A

Proceedings of the ASME 2020

tte
Pressure Vessels & Piping Conference

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

R
ea
d-
O
nl
PVP2020-21043

y
C
op
y
FATIGUE BENCHMARK COMPARISON EFFORT BETWEEN CODE_ASTER AND
CNNC/NPIC SOFTWARE: PART 2

Hai XIE Zichen KONG Xuejiao SHAO

Nuclear Power Institute of China
328#, section1, Changshun Avenue,
Shuangliu District
Chengdu, China
Email: kareemxh@gmail.com
EDF China
Tianrun Fortune CtrTwr A, Fl. 8, Rm. 807
58, DongzongbuHutong, Dongcheng District,
Beijing 100005, CHINA
Email: zichen.kong@edf.fr
Nuclear Power Institute of China
328#, section1, Changshun Avenue,
Shuangliu District
Chengdu, China
Email: shaoxuejiao@163.com

Tanguy MATHIEU Furui XIONG

EDF R&D Saclay Nuclear Power Institute of China
7 Bd Gaspard Monge 328#, section1, Changshun Avenue,
91120 Palaiseau, FRANCE Shuangliu District
Email: tanguy.mathieu@edf.fr Chengdu, China
Email:xfr90311@gmail.com

ABSTRACT As stated previously, the 2016 edition of RCC-M code

Fatigue is identified as a significant degradation mode
that affects nuclear power plants world-wide. Recent
research on the interaction between fatigue degradation
and the influence of PWR environment has caused
international concern and triggered numerous research
programs [1]. In this context, several codes & standards,
including the RCC-M code, have included some technical
mandatory or non-mandatory sections to address the issue.
In RCC-M, this is compiled in the Rules in Probation
Phase 2 and 3 [2].
Due to the novelty of these rules, there is room for
improvement for the specific and practical
implementation of these rules. AFCEN has hence
launched a benchmark exercise at the end of 2019 to help
increase the quality of these rules.
Part 1 of this paper [3] states that EDF and
CNNC/NPIC have launched an effort to benchmark their
respective codes on fatigue calculation including the EAF
algorithm. In the second part of the benchmark, the two
companies started the code comparison based on a
benchmark case provided by AFCEN.
integrates the modifications made to the Code in
Probation Phase 2 and 3(RPP)[2], which respectively
modify the fatigue design curve for austenitic stainless
steels and Nickel base alloys, as well as integrate
environmental effects in the fatigue evaluation for
austenitic stainless steel components. In this paper, a
comparison between RCC-M RPP and NUREG/CR-6909
rev.1 [3] is proposed. The comparison focuses on the
technical details of the strain rate calculation and
transient combination method.
The cumulative fatigue usage factor with or without
considering EAF according to RCC-M RPP – 2 and RPP
– 3 is given by EDF, using code_aster and its
POST_RCCM operator. CNNC/NPIC will provide
multiple sets of results including cumulative fatigue usage
factors according to RCC-M RPP and NUREG CR/6909
rev. 1 respectively using its own software. Comparison of
selection for peak and valleys points, Sn and Fen values
are also presented. Differences of the algorithms of the
two codes are also discussed.

1 Copyright © 2020 ASME

INTRODUCTION Fen Environmental correction factor
Fatigue evaluation has gone through a significant JSME Japanese Society of Mechanical
amount of changes lately in the wake of the issue of Engineers
NUREG/CR-6909[1], Rev. 1 being the most recent Ke Elastic-plastic correction factor
version. The changes include the addition of PWR and NPIC Nuclear Power Institute of China
BWR water environmental effects, in particular through NPP Nuclear Power Plants
the Fen factor. These modifications have also impacted NSSS Nuclear Steam Supply System
codes & standards such as the RCC-M [2] and the ASME P&V Peak-Valley
BPV code [5], among others. In this context, the AFCEN RCC-M Design and Construction Rules for
has launched recently a benchmark study on a simple pipe Mechanical component of PWR nuclear
case [6] in order to compare practices and converge on islands
how to carry calculations in practice: this work is in RPP Rule in Probation Phase
progress at present. RM Request for Modification
Disregarding the recent changes to the codes, the
fatigue rules originally described contained a degree of NOMENCLATURE
interpretation. Computer codes, such as the ones Δ Difference between two tensors
developed respectively by the authors of this paper, reflect ε Strain
the understanding of their developers. In the interest of 𝜀̇ Strain rate
safety, comparisons and benchmarks with other codes σ Stress tensor
enable the optimization of their contents. Benchmarks σI, σII, σIII Three principle stresses (MPa)
with codes developed in a totally different context and i Time step index
countries are all the more interesting as they enable to Ke Elastic-plastic correction factor
confront the understanding of rules and their interpretation. Ke-mech Mechanical elastic-plastic correction
In the Part 1 of this paper, the authors introduced the factor
tools respectively used by EDF and CNNC/NPIC to Ke-ther Thermal elastic-plastic correction
perform fatigue calculations, respectively code_aster and factor
FAC_NPIC. These codes are currently going through a Ke-wt Weighted elastic-plastic correction
validation phase to ensure they can be used in a safety factor
calculation context. p Transient identifier
For the three reasons mentioned above, EDF and q Transient identifier
CNNC/NPIC have engaged into an agreement to perform Salt Stress amplitude (MPa)
benchmark exercises with an increasing level of Sint Stress intensity (MPa)
complexity: Sn Primary plus secondary stress range
- the step 1 of the work takes advantage of the (MPa)
publication of the AFCEN benchmark as a simple Sp Total stress range (MPa)
case study Sp-mech Mechanical contribution to total stress
- the step 2 of the cooperation involves a more range (MPa)
complex benchmark mimicking an industrial case Sp-ther Thermal contribution to total stress
This Part 2 of the work will provide a description of range (MPa)
the case in the first part. The second part will then present Fu Partial usage factor
the results obtained with the tools of EDF and CUF Cumulated Usage Factor
CNNC/NPIC, including the additional sensitivity analyses CUFen Cumulated Usage Factor considering
performed. A third part will provide a discussion on the the environmental effect
results obtained while the last section will wrap up the Fen Environmental correction factor
paper and give perspectives for the next steps. t Time step (s)
T Temperature (°C)
Tmean Average temperature (°C)
ACRONYMS
AFCEN French Associations for Design, STEP 1 AFCEN BENCHMARK CASE
construction and in-service inspection DESCRIPTION
for Equipment of Nuclear Boilers The full benchmark case description can be found in a
APDL ANSYS Parametric Design Language public AFCEN document in Reference [6]. It can be
ASME American Society of Mechanical obtained via contact with the AFCEN benchmark
Engineers organizer1. The paragraph below gives a summary of the
EDF Electricité de France case information.
EPRI Electrical Power and Research Institute
FAC_NPIC Fatigue Analysis Code of NPIC(the
name of the NPIC's in-house fatigue
code)
FEA Finite Element Analysis

1Dr. Sam Cuvilliez, EDF DT, sam.cuvilliez@edf.fr

2 Copyright © 2020 ASME
 This test case represents a vessel nozzle with an The major differences lie in the method of calculating
attached piping. It is close to the problem defined in an the Environmental Assisted Fatigue degradation. These
EPRI benchmark documented in [7] and which was discrepancies can be explained by the relative novelty of
initially aimed at implementing ASME code case N-792. these rules and the profusion of different methods that can
A variation of this sample has also been appended in [1]. be applied to evaluate the Fen factor. For this reason, some
The geometry can be seen in the Appendix in Figure 1. details are given below on the evaluation methods used for
The original benchmark case included two materials, but EAF.
this case only considers a nozzle in austenitic stainless
steel (17.12 Mo steel – RCC-M sub-group 3.2[8] – Table 1 – Overview of differences in calculation steps between
AFNOR: Z2 CND 17-12). The reason is that the Fen EDF & CNNC
equation in RPP – 3[2] only applies to austenitic (and
austenitic-ferritic) steels. Step in
EDF R&D CNNC/NPIC
The material properties are taken at the temperature of calculation
316°C, which corresponds to the highest temperature of Mesh &
salome-meca ANSYS
Model
the fluid for all the transients (see Appendix – Table 1).
For temperature and mechanical calculations, three Thermal calculation
Thermal
transients are assumed as highlighted in Appendix –
time- By hand By hand
Table . The temperature variations are simply applied on stepping
the internal surface of the pipe while the remaining Mechanical calculation
boundaries of the model are considered as adiabatic. In Time-
addition to the temperature loadings, both time varying By hand By hand
stepping
pressure and moment loads are also applied. The moment Fatigue calculation
is applied on the thinner section of the pipe (left hand side Method RCC-M B-3200 RCC-M B-3200
on Appendix – Figure 1). P&V Modified
As mentioned previously, interested readers may On stress intensity
selection rubberband
contact AFCEN to have the full benchmark case or all times
approach
description. Stress tensor Stress tensor
P&V difference, then difference, then
HIGHLIGHT OF SOFTWARE DIFFERENCES combination stress intensity stress intensity
As a reminder, the two codes from EDF R&D and evaluation evaluation
CNNC/NPIC are both briefly presented here. More details EAF calculations
can be found in Reference [3]. Consecutive time- Consecutive time-
step stress tensor step stress tensor
EDF R&D uses code_aster (www.code-aster.org), an
Strain rate difference, difference,
open source FEA software integrated to the salome-meca evaluation calculation of stress calculation of stress
platform. code_aster integrates a comprehensive fatigue method intensity and intensity and
module enabling to perform advanced fatigue calculations division by Young’s division by Young’s
as well as evaluations meeting the requirements of the modulus[10] modulus
RCC-M code: these functionalities are compiled within the Fen Integration over all
Integration over all
POST_RCCM operator[9][10][11][12]. In its latest calculation positive strain rate
positive strain rate
for one sections OR only
version, the code_aster POST_RCCM operator includes transient
sections[10]
between P&V
the three methods B3200, B3600 and ZE200. Explicit Integration
keywords are associated to each of these methodologies. of Ke factor Weighted Ke, per Weighted Ke, per
CNNC/NPIC uses software named FAC-NPIC. To into Fen RPP 3-4233.2 [2] RPP 3-4233.2
meet the China's domestic nuclear power plant design calculation
needs, FAC_NPIC has the ability to perform fatigue RPP – 3[2],
Any – user defined
analysis according to ASME NB3200 and RCC-M B3200. Fen formula NUREG/CR-6909
inputs
Different methods for simplified elasto-plastic analysis, Rev. 1[1]
seismic handling and transient combination algorithm are
adopted according to the corresponding fatigue rules. Firstly, as regards the strain rate evaluation,
Before the results are discussed, a preliminary analysis POST_RCCM will use all the time steps provided by the
is compiled in the Table 1. This table offers a summary of user. Based on this list, the stress tensors from each time
the differences between both calculation methods and steps will be extracted. Let us express this tensor at time
computer code methods in order to provide a preliminary step i as σ(i). The difference stress tensor between two
tool to analyze the origin of potential discrepancies in final time steps is then evaluated:
results. Δσ(i) = σ(i) - σ(i-1) (1)

Principle stress evaluation is then carried out (σI,σII,

σIII with σI>σII>σIII) and the stress intensity value between
the two consecutive time is then evaluated:
ΔSint (i) = ΔσI(i) - ΔσIII(i) (2)

3 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 It is noted that the evaluation method is slightly
different from the RPP – 3 method as it is today: indeed,
if one follows exactly the content of the RPP – 3, the strain
rate would be evaluated using the difference between the
two successive Sp at time steps i and i-1: as will be seen
later, this can result in some large differences. The
calculation process is as follows:
1) Evaluating the signed tresca equivalent strain at
time step i-1 and i as εi-1 and εi:
𝜀 = 𝑆 /𝐸 ∙ 𝑠𝑔𝑛 (3)
𝑠𝑔𝑛 = 𝜎 /|𝜎 | (4)
1 𝑖𝑓 𝑀𝐴𝑋(|𝜎 |, |𝜎 |, |𝜎 |) = |𝜎 |
𝑀 = 2 𝑖𝑓 𝑀𝐴𝑋(|𝜎 |, |𝜎 |, |𝜎 |) = |𝜎 | (5)
3 𝑖𝑓 𝑀𝐴𝑋(|𝜎 |, |𝜎 |, |𝜎 |) = |𝜎 |
σi (i=1,2,3) is the principle stresses of at time step i
2) Evaluating the strain increment:
∆𝜀(𝑖) = 𝜀 − 𝜀
The strain is then evaluated by dividing the
incremental stress intensity as defined above by the time
step difference and the Young’s modulus. The latter is
taken at the mean temperature Tmean(i) of the time step:
0 𝑖𝑓 𝜎 ≤ 0
𝜀̇(𝑖) = ∆ () ( , )∆ ()
= the results whatsoever, as could be expected if correct
∆ (; ) ( ( ))∆ ( ; )
The elastic-plastic strain correction factor is equal to
the averaged elastic-plastic correction factor Ke-wt. The
RCC-M B-3200 rules indeed allow to, for austenitic steels,
divide the Ke factor into two contributions (mechanical
and thermal). In addition, the Ke factor is typically
evaluated for the combination of two transients p and q.
The Ke corresponding to the maximum linearized stress
Sn over the two transient combination is taken. As a result,
the Ke-wt is evaluated as follows:
𝐾 (𝑝, 𝑞) =
Finally, in code_aster, the only option to evaluate the
Fen for two transients is to evaluate it over the whole time
duration of the two transients. The positive strain rate
sections are identified using the equation (7) above and
the Fen is calculated on all these sections. The final Fen for
the combination of two transients p and q is finally
obtained with the following expression:
∑ , ∆ ( )
𝐹 = ∑ ∆ ()
CNNC/NPIC FAC_NPIC tool has the exact same
capabilities. One difference lies in the capacity of
FAC_NPIC to evaluate the Fen factor according to EPRI’s
Guideline for addressing EAF effect.
Another difference is in the Fen formulae available.
code_aster allows for completely user defined formula
while FAC_NPIC has in-built formulae in-line with
NUREG/CR-6909 Rev. 1 [1] and RPP – 3 [2].
The next section will get into the detailed comparison
between the two software.
RESULT COMPARISON
The comparison of the results according to the
benchmark exercise aimed at being the most complete
possible in order to quantify the potential differences at
each stage in the calculation, as reported in the Table 1 in
the previous section.
The results of code_aster and of FAC_NPIC can
respectively be seen in Table 2 and Table 3 in Appendix.
The respective differences for the CUF and CUFen are
6% and 16%. The number for the CUF is quite close given
the fact that the codes were developed completely
separately. On the other hand, the results for the
environmental parts are much further apart.
A further investigation of the differences was performed
as follows:
(6) - Meshsensitivityanalysis (Analysis 1)
- Comparison of stress component differences
(Analysis 2)
- Comparison to other Fen calculation methods
(Analysis 3)
As regards Analysis 1, the ANSYS mesh used for the
FAC_NPIC calculations was refined to obtain twice as
many elements: this did not generate any modification of
(7)
converged meshes are used from the start.
As regards Analysis 2, various plots of the pressure
variation, moment variation and temperature variation can
be seen respectively in Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and
Figure 4.
(8)
Figure 1 – Comparison of pressure stress evolution for
transient 1
(9)
Figure 2 – Comparison of moment stress evoluation for
transient 1
4 Copyright © 2020 ASME
 Table 3– Comparison of code_aster & FAC_NPIC Fen results

Fen-FAC_NPIC Fen-FAC_NPIC
Comb.
Fen – (RPP – 3) (EPRI_guideline)
code_
aster CR/69 CR/690
Tran Tran CR/69 CR/69
09 v1 9 v1
A B 09 v1 09 v1
draft draft
1 2 4.71 3.96 4.26 4.71 5.06
2 3 3.24 2.76 2.90 3.24 3.42
3 3 2.09 2.10 2.17 2.09 2.15
Difference with
Figure 3 – Comparison of thermal stress evolution and focus on 10% 5.5% 0% -5.5%
code_aster
instant 205 s for transient 1
In this case, the differences are in most cases very
significant, in the order of magnitude of 5 to 10 % on
average, expect for the case where the same methods are
used. This can be explained with the following chart
(Figure 5). The blue curve shows the method following
the RPP – 3 while the red curve shows the other method.

Figure 4 – Comparison of total stress evolution of SCL1 inner

node through transient 1

Acceptable differences were seen for the pressure and

moment stresses, but some differences remained between
the thermal stresses. For this reason, a calculation using
the exact stress inputs was performed in order to assess the
impact on the final usage factor results.
The work was completed using the stress inputs from
the ANSYS results generated by CNNC/NPIC and fed Figure 5 – Fen,i versus time for transient 1
into the POST_RCCM routine. The results for the CUF
can be seen in Table 2. As can be seen on the Figure 5, although the cold
shock induces the largest P&V, which is then used to
Table 2– Comparison of code_aster & FAC_NPIC Fen results perform the Fen evaluation, the largest contribution to the
with identical stress inputs Fen factor part stems from the hot shock (between 1000 s
and 1200 s).
Fu Another sensitivity analysis was also lead using
Comb. Fu (code_aster) % difference
(FAC_NPIC) different Fen formulae. Indeed, the latest revision of
1&2 0,50030 0,49855 0,3% NUREG/CR-6909 [1] somewhat differs slightly from the
RPP – 3 one. The results obtained for transient 1 show Fen
2&3 0,16440 0,16373 0,4%
values of 4.26, 2.90 and 2.10 (combination 1, 2 and 3
3&3 < 0.001 < 0.001 - respectively) for the RPP – 3 formula and of 3.96, 2.76
TOTAL CUF 0,6680 0,6623 0,9% and 2.10(combination 1, 2 and 3 respectively) for the
NUREG/CR-6909 Rev. 1 one.
As can be seen, the differences are in this case less The next part proposed a discussion based on the
than 1% different, a significantly close result given again findings of the result comparison.
that the developments were led completely separately.
As regards Analysis 3, a calculation was launched DISCUSSION
using FAC_NPIC to compare the RPP – 3 evaluation Based on the results obtained here, and given that
methods with other evaluation methods used. This these were obtained by two completely different
analysis is focusing on two aspects: firstly, the impact of organizations using computer tools developed completely
the Fen formulas, secondly, the strain rate calculation separately, it is of interest to draw a comparison and
method. It is noted that the results for code_aster are the quantification of the weight of each calculation step. For
Fen values using the stress inputs from CNNC/NPIC. The the first result comparison, very little discussion had taken
results obtained can be seen in Table 3. place and it is not before the first results were obtained
that some in-depth discussions on calculation contents.

5 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 This was done in Table 4. By far, the largest This next step along with other perspectives is
difference induced is with the Fen evaluation method described in the next section.
which can generate a difference as large as 20 %.
PERSPECTIVES &CONCLUSION
Table 4 – Summary of differences obtained in calculation steps This paper provides an update of the work carried out
between EDF/R&D China and CNNC/NPIC on the
Step in calculation Difference on CUF (average) comparison of fatigue evaluation tools. The results report
here a good agreement on the simple benchmark case used
Mesh & Model Negligible by AFCEN [6].
Stress calculation ~6% In addition, the paper has enabled to pin down major
differences when it comes to discrepancies in terms of Fen
Fen evaluation evaluation methods. This calls for a significant effort to
~15%
method
converge internationally on a set of rules which will
Fen formula ~5% contribute to a safe long-term operation of NPPs around
the globe.
This work has been initiated through an AFCEN
This calls for the following comments: effort and the authors of this paper will contribute and
- Today, the calculation methods as instructed in the share their work entirely with AFCEN in order to optimize
RCC-M B-3200, or in any other international the contents of the RPP – 3.
code, for fatigue seem to be quite robustly Beyond the simple benchmark, the authors will also
described. This is testified by the small impact on engage in a second step of the work on a different case,
the final CUF obtained with the same stress with an increased level of complexity. This will help
calculation inputs; validate conclusions drawn here.
- The EAF evaluation method, less mature,
generate a higher level of uncertainty on the final
calculations, as could be naturally expected.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Experimentally, there seems to be no method
The authors would like to acknowledge the EDF
more valid than the other and, although large scale
France colleagues who supported this paper.
industrial testing is underway [13], there is an
immediate need for clear rules to make progress
on ongoing license renewal projects and new
REFERENCES
builds.
[1] NUREG/CR-6909 rev. 1, "Effect of LWR Coolant
The work ongoing in AFCEN on the benchmark
Environments on the Fatigue Life of Reactor
exercise is aimed at converging on a harmonized
Materials", O.K. Chopra and W.J. Shack
application methodology. In this respect, the authors of
[2] RPP No. 2 & 3, RCC-M, AFCEN, Design and
this paper would like to provide the following comments
Construction Rules for Mechanical Components of
on potential modifications to the RPP – 3 and the
PWR Nuclear Islands, 2016 edition.
authoring of future standards.
[3] PVP2019-93242, Hai XIE, Xuejiao Shao and Han
Firstly, a hand calculation strictly following the RPP
LIU, "Fatigue benchmark comparison effort between
– 3 method was performed. The major difference lies in
code_aster and CNNC/NPIC software – Part 1".
the strain evaluation technique: the RPP – 3 calls for a
[4] PVP2016-63127, S. Courtin et al., “Modifications of
method using a Sp stress difference between two
the 2016 Edition of the RCC-M code to account for
consecutive time steps. This method applied to the
EAF.”
combination of transient 1 & 2 yielded a Fen value of 4.26,
[5] ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ⅲ,
to be compared with 5.06, i.e. a difference of almost 20%.
Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant
The authors of this paper would strongly recommend
Components, 2007 Edition including 2008a
aligning the standards with the tensor difference
Addenda, The American Society of Mechanical
calculation method, which is more widely used today.
Engineers.
Secondly, the authors are convinced that a calculation
[6] RM 19-192, “AFCEN benchmark on
of the Fen over the whole duration of the two transients
environmentally assisted fatigue calculations,”
combined is justified. The calculation of the Fen between
AFCEN, July 28th 2019
two P&V may be easier to implement in the case of very
[7] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Technical
long transient sequences or fatigue monitoring, but in the
Report n°1025823, “Guidelines for Addressing
case of design transients, the complete sequence should be
Environmental Effects in Fatigue Usage
considered.
Calculations, Final Report, December 2012, EPRI,
It is reminded that these results and conclusions were
Palo Alto, CA: 2012.1025823.
obtained for the simple benchmark case study with only a
[8] RCC-M, AFCEN, Design and Construction Rules
limited number of transients. The conclusions cannot be
for Mechanical Components of PWR Nuclear
generalized and it is with this in mind that EDF R&D and
Islands, 2019 edition.
CNNC/NPIC have designed the next part of their work to
[9] U4.83.11, “Operator POST_FATIGUE RCCM”
initiate efforts on a different test case.
[10] R7.04.03, “Post-processing according to the RCCM”

6 Copyright © 2020 ASME

[11] PVP 2016-63126, T. Métais, S. Plessis and J.
Miralles, "Evolution of fatigue post-processing
methods in the EDF open-access FEA Code Aster."
[12] PVP2017-65336, T. Métais, S. Plessis and J.
Miralles, "Validation of the new POST_RCCM
option from code_aster through benchmark
comparisons with other industrial codes."
[13] PVP 2017-65995, D. Steininger et al., "Component
testing proposal to quantify margins in existing
environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF)
requirements.”

7 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 APPENDIX

Figure 1– Geometry used for the benchmark case [7] and associated stress cut lines (SCL) for analysis

8 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 Table 1- Summary of transients used for the fatigue evaluation

Heat
Resultant
Time Temperature transfer Pressure
Moment*
(s) (°C) coefficient (MPa)
(104N.m)
(W.m−2.°C−1)
transient #1: 140 cycles
0 316 8830 15,5 -33,9
5 316 8830 15,5 -33,9
205 38 8830 6,9 +11,3
1000 38 8830 6,9 +11,3
1200 316 8830 15,5 -33,9
3000 316 8830 15,5 -33,9
transient #2: 350 cycles
0 260 8830 10,3 -28,2
5 260 8830 10,3 -28,2
405 38 8830 15,5 +11,3
1500 38 8830 15,5 +11,3
1900 260 8830 13,8 -28,2
2500 260 8830 13,8 -28,2
transient #3: 3500 cycles
0 232 8830 3,1 -22,6
5 232 8830 3,1 -22,6
14000 21 8830 3,0 +16,9
16000 21 8830 2,8 +16,9
20000 177 8830 2,8 -22,6
24000 177 8830 2,8 -22,6

9 Copyright © 2020 ASME

 Table 2 – code_aster results

Sp (inst) Sp (inst)
Comb. Sp1 Sp2 Sn Ke Fu Fen Fu-en
Fictious 1 Fictious 2
1&2 205.1-1200.1 1161.44 405-1900 706.169 860.543 3.33 (mech) / 1.69 (ther) 0.53 5.00 2.64

2&3 405-1900 706.169 14000-20000 168.927 559.779 3.33 (mech) / 1.62 (ther) 0.18 3.39 0.62

3&3 14000-20000 168.927 --- - 160.47 1 (mech) / 1.31 (ther) < 0.001 2.19 < 0.001

TOTAL CUF 0.71

TOTAL CUFen 3.25

TOTAL CUFen (with Fen-integrated) 1.08

Table 3 – FAC_NPIC results

Sp (inst) Sp (inst)
Comb. Sp1 Sp2 Sn Ke Fu Fen Fu-en
Fictious 1 Fictious 2
1&2 205-1200 1138.4 405-1900 678 880.9 3.33 (mech) /1.69 (ther) 0.50 4.26 2.13

2&3 405-1900 678 14000-20000 161.2 558.8 3.33 (mech) /1.62 (ther) 0.16 2.90 0.48

3&3 14000-20000 161.2 --- - 154.6 1 (mech) /1.3 (ther) < 0.001 2.17 < 0.001

TOTAL CUF 0.67

TOTAL CUFen 2.61

TOTAL CUFen (with Fen-integrated) 0.87

10 Copyright © 2020 ASME