and the validation of the pre-
diction of relaxation from usage of the isochronous curves less
certain.
It is worth mentioning that the long-time relaxation data pro-
duced by National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS) for
Alloy 800 H were of interest because a slight increase in stress at
long time was consistently observed [54]. Possibly, this increase
in stress reflects a precipitation or resolution process that produces
a slight volume contraction.
Strain-Controlled Fatigue. Available data for continuous
cycling fatigue properties of Alloy 800 H are summarized by
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) [55]. The dataset covers a suffi-
cient range of temperatures and strain ranges to characterize the
alloy and develop the curves in subsection NH Fig. T-1420-1 C
for design fatigue strain range.
Desirable data also exist in the online data and information
network (ODIN) of European Commission’s Joint Research
Centre (JRC). The ODIN contains information on continuous
cycling fatigue and creep–fatigue of Alloy 800 H, with limited
data of the stabilized hysteresis loops and stress ranges. These
data in the high-temperature range are valuable for extending the
subsection NH temperature coverage above 760  C.
Creep–Fatigue Interaction. The synergism of creep and
fatigue is always an important and complicated issue in high-
temperature components. The problem of creep–fatigue (C–F)
interaction covers the range at high temperatures where, under
constant or low frequency cyclic loads, multiple micro cracks
develop on grain boundaries by a creep (or oxidation) mechanism
and propagate in a mostly intergranular mode while, under rapid
cycling, strain-fatigue cracks initiate at the surface, at defects, or
at some metallurgical feature and propagate in a transgranular
mode. In a nuclear energy system that operates at mostly constant
high temperatures and loads, a fatigue damage zone from temper-
ature and load fluctuations can form within the creep damage
zone to accelerate the crack propagation.
The most common C–F test that forms the basis for the evalua-
tion of C–F damage uses the relaxation-hold cycle in which the
strain-fatigue damage develops during the rapid cycle and creep
damage is accumulated during the relaxation hold. Although this
type of testing dominates the C–F testing field, other methods,
such as slow–fast cycle (used for the frequency separation
model [56]), stress hold periods at the maximum or minimum
stress amplitude (needed for strain-range partitioning [57]), and
thermal-mechanical fatigue (in-phase and out-phase) with hold
time, have produced some C–F data and provided insight into the
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
understanding of C–F damage. A modest database is available
that includes these methods for the nickel-base alloys. However,
the C–F interaction damage diagram in subsection NH Fig. T-
1420 is largely based on damage calculation from the relaxation-
hold cycle.
Presented in a simplified form, the fatigue damage in any given
cycle is represented by
df ¼ 1=Nf (2)
where df is an incremental damage fraction under a given fatigue
condition (strain range, temperature, etc.) and Nf is the cycles to
failure under that fatigue condition, and the creep damage at any
given increment of time is represented by
dc ¼ dtc =tr (3)
where dc is an incremental creep damage fraction under a given
creep condition (stress and temperature), dtc is the duration of
time under that creep condition, and tr is the time to failure under
that creep condition. For the relaxation-hold cycle, dc must be
summed over all durations of time in the relaxation-hold period,
Rdc, to obtain the creep damage per cycle. Often, a single cycle
corresponding to the half-life is chosen to be representative of the
whole test. Then, for N cycles, Ndf represents the total fatigue
damage, Df; and NRdc represents the total creep damage, Dc.
These damage terms must be summed to a value less than or equal
to the total allowed damage D
Df þ Dc  D (4)
This damage equation defines the interaction diagram. Testing
data must be generated to quantify D. Ideally, D should be unity,
but experimental work shows that D is less than one and varies
complexly with the ratio of Dc/Df. The complication mainly
comes from the fact that it is often practically impossible to abso-
lutely separate creep and fatigue effects on the material. It was
observed from microstructures of tested specimens that, at high
temperature, even triangular cyclic loading with no hold time can
still cause creep damage [58]. Therefore, the D values differ
greatly from one material to another, from one temperature to
another, and further, from one analysis method to another. It was
reported that D summed to around unity for Alloy 800 [59] and to
near 0.15 for Alloy 800 H when Df and Dc were similar [60] and a
even lower value [61], as shown by the three damage interaction
curves in Fig. 5. Further adjustments of these values are ongoing.
Fig. 5 Damage interaction diagram for Alloy 800 and Alloy
800 H determined from three analyses
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-7
 It should be noted that these damage interaction curves do not
consider the possibility that the degree of interaction between
creep and fatigue could be temperature dependent and do not con-
sider environmental effects.

Multiaxial Stress and Strain. Subsection NH provides guide-

lines for addressing multiaxiality for both time-independent and
time-dependent loading situations. Yield, flow, and hardening
rules have been generalized and guidelines for cyclic multiaxial
analysis problems are available [62]. Experimental work from the
German programs on Alloy 800 H has also been reported [63].
Although treatment of multiaxiality in the extension of subsection
NH coverage for Alloy 800 H is not expected to significantly
deviate from the current fashion, work is needed to validate the
rules and obtain specific values for the parametric constants in
applicable formulations. The testing program should include
notched-bar tests designed to assess the applicability of the multi-
axial stress-rupture criteria. Emphasis on the 1/1 biaxial stress
state would be of value for stress-rupture testing. Multiaxial test-
ing will be conducted as part of the US NGNP IHX Materials
R&D Plan [55].
Fig. 7 Stress-rupture factors for Alloy 800 H welded with SFA-
5.14 ERNiCr-3 (INCO 82)
Stress-Rupture Factors for Weldments. Subsection NH pro-
vides stress-rupture reduction factors for Alloy 800 H welded with Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. It is noted that a valley exists in Fig. 7
SFA-5.11 ERNiCrFe-2 (INCO A) in Table I-14.10 C-1 and for at the temperatures around 540  C, even for the 10-h curve.
that welded with SFA-5.14 ERNiCr-3 (INCO 82) in Table I-14.10
C-2. These factors were derived from the ratio of the average
Fine-Grained Strip Products for Compact Heat Exchangers.
rupture strength for weld metal to the average rupture strength
Up to date, several IHX designs have been proposed for the
for base metal. However, simple tests of cross-welds and
NGNP [4,55]. Most likely, the tube-and-shell design could be cov-
longitudinal-welds in plates and cylinders were performed to vali-
ered by subsection NH once the candidate material is incorporated
date the conservative aspects of the stress-rupture factors [64].
into a high-temperature Code Case. However, the creep character-
Currently, the factors in these two tables only cover up to 750  C
istics of tubes may differ significantly from other product forms
and 300,000 h. Furthermore, it was found in a recent review that
that were tested to generate the creep data and develop the Code
the values of these two tables were supported by data to only
Case [66]. The compact heat exchanger concept, particularly,
730  C [65]. Apparently higher temperature and longer time
presents an entirely new problem because it will require the use of
stress-rupture testing are needed to provide the data for extending
strip products, which normally have fine grain sizes. At this time,
coverage of Alloy 800 H weldments to the desired higher tempera-
the width, thickness, heat treating requirements, as well as the
tures. It has been suggested that the 21-33 filler metal (0.12 C/
actual grain size, are not known.
0.2Si/4.8Mn/21.8Cr/32.5Ni/1.2Nb) be included in the testing pro-
It should be worth mentioning that the fabrication process
grams since it appeared to be a better match for the strength of the
employed for manufacturing the compact heat exchanger may
base metal than the materials currently specified in subsection
also have significant effects on the grain size. For example, diffu-
NH, namely, ERNiCr-3.
sion bonding and/or high-temperature brazing would greatly
The stress-rupture reduction factors for Alloy 800 H in Table I-
change the microstructure and grain size of the product, resulting
14.10 C-1 and Table I-14.10 C-2 of subsection NH are plotted in
essentially in a new product form, which has to be accounted for
in the design allowables.

Data for Cold Work Effects. With respect to cold work and
recovery data to construct permissible time/temperature service
conditions for cold worked Alloy 800 H, an extensive research
undertaking was reported by Westinghouse Electric Company in
1976 [67], which partly formed the basis for the Alloy 800 H
curve in subsection NH Fig. 4212-1. In 1984, the effect of cold
work in both Alloys 800 H and 617 was reported by Huntington
Alloys [68].

Future Research and Development Needs

Fig. 6 Stress-rupture factors for Alloy 800 H welded with
SFA-5.11 ERNiCrFe-2 (INCO A)
Work Needed for Stress Allowables. Although no inconsis-
tencies were found between So, St, and Sr for Alloy 800 H, issues
still remain to be addressed with respect to the isochronous
stress–strain curves, the time to 1% strain, and the “minimum”
stress for the initiation of tertiary creep.
At high temperatures above 750  C desired for the NGNP, the
tensile behavior of Alloy 800 H becomes very strain-rate sensitive
and the “hot tensile” curve for the isochronous curves must be
linked to a specific strain rate. Experimental work is needed to
produce stress–strain curves over several orders of magnitude and
at temperatures from 750 to 900  C. It is also possible to represent

054001-8 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 the high strain-rate behavior by a power law and capture the
decreasing flow stress with decreasing strain-rate by combining
the tensile hardening with a creep function. With such an
approach, it is necessary to define the strain-rate that has no time-
dependent effect. To establish this condition, the available data of
Alloy 800 H need to be reviewed to identify the data gaps. Addi-
tional tensile testing to fully establish the strain-rate effect on the
flow stress may be required.
It was found that the average stress to produce 1% total strain
could not be estimated at long times at 900  C because it required
extrapolation to stresses at which no testing had been performed
[69]. In addition, there have been claims that diffusion creep for
such conditions is possible. Experimental work on the subject has
been planned and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). Results are yet to be produced. It also is known that
the German high-temperature design code KTA 3221 supplies
information to temperatures as high as 1000  C. Some of the data
supporting this code are collected in the ODIN and should be
examined.
The resolution of the issue of the significance of tertiary creep
in Alloy 800 H is critical to its usage in components operating to
850 or 900  C. Investigation should be conducted with respect to
the significance of the “minimum” stress for the initiation of
tertiary creep. As with the stainless steels, there are several terti-
ary creep and CDM models currently available and some have
applicability to Alloy 800 H. Data have been produced by NIMS
and the German HTGR program that could supplement the exist-
ing U.S. dataset to resolve this issue.
Actions directed toward the limits of temperature or time for
the allowables should be taken until such time as re-evaluation of
the database can justify the restoration or adjustment of the exist-
ing values. It is apparent that the extension of coverage for Alloy
800 H is needed. Existing data are sufficient to justify the exten-
sions to 500,000 h for 850  C, which corresponds to 60 years at
95% availability, and further extension to 600,000 h may also be
possible. The work needed for adjusting the stress allowables is
summarized in Table 9.
Creep–Fatigue Investigation. Due to the complexity of the
C–F issues, it is obvious that sufficient experimental data are
required for any attempt to resolve the inconsistency in the esti-
mation of C–F damage for Alloy 800 H as presented in Fig. 5.
There are also other issues with respect to the creep–fatigue inter-
action studies that should be considered in estimating the needs
for data. Clearly, a well-coordinated testing program that includes
continuous cycling fatigue, creep–fatigue, and creep–rupture for
the same heat is needed. It must be recognized that the most likely
conditions for the NGNP will involve long periods between
cycles. Depending on the temperature, microstructural recovery is
likely during these periods and this recovery will influence the
subsequent cyclic hardening. Therefore, a few long hold-time C–F
tests are needed. Much of the C–F testing with long hold times
has been performed at strain ranges greater than 0.6%. The very
poor hardening characteristics of the solid-solution nickel-base
alloys at and above 800  C often results in dimensional instability
in fatigue specimens. Uniform gage specimens tend to form a
neck in the middle when the extensometer is axially placed and
necks on either side of the middle when the extensometer is
placed on the diameter. Creep buckling of specimens, especially
Table 9 Summary of suggested future R&D activities
Item Action
So Extend So values to 850  C
St Extend St values to 850  C and 500,000 h
Develop a creep model for estimating 1% strain and tertiary creep
SRmin Extend SRmin values to 850  C and 500,000 h
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
tubular configurations, is also a problem. Care must be taken in
the development of the test methods.
Some consideration should be given to specifying test condi-
tions that could help in the assessment of other models for C–F.
These tests might include cyclic creep testing to establish a cyclic
creep–rupture curve, low strain-rate testing to establish the strain-
rate ductility relation for the ductility exhaustion C–F models,
tests to establish the true-stress creep–rupture, and true-stress duc-
tility relation to correct for the shortened rupture life associated
with the increase in engineering stress in constant-load creep–rup-
ture testing, and testing to provide data for the assessment of
CDM fatigue models.
Materials Property Data Beyond Subsection NH. In addition
to the need to extend the current subsection NH as discussed
above, there are also some other properties of Alloy 800 H that are
not covered by subsection NH but are of great importance to the
design and construction of the NGNP. Experimental data of these
properties must be compiled, reviewed, and generated if not
already in existence. Such properties may include the biaxial
fatigue, biaxial creep–rupture, the aforementioned loading rate
dependency of tensile response, and the properties that are of
importance to licensing considerations for Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), and to in-service inspection requirements for
ASME B&PV Code Section XI.
The biaxial fatigue data are desired for providing the basis for
the constitutive equations for multiaxial inelastic response of the
alloy to complex time-varying, thermal, and mechanical loadings,
and are used to confirm the adequacy of application of the von
Mises effective strain or other approaches for fatigue analysis.
Like the biaxial fatigue data, biaxial creep–rupture data are also
desired for providing the basis for the development of constitutive
equations. Furthermore, they are used for developing material spe-
cific multiaxial creep–rupture strength theories used in the Code,
as well.
To efficiently generate the data for tensile loading rate depend-
ency, tests at loading rates of 103/s, 104/s, and 105/s represent-
ing typical fatigue, tensile, and creep testing loading rates,
respectively, may be considered as a starting point. Depending on
initial test results, these rates may be adjusted to adequately char-
acterize the material response; the characteristics, particularly the
shape, of the tensile curves will provide information on which
yield strength and tensile strength can be used for design.
In large components, pre-existing flaws in structural materials
can be expected as inevitable. Furthermore, with aging and prop-
erty deterioration during long-term services at elevated tempera-
tures, microcracks can be initiated as a result of accumulation of
creep and fatigue damage in highly stressed areas. Stress concen-
tration at the tips of these flaws can then induce localized creep
deformation at elevated temperatures even under a very low
applied load level. As time elapses, these flaws may grow by a
process of coalescence of creep cavities near the sharp tips, and
fatigue cycling can accelerate this process. It has been recognized,
however, that although microcracks may pre-exist or initiate in a
component during its service at elevated temperatures, the compo-
nent may still operate safely for a large portion of its useful life
before the microcracks propagate to a critical size. With the
requirements of 60 years of service life for the NGNP, crack
growth properties of Alloy 800 H could become very important
factors that should be considered in the materials selection and
reactor licensing process.
The crack growth properties of importance to materials selec-
tion and reactor licensing may include the creep crack growth rate
characterized by C* and C*(t) parameters, fatigue crack growth
rate characterized using the stress intensity factor range DK,
creep–fatigue crack growth rate characterized using several time-
dependent fracture mechanics parameters typically based on the C
parameter family [70,71]. Data desired for the crack growth prop-
erties are not limited to the base metal, those of the weldments of
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-9
 Alloy 800 H are significantly important since welds are mostly the failure modes, properties and data of the alloy were evaluated,
weaker sections in high-temperature components. which include stress allowables, tensile properties, and reduction
The severe working environment of the NGNP is expected to factors, tensile stress–strain curves, creep and stress-rupture,
promote several mechanisms that can cause embrittlement. To creep strain versus time, relaxation, strain-controlled fatigue,
minimize the risk of structural failure during shutdown and restart, creep–fatigue interaction, multiaxial stress and strain, fine-grained
the capability of Alloy 800 H to resist embrittlement must be con- strip products, and cold work effects. Generally speaking, the
sidered. Although transition temperature behavior is normally not existing data are found abundant and, for most part, adequate for
expected in face centered cubic (FCC) materials, temperature extension of the germane Code coverage. Recommendations were
dependency of impact energy is still possible and should be inves- made for limited experimental work needed in the extension of
tigated. Therefore, impact energy absorption data for various tem- the Code coverage. Some issues, such as the creep–fatigue and
peratures from Charpy tests are desirable. To evaluate the effects strain-rate sensitivity of high-temperature tensile behavior, are of
of the service environment, toughness measurements should be common interest to the other candidate alloys.
made before and after exposure to simulated NGNP working
conditions. Acknowledgment
Subsection NH does not specifically cover environmental
effects. To be used as a structural material for several NGNP com- Work sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
ponents, environmental effects on Alloy 800 H in helium with var- Nuclear Energy Science and Technology under Contract No.
ious gaseous impurities, such as N2, CO, CO2, H2, H2O, and CH4, DE-AC05-00OR22725 with Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
must be considered. These impurities can cause undesirable managed by UT-Battelle, LLC.
chemical reactions with the component material, resulting in The authors would also like to thank Kobus Smit of PBMR and
environmental degradation. To keep the inevitable environmental Sam Sham of ORNL for reviewing this paper and providing
degradation under control within the reactor system, some ele- constructive comments.
ments that form these impure gases may be intentionally added to
maintain a desired chemical composition. For example, a slightly Acronyms
oxidizing environment may be desired for maintaining the protec-
tive surface oxide scale. To address the environmental effects on ASME ¼ American Society of Mechanical Engineers
mechanical properties in design, mechanical test data of Alloys ASTM ¼ American Society for Testing and Materials
800 H from the impure helium environment of the NGNP coolant BPV ¼ boiler and pressure vessel
must be provided. Furthermore, the possibility of environment CDM ¼ continuum damage mechanics
and high stress synergism on corrosion and crack formation C–F ¼ creep–fatigue
should also be investigated. DIN ¼ Deutsches Institut f€ur Normung (The German Institute
Inevitably, some of the NGNP components will be exposed to for Standardization)
radiation in service and experience irradiation damage. Long-term DOE ¼ Department of Energy
irradiation can cause operation of micro mechanisms, such as FCC ¼ face centered cubic
abnormal absorption of interstitials at dislocations, accumulation GA ¼ General Atomics
of vacancies at cavities, asymmetrical partitioning of self- HCF ¼ high cycle fatigue
interstitials and vacancies to dislocations differently oriented to HTGR ¼ high-temperature gas-cooled reactor
stresses, creation of extremely small obstacles, and weakening of IHX ¼ intermediate heat exchanger
grain boundaries. These damaging mechanisms can result in swel- INCO ¼ International Nickel Company
ling [69,72,73], irradiation creep [74], and irradiation embrittle- INL ¼ Idaho National Laboratory
ment [75–79]. To ensure knowledgeable design and construction, JRC ¼ Joint Research Centre
test data of Alloy 800 H generated after exposure to simulated LCF ¼ low cycle fatigue
radiation conditions should be provided for materials selection LMP ¼ Larson-Miller parameter
and qualification. NIMS ¼ National Institute for Materials Science
NGNP ¼ next generation nuclear plant
NRC ¼ Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Summary ODIN ¼ Online data and information network
A review of Alloy 800 H on its candidacy qualification was ORNL ¼ Oak Ridge National Laboratory
undertaken for the design and construction of the NGNP—the US TTP ¼ Time–temperature-precipitation
version of the very high-temperature reactor, the leading Gen IV US ¼ United States
nuclear reactor concept. Compared with other leading candidate UTS ¼ ultimate tensile stress
materials, Alloy 800 H is relatively weak in strength at the high VHTR ¼ very high-temperature reactor
temperatures of interest. It also has significantly higher coefficient YS ¼ yield stress
of thermal expansion compare with Alloy 617 and ferritic steels,
which makes the alloy potentially susceptible to thermal fatigue.
In addition, its corrosion resistance in the VHTR environment is References
still a question that requires further investigation. However, the [1] ABB/Combustion Engineering, Inc., Bechtel National, Inc., Gas-Cooled Re-
alloy has been extensively studied for nuclear application for over actor Associates, General Atomics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
three decades. Unlike the current leading candidate materials, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.,
1994, “Evaluation of the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor,” Gas-
such as Alloys 617 and 230, Alloy 800 H has gained service expe- Cooled Reactor Associates, San Diego, CA, Paper No. DOE-GT-MHR-
rience in commercial nuclear reactor, the Fort Saint Vrain nuclear 100002.
reactor. The accumulated knowledge and experience about the [2] Shenoy, A., and Potter, R. C., 1996, “Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor
alloy make it practically very attractive for near-term NGNP (GT-MHR) Conceptual Design Description Report,” 910720 Revision 1, Gen-
eral Atomics, San Diego, CA.
development consideration. [3] Ren, W., and Swindeman, R. W., 2009, “A Review on Current Status of Alloys
With its better readiness for nuclear service, the qualification 617 and 230 for Gen IV Nuclear Reactor Internals and Heat Exchangers,”
review was focused on extension of the alloy’s coverage in the ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 131(4), p. 044002.
ASME B&PV Code. Consistency of design stress allowables in [4] AREVA NP Inc., 2008, “ASME/DOE Gen IV Task 7 Part 1 Review of Current
Experience on Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX),” AREVA NP Inc., Docu-
different Code sections was first examined and no serious incon- ment No. 12-9097380-001., 2008, “ASME/DOE Gen IV Task 7 Part 1 Review
sistency was identified. Based on the data required for developing of Current Experience on Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX),” AREVA NP
design and construction rules guarding against eight structural Inc., Document No. 12-9097380-00.

054001-10 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 [5] Hayner, G. O., Shaber, E. L., Mizia, R. E., Bratton, R. L., Sowder, W. K., 2004,
“Next Generation Nuclear Plant Materials Research and Development Program
Plan,” Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls,
ID, Paper No. INEEL/EXT-04-02347, Revision 1, No. 83415.
[6] Martin, J. M., and Duke, J. M., 1975, Private Communication, “INCOLOY
Alloy 800 Data for Use in Design of Gas Cooled and Liquid Metal Fast Reac-
tors,” Westinghouse Electric Company, Tampa, FL.
[7] Booker, M. K., Baylor, V. B., and Booker, B. P. L., 1978, “Survey of Available
Creep and Tensile Data for Alloy 800 H,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, TN, Paper No. ORNL/TM-6029.
[8] Sessions, C. E., and McGeehan, P. J., 1978, “ASME B&PV Code Recommen-
dations of Design Stresses for Use of Annealed Alloy 800 in Elevated Tempera-
ture Nuclear Vessels,” Status of Incoloy Alloy 800 Development for Breeder
Reactor Steam Generators, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
Paper No. ORNL/Sub-4308/3, pp. 89–193.
[9] Trester, P. W., Johnson, W. R., Simnad, M. T., Burnette, R. D., and Roberts, D. I.,
1982, “Assessment of Effects of Fort St. Vrain HTGR Primary Coolant on Alloy
800,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Paper No. EPRI NP-2548.
[10] McCoy, H. E., and King, J. F., 1983, “Creep and Tensile Properties of Alloy
800 H-Hastelloy X Weldments,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
TN, Paper No. ORNL/TM-8728.
[11] Baldwin, D. H., Kimball, O. F., and Williams, R. A., 1986, “Design Data for
Reference Alloys: Inconel 617 and Alloy 800 H,” General Electric Company,
Sunnyvale, CA, HTGR-041.
[12] McCoy, H. E., 1991, “Interim Report on Mechanical Properties Data Analysis
of Low Carbon Alloy 800 in Support of ASME Code Case N-47 Code Stress
Allowables (INCO and ERA Interim Data Sets),” Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, Oak Ridge, TN, unpublished report.
[13] McCoy, H. E., 1993, “Tensile and Creep Tests on a Single Heat of Alloy
800 H,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, ORNL/TM-12436.
[14] Nakajima, H., 1974, High-Temperature Alloys for Structural Applications,
Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute, O-arai-machi, Higashi-ibaraki-gun,
Ibaraki, Japan.
[15] Hosoi, Y., and Abe, S., 1975, “The Effect of Helium Environment on Creep
Rupture Properties of Inconel 617 at 1000 C,” Metall. Trans., 6A, pp.
1171–1178.
[16] Kitagawa, M., Wright, R. N., Windes, W. E., Totemeier, T. C., Moore, K. A.,
Corwin, W. R., Burchell, T. D., Corum, J. M., J. Klett, W., Nanstad, R. K.,
Snead, L. L., Rittenhouse, P. L., Swindeman, R. W., Wilson, D. F., McGreevy,
T. E., Jones, R., Gardner, F., 1976, “Some Problems in Developing the High
Temperature Design Code for a 1.5MWT Helium Heat Exchanger,” Elevated
Temperature Design Symposium, American Society for Mechanical Engineers,
New York pp. 33–40.
[17] Cook, R. H., and Sutton, J. C., 1978, “Creep Cracking of Alloy 800 H in Air
and Helium at 850–950  C,” High Temperature Materials Programme, Flight
Refuelling Limited, Dorset, England, HTMP Report No. 34.
[18] Bruch, U., Schumacher, D., Ennis, P. J., and Heesen, O., 1984, “Tensile and
Impact Properties of Candidate Alloys for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reac-
tor Applications,” Nucl. Technol., 66, pp. 357–362.
[19] Ennis, P. J., Mohr, K. P., and Schuster, H., 1984, “Effect of Carburizing Service
Environments on Mechanical Properties of High-Temperature Alloys,” Nucl.
Technol., 66, pp. 363–368.
[20] Meurer, H.-P., Gunter, K., Gnirss, H., Mergler, W., Gerhard, R., Schuster, H.,
Ullrich, G., 1984, “Investigations on the Fatigue Behavior for High-
Temperature Alloys for High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor Components,”
Nucl. Technol., 66, pp. 315–323.
[21] Schneider, K., and Ilschner, B., 1984, “Creep Behavior of Materials for High-
Temperature,” Nucl. Technol., 66, pp. 289–295.
[22] Schubert, F., Bruch, U., Cook, R., Diehl, H., Ennis, P. J., Jakobeit, W. H.,Pen-
kalla, J., Heesen, E. T., and Ullrich, G., 1984, “Creep Rupture Behavior of Can-
didate Materials for Nuclear Process Heat Applications,” Nucl. Technol., 66,
pp. 227–240.
[23] Aplin, P. F., 1985, “Alloy 800: Summary of the Accumulated Data,” ERA
Technology Ltd, Leatherhead, Surrey, UK, ERA Report No: 85-0127.
[24] Degischer, H. P., Aigner, H., Lahodny, H., and Spiradek, K., 1985,
“Qualification of Stationary Creep of the Carbide Precipitating Alloy
800 H,” High Temperature Alloy, Elsevier Applied Science, London, UK, pp.
487–498.
[25] Schubert, F., Over, H. H., and Nickel, H., 1986, “Principles for Structural
Design Codes for Components in the Creep Temperature Region Mainly Above
800  C,” The International Conference on Creep, Institute of Mechanical Engi-
neers, London, pp. 539–543.
[26] Diehl, H., and Bodmann, E., 1990, “Alloy 800: New Stress Rupture and Creep
Data for Pressurized Components in High Temperature Reactors,” Nucl. Eng.
Des., 119, pp. 195–206.
[27] Diehl, H., and Bodmann, E., 1990, “Alloy 800 Specifications in Compliance
With Component Requirements,” J. Nucl. Mater., 171, pp. 63–70.
[28] Schubert, F., Nickel, H., and Breitbach, G., 1991, “Structural Design Criteria
for HTR—A Summary Report,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 132, pp. 75–84.
[29] Lamagnere, Pierre 2005, “Selection and Qualification of Materials for the
Primary Circuit and Intermediate Heat Exchanger of Very High Temperature
Reactor (VHTR),” Proceedings of ICAPP’05, Seoul, Korea, May 15–19, Paper
No. 5419.
[30] Schubert, F., Breitbach, G., and Nickel, H., 1993, “German Structural Design
Rule KTA 3221 for Metallic HTR-Components,” High Temperature Service
and Time Dependent Failure, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, PVP-Vol. 262, pp. 9–18.
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
[31] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Committee, 2011, ASME Boiler and Pres-
sure Vessel Code, an International Code, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, New York.
[32] Jetter, R. I., 2002, “Subsection NH-Class 1 Components in Elevated Tempera-
ture Service,” Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,
K. R. Rao, ed., American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp.
369–404.
[33] Corum, J. M., and Blass, J. J., 1991, “Rules for Design of Alloy 617 Nuclear
Components to Very High Temperatures,” Fatigue, Fracture, and Risk, Ameri-
can Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Paper No. PVP-Vol. 215, pp.
147–153.
[34] Idaho National Laboratory, 2008, “Summary of Bounding Requirements for the
NGNP Demonstration Plant F&ORs,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls,
ID, Paper No. INL/EXT-08014395.
[35] Collins, J., 2008, “Next Generation Nuclear Plant System Requirements Man-
ual,” Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID, INL/EXT-07-12999.
[36] 1993, “Regeln des Kemtechnischen Ausschusses (KTA-Regeln) KTA 3221.1,”
Metallische HTR-Komponenten, KTA-Sitzung am.
[37] Booker, M. K., 1982, “Time-Dependent Allowable Stresses for ASME Code
Case N-47- A Second Look,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
ORNL-5837.
[38] Roberts, D. I., 1979, General Atomic Company, private communication to the
Working Group on Materials Behavior SG-ETD on “Revised Design Stresses
for Alloy 800 H in Case N-47.”
[39] McCoy, H. E., 1993, Use of the MCM for Analysis of Alloy 800 H Rupture
Data, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
[40] Swindeman, R. W., Swindeman, M. J., Roberts, B. W., Thurgood, B. E.,
and Marriott, D. L., 2007, “A Report on the Review of Databases, Data
Analysis Procedures, and Verification of Minimum Yield and Ultimate
Strengths for Alloy 800 H in ASME Section III, Subsection NH,” Report on
Task 1 submitted to ASME ST-LLC, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, New York.
[41] Harrod, D. L., Langford, P. J., and Moon, D. M., 1978, “Relation of Physical
Metallurgy to Mechanical Creep Behavior of Alloy 800,” Status of Incoloy
Alloy 800 Development for Breeder Reactor Steam Generators, Westinghouse
Electric Company Tampa Division, Tampa, FL, Paper No. ORNL/Sub-4308/3,
pp. 195–269.
[42] Swindeman, R. W., Zamrik, S. Y., and Maziasz, P. J., 2007, “Effects of Long-
Term Service on the Microstructure and Tensile Properties of Alloy 800 H,”
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creep and Fatigue at
Elevated Temperatures, San Antonio, TX, July 22–26, Paper No. PVP2007-
26167.
[43] Ren, W., and Swindeman, R. W., 2007, “Preliminary Consideration of Alloys
617 and 230 for Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Applications,” Proceedings of
the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, San Antonio, TX,
July 22–26, Paper No. PVP200726091.
[44] Ren, W., and Swindeman, R., 2009, “A Review on Current Status of Alloys
617 and 230 for Gen IV Nuclear Reactor Internals and Heat Exchangers,”
ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 131(4), p. 044002.
[45] Swindeman, R. W., Swindeman, M. J., and Ren, W., 2006, “Can Coverage of
Alloy 800 H in ASME Section III Subsection NH be Extended to 850  C?,” Pro-
ceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Division Conference, Van-
couver, BC, July 23–27, Paper No. PVP2006-ICPVT11-93333.
[46] Ren, W., and Swindeman, R. W., 2004, “High Temperature Metallic Materials
Test Plan for Generation IV Nuclear Reactors,” U.S. Department of
Energy Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program, Office of Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology, U. S. Department of Energy, Paper No.
ORNL/TM-2005/507.
[47] Prager, M., 1996, “Proposed Implementation of Criteria for Assignment of
Allowable Stresses High in the Creep Range,” Structural Integrity, NDE, Risk
and Material Performance for Petroleum, Process, and Power, American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers, New York, PVP-Vol. 336.
[48] Suzuki, K., and Asayama, T., 2009, “Operating Condition Allowable Stress
Values,” submitted to ASME ST-LLC, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, New York.
[49] Swindeman, R. W., Swindeman, M. J., and Ren, W., 2005, “A Brief Review of
Models Representing Creep of Alloy 617,” Proceedings of the ASME Pressure
Vessels and Piping Conference, Denver, CO, July 17–21, Paper No. PVP2005-
71784.
[50] Prager, M., 2000, “The Omega Method-An Engineering Approach to Life
Assessment,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 122(3), pp. 273–280.
[51] Evans, R., and Wilshire, B., 1985, Creep of Metals and Alloys, Institute of
Metals, London.
[52] Dyson, B., 2000, “Use of CDM in Materials Modeling and Component
Creep Life Prediction,” ASME J. Pressure Vessel Technol., 122(3), pp.
281–296.
[53] Marriott, D. L., 1995, “Extension of ASME VIII, Division 1 Design Limits,”
International Pressure Vessels and Piping Codes and Standards: Vol. 2 Current
Perspectives, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York Paper No.
PVP-Vol. 313-1, pp. 459–469.
[54] NIMS, National Institute for Materials Science, 1999, “Data Sheets on the
Elevated-Temperature Stress Relaxation Properties of Iron Based 21Cr-32Ni-
Ti-Al Alloy for Corrosion-Resisting and Heat-Resisting Superalloy Bar (NCF
800 H-B),” NIMS Creep Data Sheet No. 47.
[55] Wright, J. K., 2008, “Next Generation Nuclear Plant Intermediate Heat
Exchanger Materials Research and Development Plan,” Idaho National Labora-
tory, Idaho Falls, Paper No. ID, INL/EXT-08-14107.
OCTOBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 054001-11
 [56] Coffin, L. F., 1976, “The Concept of Frequency Separation in Life Prediction of
Time-Dependent Fatigue,” ASME-MPC Symposium on Creep-Fatigue Interactions,
MPC-3, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp. 349–364.
[57] Halford, G. R., Hirschberg, M. H., and Manson, S. S., 1973, “Temperature
Effects on the Strainrange Partitioning Approach for Creep Fatigue Analysis,”
Fatigue at Elevated Temperatures, STP 520, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 658–667.
[58] Ren, W., 1995, “Time-Dependent Fracture Mechanics Characterization of Hay-
nes HR160 Superalloy,” Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics in Pressure Vessels
and Piping, PVP-Vol. 304, pp. 563–584, ASME/JSME PVPD.
[59] Shill, T. V., 1979, “Creep-Fatigue Interaction Correlation for Incoloy Alloy
800,” Huntington Alloys, Inc., Huntington, WV, Report No. C-1R.
[60] Kaae, J. L., 1986, Creep-Fatigue Behavior of Alloy 800 H, DOE-HTGR-86-107,
General Atomics, Inc., San Diego, CA.
[61] Huddleston, R. L., 1991, “An Assessment of the Adequacy of Selected Creep-
Fatigue Models for Design of Alloy 800 H Steel Components,” Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL/NPR-90/31.
[62] Corum, J. M., Greenstreet, W. L., Liu, K. C., Pugh, C. E., and Swindeman, R. W.,
1974, “Interim Guidelines for Detailed Inelastic Analysis of High-Temperature
Reactor Systems,” ORNL-5014.
[63] Bodmann, E., Breuer, H.-J., Raule, G., and Rodig, M., 1984, “Material Behav-
ior Under Complex Loading,” Nucl. Technol., 66, pp. 667–674.
[64] Corum, J. M., 1989, “Evaluation of Weldment Creep and Fatigue Strength-
Reduction Factors for Elevated Temperature Design,” Creep, Ratchet, Fatigue,
and Fracture, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY,
PVP-Vol. 163.
[65] Swindeman, R. W., Swindeman, M. J., Roberts, B. W., Thurgood, B. E., and
Marriott, D. L., 2007, “A Review of Available Tensile and Creep Rupture Data
Sources and Data Analysis Procedures for Deposited Weld Metal and
Weldments of Alloy 800 H,” report on Task 1 submitted to ASME ST-LLC,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY.
[66] Nickel, H., Schubert, F., R€ odig, M., and Penkalla, H.-J., 1986, “Multiaxial
Creep of Tubes at Temperatures above 800 C,” Proceedings of the International
Conference on Creep, Tokyo, April 14–18, pp. 509–513.
054001-12 / Vol. 136, OCTOBER 2014
Downloaded From: http://pressurevesseltech.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
[67] Sessions, C. E., 1976, Study of the Softening and Recrystallization Response of
Cold Worked and Annealed Alloy 800, Westinghouse Electric Company,
Tampa Division, Tampa, FL.
[68] Bassford, T. H., and Hosier, J. C., 1984, “Production and Welding Technology
of Some High-Temperature Nickel Alloys in Relation to Their Properties,”
Nucl. Technol., 66, pp. 35–43.
[69] Swindeman, R. W., Swindeman, M. J., Roberts, B. W., Thurgood, B. E.,
Marriott, D. L., and Shaughnessy, G., 2008, “Verification of Allowable Stresses
in ASME Section III Subsection NH for Alloy 800 H, Part 2: Creep,” ASME
Standards Technology, LLC, New York, NY, STP-NU-020.
[70] Ren, W., 1995, “Time-Dependent Fracture Mechanics Characterization of
Haynes HR160 Superalloy,” Ph.D. thesis, The University of Tennessee.
[71] Gore, B., Ren, W., and Liaw, P., 2000, “Creep-Crack Growth Testing,” ASM
Handbook Vol. 8, Mechanical Testing and Evaluation, pp. 586–595.
[72] Mansur, L. K., 1987, “Mechanisms of Kinetics of Radiation Effects in Metals
and Alloys,” Kinetics of Nonhomogeneous Processes: A Practical Introduction
for Chemists, Biologists, Physicists, and Materials Scientists, G. R. Freeman,
ed., Wiley, New York, pp. 377–463.
[73] Shewmon, P. G., 1971, “Radiation-Induced Swelling of Stainless Steel,”
Science, 173(4001), pp. 987–991.
[74] Lewthwaite, G. W., Mosedale, D., and Ward, I. R., 1967, “Irradiation Creep in
Several Metals and Alloys at 100  C,” Nature (London), 216, pp. 472–473.
[75] Harries, D. R., 1966, “Neutron Irradiation Embrittlement of Austenitic Stainless
Steels and Nickel Base Alloys,” J. Br. Nucl. Energy Soc., 5(1–4), pp. 74–87.
[76] Harries, D. R., 1979, “Neutron Irradiation-Induced Embrittlement in Type 316
and Other Austenitic Steels and Alloys,” J. Nucl. Mater., 82, pp. 2–21.
[77] Mansur, L. K., and Grossbeck, M. L., 1988, “Mechanical Property Changes
Induced in Structural Alloys by Neutron Irradiations With Different Helium to
Displacement Ratios,” J. Nucl. Mater., 155–157, pp. 130–147.
[78] Bloom, E. E., 1976, “Irradiation Strengthening and Embrittlement,” Radiation
Damage in Metals, S. D. Hackneys and N. L. Petersen, eds., American Society
for Metals, Metals Park, OH, pp. 295–392.
[79] Boothby, R. M., 1990, “Modeling Grain Boundary Cavity Growth in Irradiated
Nimonic PE16,” J. Nucl. Mater., 171, pp. 215–222.
Transactions of the ASME